Russian Third Generation Stealth

"A Russian scientific research organisation is to offer for export a 'bolt-on' stealth device that it claims renders non-stealthy aircraft practically invisible to radar. The system, which envelops the aircraft in a cloak of ionised gas known as a plasma, is said to be fully developed, with work on a "third-generation visibility-reduction system" under way.

In the opinion of designers at Mikoyan and Sukhoi, the expense of all-embracing low-observable technology as applied in the US Air Force's F-117 and B-2 outweighs its effectiveness. Russians prefer to stress the 'balance' achieved in their latest-generation of fighter designs between aerodynamic efficiency and stealth.

Keldysh NITs said that "first- and second-" generation plasma-generators had been tested on the ground and in flight. The centre is working on a third-generation system "based on new physical principles", a possible reference to the use of electrostatic energy around an airframe to reduce RCS.


Jane's Defence Wekly, March 17, 1999


PS: note the date - 1999 (!)

there goes russian third generation stealth - "electrostatic energy around aircraft", visibility-reduction system.


according to THIS (in russian):
Russia will export first and second generation stealth (!) - cuz they, russians, have third generation stealth...


this third generation stealth was supposed to be tested on Russian AJAX Hypersonic Aircraft

A bolt on kit - Highly unlikely.

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

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.

What 3rd gen stealth? They need to make aircraft with 1st gen first!!!

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!

Originally posted by roniii259
Im not gonna lye to ya, i think this is a load of bull.

keep thinking that...

you think that Janes is lying? i dont think so. Janes is considered one of the most reliable sources

Russia doesnet even have first generation stealth LOL.

yes, they did not (as far as public knows) develop wester style stealth.

they took different path to tackle 'stealth'. only time will show which one is better.

russians are not dumb as you think. why on earth they would invest hard earned money into something that doesnt worth it? if they are spending cash on this, then it worth it.

Originally posted by titus
yes, they did not (as far as public knows) develop wester style stealth.

they took different path to tackle 'stealth'. only time will show which one is better.

russians are not dumb as you think. why on earth they would invest hard earned money into something that doesnt worth it? if they are spending cash on this, then it worth it.

Russians are not dunmb - I can whole heartedly agree with that one. But the thing is that their plasma stealth still has never seen known service - so to say it is 3rd gen stealth is silly. You have to have the first two before moving on to the third.

Also they didn't look at both plasma stealth and conventional RAM/shaping stealth and say "hmmmm, we think the plasma works better" because the fact is they didn't have the money to work on "western" stealth. So the plasma version was not a choice because they could not have gone the other path if they had wanted.

Ohhh, a little reminder - the US is working on plasma stealth too, so even if it does work better then western style stealth, the US would simply add it to their existing stealth aircraft to creat UBERstealth gen 4++ aircraft

Don't think that Russia is going to have any kind of monopoly on stealth tech.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Also they didn't look at both plasma stealth and conventional RAM/shaping stealth and say "hmmmm, we think the plasma works better" because the fact is they didn't have the money to work on "western" stealth. So the plasma version was not a choice because they could not have gone the other path if they had wanted.

Shaping: Tu-180

Who said they didnt look at 'shaping' stealth??


RAM: Indian MiG-21BIS

INDIAN AIR FORCE MOVES TO PROCURE RUSSIAN STEALTH TECHNOLOGY

The core of the demonstration saw two MiG-21bis--one upgraded with stealth technology and one without--being tracked by what is believed to be a Mig-31 in a controlled test of radar-absorbent materials (RAM) and coatings developed at the Moscow Institute of Applied and Theoretical

Electrodynamics. During its flight the radar signature of the upgraded Mig-21bis was shown to be between 10 and 15 times weaker than the regular MiG-21bis.

Tu-160

Tu-160 use Ram stealth technology aroung its intakes to lower its RCS.


and also, Su-47 is said to be using composite materials which absorb radar as well.




[edit on 29-9-2004 by titus]

Originally posted by American Mad Man


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.


HI

I am not sure I did the quote thing correct so Forgive me.

Would this not be the arguement AGAINST the Americains Having Plasma stealth? They (the american's) fly their stealth attacks at night there fore they would be negating the advantage of stealth by attacking at night.

There are multiply threads on this site claiming america has it.



[edit on 29-9-2004 by DEADSTEVE]

Only thing is that the picture of the Tu-180 was published on April Fools Day 1996! I wouldn't pin your arguments on a doctored photo of the Tu-160 Blackjack

The only type of Plasma in Plasma stealth I could as practical is turning the air around a aircraft into plasma. Though there are other types of plasma that dont have temps. that high they would require you to bring your own supply of whatever gas you intended to use which I dont really see as a option. So your only real option is to convert air around the plane into a plasma state this would have temps. of many thousands of degrees which would make you look like a shooting star at night with a huge IR signature.

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.

I think this same princaple could work between a gas and plasma state as it does between a liquid and gas state, drastically reducing drag. This might allow a plasma covered plane to reach speeds that a normal plane could not.

[edit on 29-9-2004 by ShadowXIX]

A good point but an article talking about plasma spikes modifying aero loads is old news. That info was published back in 1997 in Air International magazine.

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.

Yep...exactly what I was thinking.

GI: "Wow! look at that big glowing UFO!"
2nd GI: "Better scramble a few interceptors"

Whereas...

Russian GI: "What's that whistling noise?"
2nd Russian GI: "Incoming!"
BOOM!



The Russians would be better off sticking to the tried and true in this respect.

Originally posted by waynos
Only thing is that the picture of the Tu-180 was published on April Fools Day 1996! I wouldn't pin your arguments on a doctored photo of the Tu-160 Blackjack

you have something against tu-180/160?

did you check the links i gave you?

Static and flight experiments proved the effectiveness of this technology. The first generation devices, producing plasma field surrounding an aircraft and decreasing reflected signal were created in the Center. Later, a possibily of creating second generation advanced systems (capable of not only decreasing reflected signal and changing its wavelength, but also producing some false signals) was discovered.
Such systems significantly complicate determination of actual aircraft's speed, its location and leads to development of completely new approaches to LO provision, unachievable to conventional Stealth technology.
Furthermore, the weight of the systems developed in Russia do not exeed 100 kg, and power consumption ranges from kilowatts to tens of kilowatts.

Advances in development of the third generation LO systems allowed to clear the systems of first and second generation for export, commented academic Anatoliy Korteev.

26/01/99
(c) ITAR-TASS,

Link

and, its most likely that russian plasma stealth around aircraft is created by using static electricity...

i might as well add that all this plasma thing started in 1970s when Anatoly Klimov at the Ioffe Institute in St Petersburg studied how shock waves behave in ionised gases (plasma). so its highly likely that some 35 years later they are into their 3rd generation stage, or more.

Titus

The Russians have never made (that we know of) a RAM/Shaping combination. That is what is required to achieve the type of results that the US enjoys.

The reason why is they can't afford it. No other reason. I'm sure that if they had the money and had invested in it for the last 30 years like the US has that they could build an equally stealthy aircraft, but the fact is they haven't.

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.

Originally posted by titus
why on earth they would invest hard earned money into something that doesnt worth it? if they are spending cash on this, then it worth it.

Instead they spent moneys to support system basing to lies and deceit whose job was to keep (yet another) ruling elite in power.
Well, not that this western capitalism would differ from that.


Location 10 kilometers from Russian border, sign off.

No, I have nothing against the Tu-160. Like its predecessors from Tupolev it is a fine bomber, even if its resemblance to the B-1 is, er, unfortunate.

The Tu-180 however does not exist, it was a april fools day joke and the picture is a doctored Tu-160 photo. Look at the date on the bottom of the page, how credible is it that since this one photo was released in April 1996 NOTHING else has been seen of the "Tu-180"? No drawings, no more pictures, nothing. Now, Russia is a very big place and you could easily hide a secret aircraft but if it has been known about for 8 years what would be the point? Someone would have found something after 8 years I think, especially after the article says that Tupolev themselves revealed it. What did they do, change their mind?

www.tupolev.ru...

If they had revealed the Tu-180 in 1996 then shouldn't there be mention of it here?

[edit on 30-9-2004 by waynos]