Russia to flight-test 5th generation fighter in 2007

[fantassin]

Air Force chief Vladimir Mikhailov: Russia to flight-test 5th generation fighter 2007


08.06.2005,*15.07

KUBINKA, Moscow Region, June 8 (Itar-Tass) -- The development of the fifth generation fighter proceeds in strict compliance with the schedule and the plane will be flight-tested in 2007, the commander-in-chief of the Air Force, Vladimir Mikhailov has said.

About the condition of the Russian Air Force’s fleet of aircraft Mikhailov said, “the Air Force receives planes in sufficient numbers, there are aircraft at the reserve bases, too.”

“We are also receiving new planes, including Su-34 and Su-27SM, and others still being tested. There is nothing we can criticize these planes for.”

Russian presidential adviser Alexander Burutin told reporters that the Russian Air Force by 2012 will have up to 60 percent of new aviation technologies.

“A new armament program has been developed and we shall achieve this parameter by 2010-2012,” he said.

©ITAR-TASS . All right reserved

http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=2114875&PageNum=0

[b33f]

Damn, are the Russkies using the gold-****ting donkey again or where are the pulling the money to do all this?

[SerbPVO]

Money?
When was money a problem for Russia?

[JoaMei]

Money?
When was money a problem for Russia?

The last 15 Years? :cantbeli:

[Michael RVR]

Not really in the last five dude, their oil exports are huge atm ;)

[DPGLAW]

Ummm....dont the Russians have to build a 3rd, and 4th generation plane before the 5th gen??? And I am sure that when I am assuming here, I am assuming correctly, building just a "concept" plane does not count as a "3rd generation" or "4th generation" plane. They would actually need to produce more than one of the plane. Why in god's name would a country as totally broke as RUssia go and waste money building a concept fighter that they in no way, shape, or form pay for the production of. (Hopefully this and other advanced or even maintenance programs dont lead to the sellnig of weapons, and god forbid WMD's to terrorists) They should not waste the money but make a real and concerted effort at helping their people out of the poverty they live in and if they are going to spend it milatarily, than a great use would be securing their Nuclear weapons and launch systems properly with relevant upgrade. That and paying scientists properly to keep them out of terrorist hands would also be great...Sorry for the rant, although it is relevant, I am sure it will upset others. It was not meant to but I just read "Nuclear Terrorism" and this issue was dealt with extensively and is true and scary.

[SerbPVO]

Mr. "BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD- USA"....go back to watching FOX or whatever is you do.

[Hellfish]

The Russians have tons of money right now, most of it from oil exports. They've just paid off most of their international loans - they're swimming in the cash, but they've still got a huge military and that takes time to upgrade.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Russia's R&D is still as good as any western countries (us excluded).

Also look at America.

F/A 18 replaced by the Super Hornet. Now why go through the problem of introducing the Super Hornet when the JSF and Raptor are comming into service?

Russia has just skipped the Super Hornet.

[Kilgor]

Can this "new" fighter be truely 5th gen like the F22 ?

[Ratamacue]

Russia's R&D is still as good as any western countries (us excluded).

Also look at America.

F/A 18 replaced by the Super Hornet. Now why go through the problem of introducing the Super Hornet when the JSF and Raptor are comming into service?

Russia has just skipped the Super Hornet.
The Super Hornet is meant to complement the F-35, just as the F-35 is meant to complement the F/A-22 in USAF service. The two planes don't serve the exact same role.

[WarriorMonk]

Russia's R&D is still as good as any western countries (us excluded).

Also look at America.

F/A 18 replaced by the Super Hornet. Now why go through the problem of introducing the Super Hornet when the JSF and Raptor are comming into service?

Russia has just skipped the Super Hornet.

Super Hornet replaces F-14 (sobs) and F/A-18C...

probably the Super Hornet is an interim fighter until the JSF is deployed in 2009ish...and then even that the JSF program is in some hot water for the weight issues and stuff and other countries pulling out...

stupid corporations and charging too much for military hardware. :P

[sergey31]

Ummm....dont the Russians have to build a 3rd, and 4th generation plane before the 5th gen??? And I am sure that when I am assuming here, I am assuming correctly, building just a "concept" plane does not count as a "3rd generation" or "4th generation" plane. They would actually need to produce more than one of the plane. Why in god's name would a country as totally broke as RUssia go and waste money building a concept fighter that they in no way, shape, or form pay for the production of. (Hopefully this and other advanced or even maintenance programs dont lead to the sellnig of weapons, and god forbid WMD's to terrorists) They should not waste the money but make a real and concerted effort at helping their people out of the poverty they live in and if they are going to spend it milatarily, than a great use would be securing their Nuclear weapons and launch systems properly with relevant upgrade. That and paying scientists properly to keep them out of terrorist hands would also be great...Sorry for the rant, although it is relevant, I am sure it will upset others. It was not meant to but I just read "Nuclear Terrorism" and this issue was dealt with extensively and is true and scary.

Seriously....you are dumbass. :lol: Wake up....
It's not 1970's anymore :slap:

[JoaMei]

Russia has absolutely no Stealth experience, I doubt they can come out with something comparable to F-22 or F-35.
Not even to the Erofighter or Rafale... :roll:

[sergey31]

Stealth is obsolete now.... Russia has MANY radar systems that can spot stealth aircraft 600 + km away.
So all that expensive stealth technology is outdated and was waste of $.

[Kilgor]

just like those rear firing missles and plasma stealth hey ?

[Moledet]

I think saving the money and working on CUAV is smarter, but that's just me.

[AmericanImperialist]

Stealth is obsolete now.... Russia has MANY radar systems that can spot stealth aircraft 600 + km away.
So all that expensive stealth technology is outdated and was waste of $.
hahaha sure thing buddy rofl
:roll:

[JoaMei]

Are you talking about these mysterious passive systems like „Ramona”, „Tamara” and „Vera”?

You actually misunderstood the principle of these devices, they detect normal radio communication, weather-radar, Main-Radar and terrain following radar. Stealth Aircrafts use nothing of this. p-)

[Kilgor]

The "we dont need stealth because its outdated" is the excuse for "we cant afford the R&D "

[JoaMei]

By the way, east german army had a few of the "Tamara" devices and the Bundeswehr tested them. They are no Superweapons and can not do anything against Planes that do not emit radiation in any way.

http://www.itnu.de/radargrundlagen/bistatic/pic/tamara-big.jpg

[sergey31]

Stealth is obsolete now.... Russia has MANY radar systems that can spot stealth aircraft 600 + km away.
So all that expensive stealth technology is outdated and was waste of $.
hahaha sure thing buddy rofl
:roll:

Do research on Russian radars from early 90's to present and the result may shock you. How much was wasted $ by U.S and everything is pretty much down the drain.

Stealth = the greatest military financial error in history.

[b33f]

By the way, east german army had a few of the "Tamara" devices and the Bundeswehr tested them. They are no Superweapons and can not do anything against Planes that do not emit radiation in any way.

[img]http://www.itnu.de/radargrundlagen/bistatic/pic/tamara-big.jp
They must have had the export version.

[sergey31]

By the way, east german army had a few of the "Tamara" devices and the Bundeswehr tested them. They are no Superweapons and can not do anything against Planes that do not emit radiation in any way.

http://www.itnu.de/radargrundlagen/bistatic/pic/tamara-big.jpg

Every single plane emits some type or radiation. If it has electronics it emits radiation.

[JoaMei]

So explain to me how these magic russian superradars work, dont worry I couldnt understand. Im studying something in that direction.... :lol:

[sergey31]

So explain to me how these magic russian superradars work, dont worry I couldnt understand. Im studying something in that direction.... :lol:

If any electronic signal leaves aircarft the radar pics it up (can be as small as cell phone signal). The movement trough the air =the radar pics it up. Unless it has zero speed and zero electronics then maybe.

[JoaMei]

Every single plane emits some type or radiation. If it has electronics it emits radiation.

Theoretically, but these emissions are so weak that they vanish in the surrounding noise a few meters away. So your tamara can detect a Stealthplane that is 3 Meters away.... rofl

[JoaMei]

If any electronic signal leaves aircarft the radar pics it up (can be as small as cell phone signal). The movement trough the air =the radar pics it up. Unless it has zero speed and zero electronics then maybe.

Cellphones have a very strong high frequency signal, they are supposed to reach the next stations miles away. :lol:

[Kilgor]

Even if you could pick up signals that are so weak like that you'd have to know exactly where the aircraft is to point the dish at.

It sounds like complete BS to me, like being able to detect emitions from a computer at 100km's away.

Plasma stealth part 2 it seems.

where was this posted on ... aeronautics ru ? :roll:

Id also imagine something to sensitve to even the slightest radio emittion would be extremely easy to jam

[Michael RVR]

So explain to me how these magic russian superradars work, dont worry I couldnt understand. Im studying something in that direction.... :lol:

Actually our Over the horizon radar is capable of detecting a B2, dont see any reason why the russians shouldn't be able to product something similar.

[JoaMei]

Actually our Over the horizon radar is capable of detecting a B2, dont see any reason why the russians shouldn't be able to product something similar.

That is because of its high wavelenght, the stealth Layout was made for modern high frequncy radars. In manouvers German airdefense was able to detect F-117 with modified Radars of HAWK Batteries.

[sergey31]

If any electronic signal leaves aircarft the radar pics it up (can be as small as cell phone signal). The movement trough the air =the radar pics it up. Unless it has zero speed and zero electronics then maybe.

Cellphones have a very strong high frequency signal, they are supposed to reach the next stations miles away. :lol:

Old cell phones, new digital phones have much much lower.....Communication on aircraft has 10 x higher then any digital phone, IFF has enough radiation for radar to spot- even if the pilot turn it off the communication via satellite can be detected.
When Stealth aircraft technology was designed it was to fool OLD radars, newer passive radars are decades ahead of that old technology (stealth) concept.

[Kilgor]

and i guess the world class engineers who designed and build the F22 forgot about this ?

You should go and tell them rofl

[Seiyuuki]

So explain to me how these magic russian superradars work, dont worry I couldnt understand. Im studying something in that direction.... :lol:

Actually our Over the horizon radar is capable of detecting a B2, dont see any reason why the russians shouldn't be able to product something similar.

Technically, thats not so much detecting the aircraft as it is just the turbulance in the air the plane make as its fly. Beyond that, there isn't a practical system right now that could provide guidance for missile systems and such.

Some of you are incorrect so far about stealth, it doesn't mean the plane is completely invisible on radar. Steath by nature mean a very small radar cross section (RCS). While some radars can still pick up a F-117 or B-2, it doesn't mean it can differentiate between a bee and a stealth plane with a RCS as big as the bee.

[JoaMei]

Old cell phones, new digital phones have much much lower.....Communication on aircraft has 10 x higher then any digital phone, IFF has enough radiation for radar to spot- even if the pilot turn it off the communication via satellite can be detected.
When Stealth aircraft technology was designed it was to fool OLD radars, newer passive radars are decades ahead of that old technology (stealth) concept.

Nope, cellphone operate in the Gigaherz area, Aircrafts still use the old radio frequencys in the Megaherz area. Cellphones are SUPPOSED to send a signal, so its no problem to detect them.

To say it again. During a Mission Stealth Aircraft:

1. Do not communicate in any way.
2. Do no´t have IFF turned on or anything else

[sergey31]

and i guess the world class engineers who designed and build the F22 forgot about this ?

You should go and tell them rofl

When was F22 first put on a drawing table and project began?
Was there any newer radars made in Russia since then?

Please, when you answer those questions then you can use 100 of these rofl

[sergey31]

Old cell phones, new digital phones have much much lower.....Communication on aircraft has 10 x higher then any digital phone, IFF has enough radiation for radar to spot- even if the pilot turn it off the communication via satellite can be detected.
When Stealth aircraft technology was designed it was to fool OLD radars, newer passive radars are decades ahead of that old technology (stealth) concept.

Nope, cellphone operate in the Gigaherz area, Aircrafts still use the old radio frequencys in the Megaherz area. Cellphones are SUPPOSED to send a signal, so its no problem to detect them.

To say it again. During a Mission Stealth Aircraft:

1. Do not communicate in any way.
2. Do no´t have IFF turned on or anything else

F22 is flying super computer.....The communications inside the aircraft is enough for it's detection, not to mention IR detectors used on some Russian fighter.

[Seiyuuki]

Old cell phones, new digital phones have much much lower.....Communication on aircraft has 10 x higher then any digital phone, IFF has enough radiation for radar to spot- even if the pilot turn it off the communication via satellite can be detected.
When Stealth aircraft technology was designed it was to fool OLD radars, newer passive radars are decades ahead of that old technology (stealth) concept.

Nope, cellphone operate in the Gigaherz area, Aircrafts still use the old radio frequencys in the Megaherz area. Cellphones are SUPPOSED to send a signal, so its no problem to detect them.

To say it again. During a Mission Stealth Aircraft:

1. Do not communicate in any way.
2. Do no´t have IFF turned on or anything else

That and plus the reason the U.S. came up with platforms such as the AWACS and JSTARS in the first place is that in combat, the only aircrafts thats transmitting would be those platforms.

Hence, the mini-AWACS capability of the F-35/ & F/A-22 and later upgrades to existing fleet of U.S. combat aircraft.

[Kilgor]

Im quite sure the american and european designers who made the current 4.5 and 5th gen aircraft designs would have thought about new higher frequences of radar design.

But aparently russian engineers have it all figured out right ?

[JoaMei]

When was F22 first put on a drawing table and project began?
Was there any newer radars made in Russia since then?

Please, when you answer those questions then you can use 100 of these

Dont you think they discussed the theoretical possibility of newer radars in the future BEFORE STARTING THE MOST EXPENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM IN THE HISTORY OF MILITARY PLANES? :cantbeli:

How long do you belive these russian Radars were on the drawing table, huh?

[Kilgor]

F22 is flying super computer.....The communications inside the aircraft is enough for it's detection, not to mention IR detectors used on some Russian fighter.

This is turning into pure junk science with no proof.

Considering all these circuits will be shielded, what does it prove ?

Nothing....

[JoaMei]

By the way, the stealth material in those planes also absorbs any possible signal coming from inside as well as those coming from radars. ;)

But Sergey, when the Pilot is calling his Wife with a Cellphone while on a mission... I admit Tamara will find him... rofl

[sergey31]

When was F22 first put on a drawing table and project began?
Was there any newer radars made in Russia since then?

Please, when you answer those questions then you can use 100 of these

Dont you think they discussed the theoretical possibility of newer radars in the future BEFORE STARTING THE MOST EXPENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM IN THE HISTORY OF MILITARY PLANES? :cantbeli:
U.S did not know about Newest Russian radar systems that came out during 90's

How long do you belive these russian Radars were on the drawing table, huh?

We don't know.....But lets not forget this. Russia counter U.S technology in a different way.
For Example they produced the best anti-ship missiles to fight U.S Navy not massive aircraft carrier force.
They produced the best and superior radar systems in the world to fight "Stealth" technology.
Every time there is a new technology there will be people who would develop something against it (just a matter of time) . And so far Russians have lead in missile AND radar technology.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I'm pretty sure if Australian Engineers can design a Radar System that can detect B2 Bombers then the Russians would surely be able to develop a system to detect F22,JSF ect.

[JoaMei]

U.S did not know about Newest Russian radar systems that came out during 90's

What are you trying to tell me? Radar always works using the same principles. From now till forever.... Or can you russians break the natural laws of Physic?


We don't know.....But lets not forget this. Russia counter U.S technology in a different way.
For Example they produced the best anti-ship missiles to fight U.S Navy not massive aircraft carrier force.
They produced the best and superior radar systems in the world to fight "Stealth" technology.
Every time there is a new technology there will be people who would develop something against it (just a matter of time) . And so far Russians have lead in missile AND radar technology.


Judged by what standard? These anti Ship missiles did never prove they will work. Just another russian Papertiger.
Best radar? From a Country that is 10 Years behind europe and the US in elecronics? Judged by what?
Leader in Missile and Radar Technology is the USA, the russian systems have one important quality: They are really cheap.
And you always get what you pay for.

[Michael RVR]

Every time there is a new technology there will be people who would develop something against it (just a matter of time)

And That is really all it is. The F-22 design is locked in, only a matter of time before someone figures out a counter. I've got no idea on the capabilities of Russian Radars, but since the design of Stealth aircraft these days is more a theoretical thing these days (computer simulations etc), i find it entirely possible that they've developed a counter using similar methods.

Time and money, thats all it takes. ;) And the Russians have a shatload of money atm.

[Thor]

The Stealth vs Radar Technology is an interesting one.

I have to go with the second one.

Swedes and the ruskies have some of the best radars around.

[JoaMei]

Time and money, thats all it takes. And the Russians have a shatload of money atm.

Actually they dont, russian Pilots do less than 15 flying hours per Year. American more than 200 and european around 180. They are redirecting nearly all the oilmoney to rescue the rest of their military industrial complex. The money is not reinvested in their totally destroyed economy.

Good engineers are there where the money is, and thats all.

[usa320]

until the ruskies can fry a laptop or toaster from 30,000 feet and 5 miles away, they aint got nothing on the F/A-22.

[Abolith]

as a guy who deals with RF designs and RF detection equipment everyday I have to say that half of you have no idea WTF your talking about.

sergey31 unless your an RF signals engineer (and based on what you posted your not) than I must conclude that you have no clue whatsoever what you talking about. just another case of wannabes talking out thier ass about something they know less than the basics on.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Either way.

If it came to the crunch. I'm sure the Russians would smack the yanks ass 1 on 1.

[Midav]

Stealth is obsolete now.... Russia has MANY radar systems that can spot stealth aircraft 600 + km away.
So all that expensive stealth technology is outdated and was waste of $.
hahaha sure thing buddy rofl
:roll:

Do research on Russian radars from early 90's to present and the result may shock you. How much was wasted $ by U.S and everything is pretty much down the drain.

Stealth = the greatest military financial error in history.

Yup and why industrial countries are pursuing the technology. Be it aircraft, tanks or ships, stealth is there.. but it's just a "financial error" :roll:

[Ratamacue]

Hooray for another US vs. Russia bull****fest.

[Midav]

Hooray for another US vs. Russia bull****fest.

Tell me about it.

Seems like both countries have a lot in common, including having dumb****s post on internet boards.

[Kilgor]

Aparently the chinese are building a stealth based fighter too.

Better also go tell them they are in error rofl

[Michael RVR]

Aparently the chinese are building a stealth based fighter too.

Better also go tell them they are in error rofl

Kilgor you should know they're not building a stealth fighter to try and attack the russians ;)

[Hugh Jardon]

This is about the dumbest thread I have read here.

This is about the stupidest post I have read on this forum. DPGlaw, you are just plain ignern't.


Ummm....dont the Russians have to build a 3rd, and 4th generation plane before the 5th gen??? And I am sure that when I am assuming here, I am assuming correctly, building just a "concept" plane does not count as a "3rd generation" or "4th generation" plane. They would actually need to produce more than one of the plane. Why in god's name would a country as totally broke as RUssia go and waste money building a concept fighter that they in no way, shape, or form pay for the production of. (Hopefully this and other advanced or even maintenance programs dont lead to the sellnig of weapons, and god forbid WMD's to terrorists) They should not waste the money but make a real and concerted effort at helping their people out of the poverty they live in and if they are going to spend it milatarily, than a great use would be securing their Nuclear weapons and launch systems properly with relevant upgrade. That and paying scientists properly to keep them out of terrorist hands would also be great...Sorry for the rant, although it is relevant, I am sure it will upset others. It was not meant to but I just read "Nuclear Terrorism" and this issue was dealt with extensively and is true and scary.

I went to Russia for 2 weeks last month. I envy them in many ways, they are the most enterprising and productive people (on an individual level) that I have ever seen.

As for the "stealth detection" debate I have no doubt that if they have not solved the problem, they can and will. Where in the hell do you think the F-117 that was shot down in Serbia sold too?

In a way this whole subject is stupid, anyone who sends an army across Russias border is in for hell on earth. Make no mistake, you will lose. The character of the people alone should tell you that.

[Kilgor]

Kilgor you should know they're not building a stealth fighter to try and attack the russians ;)

Sino / soviet relations havent always been happy ones :P


As for the "stealth detection" debate I have no doubt that if they have not solved the problem, they can and will. Where in the hell do you think the F-117 that was shot down in Serbia sold too?

No one said stealth was total invisability, just like bullet "proof" vest.
As for the perpetual russian and serb wanking session over that F117, you always can get a lucky shot.

If it was a vunerbility that was repeatable, Iraq should have been able to blow away 117's. How many did he get.. none.

[PeterRJG]

Hooray for another US vs. Russia bull****fest.

Tell me about it.

Seems like both countries have a lot in common, including having dumb****s post on internet boards.

Why let a good Cold War grow colder, huh?

I don't understand this rivalry bull**** some of you are trying to perpetrate. FFS, the interests of the US and Russia run parallel for the most part in this day and age.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Dude you dont get it.

It's all about a war that was supposed to happen that never happened.

[RomanS]

So explain to me how these magic russian superradars work, dont worry I couldnt understand. Im studying something in that direction.... :lol:

try to fly a stealth plane over Russia and take something out
If its really stealth how would the Russians know who atacked them?

[Sayeret]

I believe a lot US money was actually sent to Russia, surprising enough because the fear that a dictator to take power in a country with so many nuclear weapons and such a large military.

I don’t believe that’s how Russia is gaining all of it’s money from the US but in the early 1990s a lot of it’s money came from the US.

[Sayeret]

Generally, during the Cold War the Russians were ten years behind the US in technology, so theoretically they should have built stealth aircraft by now. Just kind of interesting thing to think about.

[sergey31]

Generally, during the Cold War the Russians were ten years behind the US in technology, so theoretically they should have built stealth aircraft by now. Just kind of interesting thing to think about.


Who was the first to design trust vectoring in a AA missile?

Can you tell me what U.S equivalent to SS-N-22 (Sunburn)?
And both above are 80's technology.

Can you tell me if any other country even has a prototype of S-400/ 500 missiles equivalent???

And these are just the few?

They are not dumb, if they know that "stealth" is worthless technology especially it was the Soviets that first came up with this "stealth" concept to begin with. Why in the F*** spent billions of $ on something that they have countermeasures against??? Now that would be pretty stupid.
The new technology would be exploring "nanotechnology" or something completely new. And who knows what they're up to? And that's both sides.

[Seiyuuki]

Generally, during the Cold War the Russians were ten years behind the US in technology, so theoretically they should have built stealth aircraft by now. Just kind of interesting thing to think about.


Who was the first to design trust vectoring in a AA missile?

Not necessarily AA missile, but in 1844, William Hale modified rocket so that the thrust was slightly vectored in certain direction to cause rocket to spin along its axis to increase accuracy. Subsequently, the Germans during World War developed some missiles with primitive thrust vectoring (V-2).


They are not dumb, if they know that "stealth" is worthless technology especially it was the Soviets that first came up with this "stealth" concept to begin with. Why in the F*** spent billions of $ on something that they have countermeasures against??? Now that would be pretty stupid.
The new technology would be exploring "nanotechnology" or something completely new. And who knows what they're up to? And that's both sides.

"Stealth" concept began with the Germans who discovered the concept accidentally with the development of their flying wing and low-observable construction materials used on the plane.

[sergey31]

Generally, during the Cold War the Russians were ten years behind the US in technology, so theoretically they should have built stealth aircraft by now. Just kind of interesting thing to think about.


Who was the first to design trust vectoring in a AA missile?

Not necessarily AA missile, but in 1844, William Hale modified rocket so that the thrust was slightly vectored in certain direction to cause rocket to spin along its axis to increase accuracy. Subsequently, the Germans during World War developed some missiles with primitive thrust vectoring (V-2).
Not AA missiles..... Credit goes 100% to the Russians with their AA 11 (archer). No AA missile that was before was even close to it's original design. And all that would come after would carry it's origin.

They are not dumb, if they know that "stealth" is worthless technology especially it was the Soviets that first came up with this "stealth" concept to begin with. Why in the F*** spent billions of $ on something that they have countermeasures against??? Now that would be pretty stupid.
The new technology would be exploring "nanotechnology" or something completely new. And who knows what they're up to? And that's both sides.

"Stealth" concept began with the Germans who discovered the concept accidentally with the development of their flying wing and low-observable construction materials used on the plane.

In the 1960s, Russian scientist Pyotr Ufimtsev began developing equations for predicting the reflection of electromagnetic waves from simple two-dimensional shapes. His work was regularly collected and translated into English and provided to U.S. scientists. By the early 1970s, a few U.S. scientists, mathematicians, and aircraft designers began to realize that it was possible to use these theories to design aircraft with substantially reduced radar signatures. Lockheed Aircraft, working under a contract to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, soon began development of the F-117 stealth fighter.

[Roaming East]

dont want to **** in anyones cornflakes but 10 will get ya 20 this thing is another flanker derivative....

[sergey31]

dont want to **** in anyones cornflakes but 10 will get ya 20 this thing is another flanker derivative....

:roll: I think you got the wrong topic here.

[Roaming East]

nope, just waiting to see this new aircraft and competitor to the F22. I hope its as great as they say it is. that will just spur the US congress into buying more F22's

[Drunkensquid]

russia now has plenty of money from oil, it's time to cut the aid to them. They can pay for the cleanup of their own environmental phuckups in chelyabinsk. It's time for them to stop blackmailing the world in paying for security of russian nuclear sites. :bash:

[username]

I just sniff the wind and I can detect any plance, similarly I can just **** out a plane capable of blowing up the moon.

[Seiyuuki]

[quote=Sayeret]Generally, during the Cold War the Russians were ten years behind the US in technology, so theoretically they should have built stealth aircraft by now. Just kind of interesting thing to think about.


Who was the first to design trust vectoring in a AA missile?

Not necessarily AA missile, but in 1844, William Hale modified rocket so that the thrust was slightly vectored in certain direction to cause rocket to spin along its axis to increase accuracy. Subsequently, the Germans during World War developed some missiles with primitive thrust vectoring (V-2).
Not AA missiles..... Credit goes 100% to the Russians with their AA 11 (archer). No AA missile that was before was even close to it's original design. And all that would come after would carry it's origin.

Did I said otherwise...What seem to be the problem, incapacity to read or comprehension or the need to compensate for your diminutive intelligence.



They are not dumb, if they know that "stealth" is worthless technology especially it was the Soviets that first came up with this "stealth" concept to begin with. Why in the F*** spent billions of $ on something that they have countermeasures against??? Now that would be pretty stupid.
The new technology would be exploring "nanotechnology" or something completely new. And who knows what they're up to? And that's both sides.

"Stealth" concept began with the Germans who discovered the concept accidentally with the development of their flying wing and low-observable construction materials used on the plane.

In the 1960s, Russian scientist Pyotr Ufimtsev began developing equations for predicting the reflection of electromagnetic waves from simple two-dimensional shapes. His work was regularly collected and translated into English and provided to U.S. scientists. By the early 1970s, a few U.S. scientists, mathematicians, and aircraft designers began to realize that it was possible to use these theories to design aircraft with substantially reduced radar signatures. Lockheed Aircraft, working under a contract to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, soon began development of the F-117 stealth fighter.

Lets not kid ourselves, the Soviet designers were absolutely ignorant and uninterested in Pyotr Ufimstev's theories, that just made it a lot easier for Pyotr Ufimstev to come over to the U.S. and give Denys Overholser a hand. Thanks for the laugh, it's like some other Ivan the other day trying to claim Sikorsky, its the Russian that desparate and needy for inspiration. Of course, since you're sticking to Ufimstev's mathematical equation for determining the radar cross section of any given configuration then that in turn prove JoaMei scientific point earlier that is contrary to your claim, Russians still got to obey the natural laws of Physic, there goes the cellphone.

Stealth is not confine to just the angular facet of an aircraft, it is define as the incorporation of many low-observable technology, which include radar, IR suppression, etc. So, yes, when it come to stealth aircraft, the Germans were first to get there. Pyotr Ufimstev evolve it to the next generation. As such, the F-35 & F/A-22 is the next step in such evolution, several decades later, a new level of stealth will be develop and the beat goes on.

[Roaming East]

always pleasing to read Seiyuuki's post. very informative

[sergey31]

[quote=Sayeret]Generally, during the Cold War the Russians were ten years behind the US in technology, so theoretically they should have built stealth aircraft by now. Just kind of interesting thing to think about.


Who was the first to design trust vectoring in a AA missile?

Not necessarily AA missile, but in 1844, William Hale modified rocket so that the thrust was slightly vectored in certain direction to cause rocket to spin along its axis to increase accuracy. Subsequently, the Germans during World War developed some missiles with primitive thrust vectoring (V-2).
Not AA missiles..... Credit goes 100% to the Russians with their AA 11 (archer). No AA missile that was before was even close to it's original design. And all that would come after would carry it's origin.

Did I said otherwise...What seem to be the problem, incapacity to read or comprehension or the need to compensate for your diminutive intelligence.

Did I mention AA missiles with first trust vectoring or just missile in general? Once again did I say first trust vectoring or AA missile with trust vectoring? talking about reading comprehension. :roll:


They are not dumb, if they know that "stealth" is worthless technology especially it was the Soviets that first came up with this "stealth" concept to begin with. Why in the F*** spent billions of $ on something that they have countermeasures against??? Now that would be pretty stupid.
The new technology would be exploring "nanotechnology" or something completely new. And who knows what they're up to? And that's both sides.

"Stealth" concept began with the Germans who discovered the concept accidentally with the development of their flying wing and low-observable construction materials used on the plane.

In the 1960s, Russian scientist Pyotr Ufimtsev began developing equations for predicting the reflection of electromagnetic waves from simple two-dimensional shapes. His work was regularly collected and translated into English and provided to U.S. scientists. By the early 1970s, a few U.S. scientists, mathematicians, and aircraft designers began to realize that it was possible to use these theories to design aircraft with substantially reduced radar signatures. Lockheed Aircraft, working under a contract to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, soon began development of the F-117 stealth fighter.

Lets not kid ourselves, the Soviet designers were absolutely ignorant and uninterested in Pyotr Ufimstev's theories, that just made it a lot easier for Pyotr Ufimstev to come over to the U.S. and give Denys Overholser a hand. Thanks for the laugh, it's like some other Ivan the other day trying to claim Sikorsky, its the Russian that desparate and needy for inspiration. Of course, since you're sticking to Ufimstev's mathematical equation for determining the radar cross section of any given configuration then that in turn prove JoaMei scientific point earlier that is contrary to your claim, Russians still got to obey the natural laws of Physic, there goes the cellphone.

Stealth is not confine to just the angular facet of an aircraft, it is define as the incorporation of many low-observable technology, which include radar, IR suppression, etc. So, yes, when it come to stealth aircraft, the Germans were first to get there. Pyotr Ufimstev evolve it to the next generation. As such, the F-35 & F/A-22 is the next step in such evolution, several decades later, a new level of stealth will be develop and the beat goes on.
Russians did not adopt "stealth" technology because they knew the weakness of it. And as result they have developed radars that can spot and even track any stealth aircraft. Once again they hold the edge in radar technology and no matter how much stealth technology advances it's still electronic aircraft flying trough the air.
But Russians were the first to see right trough this technology and decided to bypass it as it's a waste of money and it's easy to come up with counter measure against it.
B2 for example, a flying 2 billion target.... Now I can only imagine how many supersonic Tu 160 Russia can manufacture for 2 billion dollars.
BTW Pyotr Ufimtsev came to U.S in early 90's way after F117 was operational and B2 was manufactured. Do some research before talking crap.

[Roaming East]

funny that you say that cause as the blackjacks are wasting away whilst B2's are even now flying sorties unopposed it seems the russians were penny-wise pound foolish. The russians seem very interested in selling its stuff to others wonder why saddam never scorched a b2 or f117.

And yes im aware that ONE nighthawk has been lost from the countless number of missions they have done. and that seemed more a result of poor tactics than of any uber-device the serbs might have had

[Sabre]

I wish some people on this thread would go out and get some practical experience in the military.

Yanks: Stealth does a job and has both advantages and disadvantages. Half of you guys sound like you're still in 5th grade and just got a ladybird book on 80s fighter planes out of the library. I remember the days of being a school kid and thinking this amazing technology meant you could do a fly-past of the kremlin and pull a moonie without General Secretary knowing.

In reality, stealth is still vulnerable. How much so only the guys who made it and those that are studying it to counter it actually know, not a buch of mongs having a d*ck-measuring contest on the internet.

It's great for defeating old-school radars of clapped-out despots before you knock out their C3I infrastructure. Someone mentioned something about Iraq? We pasted their C3I back in the 90's and have been dropping iron on them for the last decade. I doubt that they were even capable of setting up a CAP over Bahgdad by the time we went in in 2003. Serbia was different because you had a more modern adversary who had the sense to use it's outdated equipment to it's maximum effect. It's not just about what tools you have in the box, but how you go about using them. The 'lucky shot' the serbs got wasn't lucky. It came about because they used their resources to the desired effect. One stealth 'kill' may not be a great kill to loss ratio, but it shows it can be done, even by a country with lesser capability.

There are always ways around a problem. No matter what you may think of Russia, it has access to a great number of creative, intelligent individuals who will continue, I'm sure, to design and build new technologies. Someone mentioned money and flying hours...flying hours are irrelevant with radars. You don't fly radars. If the Russians develop a radar that can detect modern stealth (or already have) then all you need is to deploy a few over priority targets, supported by CAPs or missile batteries.

Anyway, people often go into this childish 'plane vs plane' argument. In reality war is all-encompassing and you exploit the enemy's weakest spots. The weakest spots for any aircraft are their maintenance/rearm/refuel points. You simply take out the airfields that house the aircraft, or the tankers, or the C3I facilities and you seriously damage the ability of the enemy to get those airframes airborne.

[Kilgor]

Maybe there are others here that know more about this , but at the time of the first gulf war, Iraqs radar systems were anything but pieces of ****.

[sergey31]

funny that you say that cause as the blackjacks are wasting away whilst B2's are even now flying sorties unopposed it seems the russians were penny-wise pound foolish. The russians seem very interested in selling its stuff to others wonder why saddam never scorched a b2 or f117.

Blackjacks are not wasting away but are fully operational, same goes for Backfires. Do you wonder if Sadam had Tu 160's or Tu 22M's? Do you think if Sadam had B2's or F117's that would have made a difference?
And yes im aware that ONE nighthawk has been lost from the countless number of missions they have done. and that seemed more a result of poor tactics than of any uber-device the serbs might have had
That is not the point here, the point is The anti-Stealth technology is there and has been for quite some time it's just get better and better as time goes by, even right now the new radar systems have definite edge over limited "stealth" aircraft.

[roland]

Carefull to never underestimate the Russians.



Some of you are incorrect so far about stealth, it doesn't mean the plane is completely invisible on radar. Steath by nature mean a very small radar cross section (RCS). While some radars can still pick up a F-117 or B-2, it doesn't mean it can differentiate between a bee and a stealth plane with a RCS as big as the bee.

I'm pretty sure there is some algorythm able to spot a bee flying 900 Kmh.
To detect stealth arcraft we have horizon radar technology like the French "Nostradamus" radar, Synthetic Antenna and Impulse Radar like the French RIAS radar (don't ask me too much, please google on RIAS) and passive radars (like the French MORAPA project) that treat the reflective signal of natural electromagnetic sources like mobile phone emitters, Hertzian tv of radio FM emitters, to detect an aircraft.
Add to that the prgress on IR sensor, you'll see that stealth is still an asset but it's not sure it will last that long.

[Roaming East]

not wasting away? yeah sure, you post hours logged in flight by the Black jack for oh lets say 2000 and ill consider that true

[Kilgor]

So the Yanks, euros, and the chinese believe in stealth.. but the russians dont. Any explaination for this ?

[sergey31]

So the Yanks, euros, and the chinese believe in stealth.. but the russians dont. Any explaination for this ?

rofl Yes, because they have radars that can see "stealth" aircraft....and it's a waste of $$$

[Abbyy]

So the Yanks, euros, and the chinese believe in stealth.. but the russians dont. Any explaination for this ?

I don't know exact characteristics of stealth materials or geometry used in B-2 and F-117 but main problem for steath plane is incoming signal spectrum. When you developing stealth plane you know frequencies, spectrum and power of radars enemy uses. But question is what characteristics plane will have under radar working in another spectrum. Materials' and geometry's behaviour will be very different. So to defeat stealth technology you must figure out proper signal parameters.

It doesn't means stealh isn't working. It means that cure rather obvious.

There's no more universal radar but also there's no universal stealth technology.

[Roaming East]

So the Yanks, euros, and the chinese believe in stealth.. but the russians dont. Any explaination for this ?

rofl Yes, because they have radars that can see "stealth" aircraft....and it's a waste of $$$

And all this time i thought it was the the russians lack of ability to rapidly produce in quantity the computers necessary to keep such an inherently unstable design like the nighthawk airborne

[sergey31]

So the Yanks, euros, and the chinese believe in stealth.. but the russians dont. Any explaination for this ?

rofl Yes, because they have radars that can see "stealth" aircraft....and it's a waste of $$$

And all this time i thought it was the the russians lack of ability to rapidly produce in quantity the computers necessary to keep such an inherently unstable design like the nighthawk airborne

You mean Fly-By-Wire?

Su 27 rings a bell? And when did it go into production?
Before F117 that's for sure.

[JoaMei]

Can someone of the russians explain me why the Europeans started developing stealth drones like "Neuron" when they know russian Delta-elite-Jesus Radars are out there? rofl

http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/neuron.jpg

http://news.saabaerostructures.com/images/18.10deb5ffd9e2557fe7fff3003/ucav.jpg


http://news.saabaerostructures.com/5.10deb5ffd9e2557fe7fff2981.html

[Abbyy]

Can someone of the russians explain me why the Europeans started developing stealth drones like "Neuron" when they know russian Delta-elite-Jesus Radars are out there? rofl


Because being stealth is better than being visible to any 40 years old radar.

[Luno]

Can someone of the russians explain me why the Europeans started developing stealth drones like "Neuron" when they know russian Delta-elite-Jesus Radars are out there? rofl

http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/neuron.jpg

http://news.saabaerostructures.com/images/18.10deb5ffd9e2557fe7fff3003/ucav.jpg


http://news.saabaerostructures.com/5.10deb5ffd9e2557fe7fff2981.html

You know the world is allot bigger then Russia ;) and Russia are no threat anymore. A stealth plane is damn good betting up a old third world country that have an old radar system p-)

[JoaMei]

Because being stealth is better than being visible to any 40 years old radar.

There is no need for that, old Radars cam be jammed easily. And if stealth is useless, why are the russians always talking about their Planes are stealthy too and about misterious plasma stealth? p-)

[Abbyy]

Because being stealth is better than being visible to any 40 years old radar.

There is no need for that, old Radars cam be jammed easily. And if stealth is useless, why are the russians always talking about their Planes are stealthy too and about misterious plasma stealth? p-)

Don't mix up me with Sergey. :) I didn't say it's useless. If you'll look several posts up I said it's not universal solution.

[JoaMei]

Don't mix up me with Sergey. I didn't say it's useless. If you'll look several posts up I said it's not universal solution

I never said that stealth makes planes invisible, but it reduces the detection range of any type of radar or IR detector.

[Roaming East]

So the Yanks, euros, and the chinese believe in stealth.. but the russians dont. Any explaination for this ?

rofl Yes, because they have radars that can see "stealth" aircraft....and it's a waste of $$$

And all this time i thought it was the the russians lack of ability to rapidly produce in quantity the computers necessary to keep such an inherently unstable design like the nighthawk airborne

You mean Fly-By-Wire?

Su 27 rings a bell? And when did it go into production?
Before F117 that's for sure.

Holy crap you just kinda presumed the pitch only fly by wire system of a flanker is anywhere near the level of sophistication in a F117's quadruple redundant all aspect system? yeah whatever....
and as for full production, my source may be a little bias (USAF airframes guide), but the Flanker didnt hit full service production until 1985 the 1st full production nighthawk was in 1982

[Thucydides]

I think I'm actually dumber for having read this thread.

[Midav]

I think I'm actually dumber for having read this thread.

:lol:

[Midav]

sergey--

UNIQUE "STEALTH" CORVETTE

Anatoly Novoselov
The construction of a multi-purpose patrol ship is getting underway on the stocks of the "Severnaya Verf" shipyard in St. Petersburg. The new corvette of 2000 tons displacement and 100 meters long boasts high speed and autonomous navigation. Its firing power makes it possible to strike at surface and underwater targets, coastal facilities and targets in the air. Along with standard equipment the corvette will carry cruise missiles and KA-27 multi-purpose shipborne helicopter. Five such vessels will join the Russian Navy by 2010. The new "stealth" corvette was designed by the "Almaz" naval design bureau. The bureau is the author of several thousand warships, including the "Zubr" hovercraft landing cutter.
The corvette reveals new concepts of the hull's design. A distinctive feature is the use of the famous "Stealth" technology, which makes the corvette invisible for radars, acoustics, infra-red equipment and control of infra-red radiation. The basic set of invisibility paraphernalia, such as, the smooth, corner-free hull, a special type of paint and carbonaceous coating, is an original Russian design, which is classified at the moment. Corvettes of this type will also be built for coastal guard units.
The multi-purpose patrol ship is called the ship of the 21st century. Experts believe that with the appearance of state-of-the-art weapons, compact and more effective, there is a growing demand for this kind of small "stealth" ships. According to the military, the new corvette will become a significant event in ship-building across the world. The new ship will get the name "Steregushchy" or "Guarding". The first ship of the "Corvette" series will join the Russian Navy in 2005.

http://www.vor.ru/science/madeinrus42_eng.html#2

It's the trend. Rumor has it that Russia uses plasma stealth for its newer fighters, but that's been said about the B-2 as well.

If true or not, who knows?

What is fact, stealth technology will be around for a long time to come.

[sergey31]

Plasma stealth is different and better overall approach (presumable it work as advertised). There is no need to sacrifice plane surfaces to specific shape and the plane can carry more payload and fly @ Mach 2 + (which F22 can't due to it's limiting airframe).

Russian designed that ship against other countries that still use older radars, not against themselves.

[JoaMei]

Russian designed that ship against other countries that still use older radars, not against themselves.

Yea, and those countrys will never have any newer Radar until 2010 or later.... :cantbeli:

[Midav]

It's pointless...

[sergey31]

Russian designed that ship against other countries that still use older radars, not against themselves.

Yea, and those countrys will never have any newer Radar until 2010 or later.... :cantbeli:

Probably 2020 or later, Russia and U.S face bigger threat from smaller countries rather then from each other. For example third world countries won't have anything state of the art (new technology) for long time to come ...

[JoaMei]

Probably 2020 or later, Russia and U.S face bigger threat from smaller countries rather then from each other. For example third world countries won't have anything state of the art (new technology) for long time to come ...

No wonder, they are usually buying russian stuff.... :roll:


And do you really think they build ships they can use for not longer than 10 years?

[b33f]

Probably 2020 or later, Russia and U.S face bigger threat from smaller countries rather then from each other. For example third world countries won't have anything state of the art (new technology) for long time to come ...

No wonder, they are usually buying russian stuff.... :roll:
rofl

[sergey31]

Probably 2020 or later, Russia and U.S face bigger threat from smaller countries rather then from each other. For example third world countries won't have anything state of the art (new technology) for long time to come ...

No wonder, they are usually buying russian stuff.... :roll:


And do you really think they build ships they can use for not longer than 10 years?

Do you think Russians are dumb? For Example they sold Mig 21's and 23's back in the 70's to Libya and Syria totally stripped and stuffed with inferior radars then their own aircraft. There was a purpose for that.
For Example "Jaybird" radar from early Mig 21 was stuffed in Mig 23 where's at the same Soviet Mig 23's had "High Lark" 2 radars....this is just an example. Soviets/Russians never sold the newest technology to their allies and it was always at least 10 years behind theirs.

[JoaMei]

Do you think Russians are dumb? For Example they sold Mig 21's and 23's back in the 70's to Libya and Syria totally stripped and stuffed with inferior radars then their own aircraft. There was a purpose for that.
For Example "Jaybird" radar from early Mig 21 was stuffed in Mig 23 where's at the same Soviet Mig 23's had "High Lark" 2 radars....this is just an example. Soviets/Russians never sold the newest technology to their allies and it was always at least 10 years behind theirs.

So whats your point? Do you think the US or Europeans do something different? ^^

[melon]

This guy has a hard-on for russia military equipment. "Stealth is useless," "It was the 'export' version," ect, ect.

Its hard to say stealth is useless or irrelevant when it makes a routine habit of evading radar. US, European and yes, the mighty Russian systems. But if it makes you puff out your chest, so be it.

The only looming problem, is your heroic Russian designers are building systems to defeat MANNED airplane systems. The next tin hat dictator that buys the 10th gen Russian vacum tube radar systems are going to be vaporized by unmanned aircraft, missles or what ever else the freaky areo-nerds think up.

[JoaMei]

It's pointless...

[melon]

Do you think Russians are dumb? For Example they sold Mig 21's and 23's back in the 70's to Libya and Syria totally stripped and stuffed with inferior radars then their own aircraft. There was a purpose for that.
For Example "Jaybird" radar from early Mig 21 was stuffed in Mig 23 where's at the same Soviet Mig 23's had "High Lark" 2 radars....this is just an example. Soviets/Russians never sold the newest technology to their allies and it was always at least 10 years behind theirs.

So whats your point? Do you think the US or Europeans do something different? ^^

Thats his way of justifing the HORRIBLE combat track record for Soviet era equipment.

[Lokos]

Soviet combat vehicles and other equipment have actually performed marvelously in the hands of... Soviets.

US combat vehicles and equipment haven't performed that great when handled by 3rd world militaries, either, for that matter.

What is your point?

And 'export version' has become a joke with you people. That's fine. Laugh it up. It's not as if the Iraqis were handling export version tanks (T72s, especially, with ammo that was new when the T55 came out), right? But, wait, they were. Russian T72s have never seen combat against American tanks.

How much good did all the US-made equipment they could handle do the ARVN, in the end?

How much good would the M1A1s in their possession do the Saudis, if they got into a shooting war with Israel? Not much.

This debate is farcical.

Lokos

[sergey31]

This guy has a hard-on for russia military equipment. "Stealth is useless," "It was the 'export' version," ect, ect.

Its hard to say stealth is useless or irrelevant when it makes a routine habit of evading radar. US, European and yes, the mighty Russian systems. But if it makes you puff out your chest, so be it.

The only looming problem, is your heroic Russian designers are building systems to defeat MANNED airplane systems. The next tin hat dictator that buys the 10th gen Russian vacum tube radar systems are going to be vaporized by unmanned aircraft, missles or what ever else the freaky areo-nerds think up.

Spoken like a true melonhead.......

well it's not even worth it. :|

[manuel]

hey dont mean to go off topic.... But is stealth even really all that necessary.... Whats really a scary thing to look at and think about is how the blackbird was decomissioned...... what if aurora really exists and if has a viable weapons delivery system unlike the black bird..... thing doesn;t even need to be stealth..... just flies over drops its ordanance/payload and even though half the worlds radars are lighting up no missile defense system could hit it.

[melon]

hey dont mean to go off topic.... But is stealth even really all that necessary.... Whats really a scary thing to look at and think about is how the blackbird was decomissioned...... what if aurora really exists and if has a viable weapons delivery system unlike the black bird..... thing doesn;t even need to be stealth..... just flies over drops its ordanance/payload and even though half the worlds radars are lighting up no missile defense system could hit it.

I am sure, in some dark cellar, some unpaid Russian engineer is developing the 5th generation of the weapon systems that could already bring it down. Then will sell the export version to North Korea, only to have it fail miserably.

:lol: :lol:

[Lokos]

Those unpaid Russian engineers are some of the finest on this planet, and you had better know it, douche.

What's with the total lack of respect, man?

:|

Lokos

[Abbyy]

I am sure, in some dark, celler, some unpaid Russian engineer is developing the 5th generation of the weapon systems that could bring it down.
:lol: :lol:

You know that better keep your mouth shut if you don't know topic you're talking about?

In some bright recently repaired building well paid young and old Russian engineers using all kinds of latest simulation and CAD SW developing next generation of missiles which will make excellent competition to western prototypes (you name it).

You'll probably say that's my fantasy? Hehe. This fantasy looks rather real everytime i visit my sister's job.

[High drag]

Lokos,

You are smart enough to know statements like that have less to do with actually respecting Russian engineering than defeating internet arguments over who has the better (insert favorite weapon platform).

It usually goes like this:

Ludicrous statement #1: Russians do not need stealth technology because itis a waste of money
Ludicrous statement #2: Well then Russians are stupid

As a matter of fact, we should force all posting into this format thereby reducing thread lengths exponentially.

[manuel]

because im sure all weapons research facilities allow non-employees on the premises let alone around research of future weapons. Wait here comes that 8th grade field trip.

[Lokos]

High drag:

I agree with you, I just think it's despicable that these things always end up as formulaic **** slinging matches where everyone comes out drenched in faecal matter.

Lokos

[manuel]

hey lokos i dont know about you but my white suit, still nice and white =]

[Lokos]

I'm glad to hear that, manuel.

;)

Lokos

[melon]

Those unpaid Russian engineers are some of the finest on this planet, and you had better know it, douche.

What's with the total lack of respect, man?

:|

Lokos

Why? Everytime my nation goes to war, its always fighting someone who is armed with soviet, russian or chinese weapons.


Its not a lack of respect, just not any level of admiration.

[Lokos]

You're showing a lack of respect, not a lack of admiration - and I'm sorry you can't see the difference.

Lokos

[WarriorMonk]

btw, what exactly is this tested plane going to be?

Is it that S-37 Berkut/Golden Eagle or that MiG-1.44 MFI thingy or what?

[melon]

You're showing a lack of respect, not a lack of admiration - and I'm sorry you can't see the difference.

Lokos

All I see is a bunch of posters who have an inferiority complex about their nations military industrial machine. Seeing its burning results on the nightly news can be disheartening. I have little respect or admiration left for the designers of weapons intended to kill my countries citizens. Sorry. Nothing personal. I know we should all be friends and kum-by-ya, but I dont see it that way.


But anyway, my post were directed at the youngster who was going on about how stealth and its ineffectiveness.

[Lokos]

These particular posters don't see their nations' military industrial machine burning nightly. Unless the US has fought a war with Russia in the recent past I am not aware of.

I think these comparisons are absolutely ridiculous.

Lokos

[b33f]

These particular posters don't see their nations' military industrial machine burning nightly. Unless the US has fought a war with Russia in the recent past I am not aware of.

I think these comparisons are absolutely ridiculous.

Lokos
Part of what melon was trying to say (i think) is that Russia sells their equipment without checking the buyers EQ first. So eventually the US has to spend large amounts of dollars to bomb that equipment into oblivion and too meny good men die in the process. Without Russian equipment the evil guys would have got a lot less problem-causing assets.

edited for comprehension: EQ = Evil Quotient.

[JoaMei]

And another Problem is the russians here are stating to have the best equipment in nearly every way while their R&D Money is only 5% from what NATO Countries, especially the US are investing. :cantbeli:

[Roaming East]

Wait wait wait...The F15 is flown and operated by many countries other than the US, some of which have kills for the thing and NO losses so you cant pull that US equip sucks when foreigners use stuff. Same thing with the 16 (although i think pakistan had some of theres turned into air pollution by the indians) When matched up, US equipment tends to dominate or at least manhandle soviet equipment in these little foreign wars and flame ups. Soviet equip has a VERY awesome track record in combat....when used against other Soviet equipped forces.

[b33f]

And another Problem is the russians here are stating to have the best equipment in nearly every way while their R&D Money is only 5% from what NATO Countries, especially the US are investing. :cantbeli:

Exactly. They might make up because some of the Russkies are very determined (although i think that American scientists are too) but you simply can't turn **** into gold.

[sergey31]

edit:

[Berkut]

Of course it's easy to kick 30 years old equipment ass...Like US does every other year attacking 3rd world countries...

[sergey31]

You're showing a lack of respect, not a lack of admiration - and I'm sorry you can't see the difference.

Lokos

All I see is a bunch of posters who have an inferiority complex about their nations military industrial machine. Seeing its burning results on the nightly news can be disheartening. I have little respect or admiration left for the designers of weapons intended to kill my countries citizens. Sorry. Nothing personal. I know we should all be friends and kum-by-ya, but I dont see it that way.


But anyway, my post were directed at the youngster who was going on about how stealth and its ineffectiveness.

Listen Melonhead... Before calling anyone youngster you better know if they are younger or older then you are, And by your posts so far I can see that you are no older then anyone here.

As far as American kicking Soviet equipment ass all the time let's look in to the history, Shall we?

How many were there Soviet Fighter pilot aces in Korean War vs. American Aces? kill # too.

Same question goes for Vietnam War (Vietnamese Aces this time); please provide # of aces from both sides. What was their kill # vs American Aces #'s?


After you do your little research then you can open your all knowing trap here.

[Roaming East]

Id rather ask you how many Soviets shot down American fighter aircraft.(since i dont believe gagging unescorted bombers a feat of supreme skill). Downing 12 bombers and 2 fighters does not make one a better pilot than the guy who smoked only 7 high performance jet fighters before going home. Oh and last i heard The vietnamese did get bounced up and down the peninsula as long as the ****eating yanks were on the block but the north sure did whip up on an unsupported south in the mid '70s i tell you what. Must be nice to finally smash a country with overwhelming soviet aid after the varsity team goes home.

[Abolith]

You're showing a lack of respect, not a lack of admiration - and I'm sorry you can't see the difference.

Lokos

All I see is a bunch of posters who have an inferiority complex about their nations military industrial machine. Seeing its burning results on the nightly news can be disheartening. I have little respect or admiration left for the designers of weapons intended to kill my countries citizens. Sorry. Nothing personal. I know we should all be friends and kum-by-ya, but I dont see it that way.


But anyway, my post were directed at the youngster who was going on about how stealth and its ineffectiveness.

Listen Melonhead... Before calling anyone youngster you better know if they are younger or older then you are, And by your posts so far I can see that you are no older then anyone here.

As far as American kicking Soviet equipment ass all the time let's look in to the history, Shall we?

How many were there Soviet Fighter pilot aces in Korean War vs. American Aces.
Same question goes for Vietnam War (Vietnamese Aces this time); please provide # of aces from both sides.


After you do your little research then you can open your all knowing trap here.


Korena war aces:

US: 40- F86 Sabre (which the 4th FIW in summer and fall of 1951 were outnumbered 8 to 1 at the Yalu line)
Russian: 16 - Mig 15 (although Evgeni Pepelyaev scored 23 kills which was higher than Capt. Joseph McConnell at 16 kills)


Vietnam Aces:

only two American pilots became aces in the Vietnam War Randy "Duke" Cunningham (USN) and Steve Ritchie (USAF).

Sixteen Vietnamese pilots earned the honor of ace. Nguyen Van Coc is also the Top Ace of Vietnam War with 9 kills: 7 planes and 2 UAV (Un-manned Airborne Vehicle) Firebees. (note: I personally wouldn't count a UAV as a kill myself) I would also like to note: that North Vietnamese cliams are double that which the US forces show as lost in each fight, with the exception of the top Vietnamese ace.

[Roaming East]

hmm kinda answered my own question. heres a pretty cool link on Korean War soviet exploits
http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/SovietAces.html

11 of Pepelyaev's 23 kills were against vastly inferior aircraft but he still wasted 12 F86's a damn impressive feat

And heres a link on NVA aces. Plenty of guys reporting downing 8 or so fighters whereas the AF can only account for one missing.
http://wind.prohosting.com/flyaces/usr/home/web/f/flyaces/acesandeightsjetengineaces_northvietnameseaces.htm

[sergey31]

The point I was trying to make was: Soviet Mig 15 were not inferior to F86 fighters both planes had their ups and downs; Over all Mig was a more maneuverable plane.
The training is the thing that made the difference, machines can do so much.

In Vietnam F4's were not superior to Mig 21's hell Mig 17 gave them run for their money, Again training. IMO American pilots had much better air-to-air training especially in the later part of the war, and should have done even better.

So..... Again my point to some imbeciles on this tread is to open their eyes and see that American equipment was not always victorious against Soviet equipment. But training did make up the difference.

[GazB]

Stealth is obsolete now.... Russia has MANY radar systems that can spot stealth aircraft 600 + km away.
So all that expensive stealth technology is outdated and was waste of $.

No it isn't.

Those radars that can spot stealth aircraft are metric or larger wavelength. Ranging accuracy is measured in kms for those types of radar... you can't guide a weapon to a target with that amount of information. You can vector fighters, but those fighters will of course be vulnerable to the stealth fighter and they will only be able to use IR guided weapons or guns as the radar seekers on most AAMs are no use against stealth aircraft.


Russia has absolutely no Stealth experience, I doubt they can come out with something comparable to F-22 or F-35.
Not even to the Erofighter or Rafale...

And you know this because?
Did you know they invented the mathematics needed to calculate radar cross section? Without such mathematics it would be impossible to make a stealth aircraft except by trial and error. They also flew the first stealth aircraft during WWII. It was an aircraft made of glass. It was a failure because stress of flying created cracks but initially it was effective in making it very hard to spot.


just like those rear firing missles and plasma stealth hey ?

The rear firing missiles have been operational since the mid 80s... they are unmodified R-73 Archers. The only thing you need to fire them backwards is a rear facing pylon and a small fairing to cover the rear of the missile. The vectored thrust capability of the R-73 means it needs no other modification fore a rearward launch.

Regarding plasma stealth it was to be integrated to the Su-34. The Su-34 has entered production and 8 have been delivered already.


That is because of its high wavelenght, the stealth Layout was made for modern high frequncy radars. In manouvers German airdefense was able to detect F-117 with modified Radars of HAWK Batteries.

So you believe that a modified SAM radar can detect steath aircraft that are designed to evade SAMs and fighters radars, but don't believe much longer wave radars that can't even detect shape let alone be effected by stealth shaping can't... interesting logic.


and i guess the world class engineers who designed and build the F22 forgot about this ?


Designed by world class engineers, manufactured to in credibly fine tollerances, maintained with very expensive equipment and infrastructure to perform a specific way in a specific environment.


While some radars can still pick up a F-117 or B-2, it doesn't mean it can differentiate between a bee and a stealth plane with a RCS as big as the bee.

Except that very few bees actually fly at 20,000 ft at 800km/h.


But Sergey, when the Pilot is calling his Wife with a Cellphone while on a mission... I admit Tamara will find him...

You obviously have an excellent grasp of how such systems work...

They are not cellphone locators, they already have customised equipment for that... ask Dudaeyev... and if the Americans were a bit more organised after Desert Storm you could have asked Saddam... instead it was a few if his girlfriends houses that were levelled instead cause they got the timing wrong.

If you get a cellphone signal coming from the sky it has bounced off something. If you can't find it with a normal radar then there is a good chance it is a stealth aircraft.


If it came to the crunch. I'm sure the Russians would smack the yanks ass 1 on 1.

They certainly have the advantage that they are prepared to take casualties when necessary. The disadvantage is that they often take casualties needlessly because they don't solve problems as they surface.


If it was a vunerbility that was repeatable, Iraq should have been able to blow away 117's.

How many serbs were there in Iraq?


I don’t believe that’s how Russia is gaining all of it’s money from the US but in the early 1990s a lot of it’s money came from the US.

That was mostly in loans. It is why Russia has taken so long to turn around, because they have only now startedt o pay back the loans instead of just paying the interest.


Generally, during the Cold War the Russians were ten years behind the US in technology, so theoretically they should have built stealth aircraft by now. Just kind of interesting thing to think about.

The Russians can already build a stealth aircraft. They choose not to. The cost of maintainence is not worth the effort in their opinion.
One rivet sitting high one one part of the aircraft and Stealth becomes low observable... ie only a few can see you, to most can see you at normal engagement range. The Russians prefer reliability and rhobustness to silver bullet uber weapons.


"Stealth" concept began with the Germans who discovered the concept accidentally with the development of their flying wing and low-observable construction materials used on the plane.

Without a Russian mathematition to actually create the formulas stealth as we know would not exist... the best you could do would be relatively LO.


Lets not kid ourselves, the Soviet designers were absolutely ignorant and uninterested in Pyotr Ufimstev's theories, that just made it a lot easier for Pyotr Ufimstev to come over to the U.S. and give Denys Overholser a hand.

Lets not kid ourselves? Bull.
They were very interested in his theories and his formula, but the computational requirements of such a formula in three dimensions was beyond the computing power of the time. Indeed that is why the first stealth aircraft, the F-117 had flat faceted surfaces, to reduce the computational overhead. Equally the precision of actually building the curved surfaces to the level required made curves pointless as well. With later more powerful computers curved surfaces could be designed, and with robot factories could actually built.


then that in turn prove JoaMei scientific point earlier that is contrary to your claim, Russians still got to obey the natural laws of Physic, there goes the cellphone.


So ground based emissions from cellphones aren't reflected off objects in the sky? Interesting... that doesn't obey the laws of physics.


So, yes, when it come to stealth aircraft, the Germans were first to get there.

So name a german stealth aircraft. And I mean a stealth aircraft, not just low observable. I would be very interested to learn how they managed the level of manufacturing... the precision needed to get a stealth design to actually work as advertised in the real world. (Even if the design is perfect if it isn't made exactly to the plan then it won't work...)


funny that you say that cause as the blackjacks are wasting away whilst B2's are even now flying sorties unopposed it seems the russians were penny-wise pound foolish.

The Blackjacks are all fully operational, and they have continued production to complete several aircraft that were left unfinished at the end of the cold war.


I wish some people on this thread would go out and get some practical experience in the military.

Yanks: Stealth does a job and has both advantages and disadvantages. Half of you guys sound like you're still in 5th grade and just got a ladybird book on 80s fighter planes out of the library. I remember the days of being a school kid and thinking this amazing technology meant you could do a fly-past of the kremlin and pull a moonie without General Secretary knowing.

In reality, stealth is still vulnerable. How much so only the guys who made it and those that are studying it to counter it actually know, not a buch of mongs having a d*ck-measuring contest on the internet.

It's great for defeating old-school radars of clapped-out despots before you knock out their C3I infrastructure. Someone mentioned something about Iraq? We pasted their C3I back in the 90's and have been dropping iron on them for the last decade. I doubt that they were even capable of setting up a CAP over Bahgdad by the time we went in in 2003. Serbia was different because you had a more modern adversary who had the sense to use it's outdated equipment to it's maximum effect. It's not just about what tools you have in the box, but how you go about using them. The 'lucky shot' the serbs got wasn't lucky. It came about because they used their resources to the desired effect. One stealth 'kill' may not be a great kill to loss ratio, but it shows it can be done, even by a country with lesser capability.

There are always ways around a problem. No matter what you may think of Russia, it has access to a great number of creative, intelligent individuals who will continue, I'm sure, to design and build new technologies. Someone mentioned money and flying hours...flying hours are irrelevant with radars. You don't fly radars. If the Russians develop a radar that can detect modern stealth (or already have) then all you need is to deploy a few over priority targets, supported by CAPs or missile batteries.

Anyway, people often go into this childish 'plane vs plane' argument. In reality war is all-encompassing and you exploit the enemy's weakest spots. The weakest spots for any aircraft are their maintenance/rearm/refuel points. You simply take out the airfields that house the aircraft, or the tankers, or the C3I facilities and you seriously damage the ability of the enemy to get those airframes airborne.

Sorry for the repetition, but I thought that was worth repeating.

Stealth is not the perfect be all and end all. B-2s will not fly anywhere near an S-400 battery and if intelligence says there is one setting up the B-2s go back in their hangars. Of course unless it is Russia then other tools will be used and there will be losses but the battery would probably be taken down.

Sending an S-400 battery to Serbia during the Kosovo crisis would not have helped Serbia win the war. The Western powers would have taken more losses but the result would not have changed.


not wasting away? yeah sure, you post hours logged in flight by the Black jack for oh lets say 2000 and ill consider that true

What did you last bitch die of?


So the Yanks, euros, and the chinese believe in stealth.. but the russians dont. Any explaination for this ?

Even the Tu-160 had LO features. The Russians do believe in stealth. They just don't believe in completely compromising a design at huge cost to get it. The F-117 is quite pathetic except for its stealth. It lacks range, speed, and payload. Except near the early stages of a war when large parts of the enemies C3I is operational you wouldn't use an F-117 when you had longer range and much better armed F-16s or F-15s on call.


And all this time i thought it was the the russians lack of ability to rapidly produce in quantity the computers necessary to keep such an inherently unstable design like the nighthawk airborne

The An-124 cargo plane had fly by wire flight control system when it was designed in the 70s.


Can someone of the russians explain me why the Europeans started developing stealth drones like "Neuron" when they know russian Delta-elite-Jesus Radars are out there?

For the same reason the Russians have deployed stealth cruise missiles (Kh-101, Kh-102). Being not particularly visible at max range to a defence is actually a good thing. Flying very low also helps alot too.


There is no need for that, old Radars cam be jammed easily. And if stealth is useless, why are the russians always talking about their Planes are stealthy too and about misterious plasma stealth?

A jammer is vulnerable to a well equipped opponent.


I never said that stealth makes planes invisible, but it reduces the detection range of any type of radar or IR detector.

Not strictly true. Some measures to reduce detection range in some frequencies may have no effect whatsoever in other frenquencies. Equally there is no evidence that stealth aircraft are IR invisible... in fact the only evidence on the matter shows the contrary, with a British Rapier team successfully detecting and tracking a B-2 at a Farnborough airshow with thermal imaging equipment.


hey dont mean to go off topic.... But is stealth even really all that necessary.... Whats really a scary thing to look at and think about is how the blackbird was decomissioned...... what if aurora really exists and if has a viable weapons delivery system unlike the black bird..... thing doesn;t even need to be stealth..... just flies over drops its ordanance/payload and even though half the worlds radars are lighting up no missile defense system could hit it.

Except the supposed aurora flys at mach 6. The S-300V or to give it its NATO name SA-12 can hit targets flying at 2,800m/s. Basing mach one as 320m/s at sea level that suggests to me that unless the aurora can fly faster than mach 10 it is in trouble. The S-300V entered service in the early 80s. Later systems like the S-400 are credited with a capability against targets travelling over 4,000m/s.


btw, what exactly is this tested plane going to be?

Is it that S-37 Berkut/Golden Eagle or that MiG-1.44 MFI thingy or what?

Sukhoi won the competition so it will probably be S-37 based, though perhaps with a more conventional wing planform.


So eventually the US has to spend large amounts of dollars to bomb that equipment into oblivion and too meny good men die in the process. Without Russian equipment the evil guys would have got a lot less problem-causing assets.


Yeah, so those F-14s and F-4s the Iranians have don't kill at all... If the Soviets didn't sell them the weapons the French would even if the US wouldn't. No body made you invade Iraq, or bomb Kosovo. You want to save your soldiers lives? How about thinking before getting out the big stick.

[Roaming East]

Look, for the last time i know the Blackjack is a production plane, but is the damn thing still flying? are they still cranking them out of the assembly lines and if they are how many hours do they fly? having 7 planes that get 10 hours of flight time a year is a WASTE you are not doing anything because if the **** hit the fan you wouldnt be able to deploy a trained crew in any meaningful way

[Roaming East]

given the speed advantage of the SA12 over the Aurora, how would the engagement scenario play out? I can see a head on shot being successful but from any other angle seems dubious. Im assuming that the missle tracks onto the targets central mass. If it did that from an offset angle wouldnt that put the missle in a lag situation where it is chasing after the target? how long can it travel at mach 10 if that is the case? Seems as if it would need to know to lead the target so as to travel over less space. Not sure on AAD so is this what normal SAMS do?

[manuel]

Except the supposed aurora flys at mach 6. The S-300V or to give it its NATO name SA-12 can hit targets flying at 2,800m/s. Basing mach one as 320m/s at sea level that suggests to me that unless the aurora can fly faster than mach 10 it is in trouble. The S-300V entered service in the early 80s. Later systems like the S-400 are credited with a capability against targets travelling over 4,000m/s



I dont know man.. hitting a fast moving target is one thing.... hitting one that you had no idea was coming is totally different.... a plane traveling as fast as a supposed aurora would be out of range before personel could respond
Again... Blackbird sorties come to mind and yes I am aware that aurora may not even exist.

[GazB]

Look, for the last time i know the Blackjack is a production plane, but is the damn thing still flying? are they still cranking them out of the assembly lines and if they are how many hours do they fly? having 7 planes that get 10 hours of flight time a year is a WASTE you are not doing anything because if the **** hit the fan you wouldnt be able to deploy a trained crew in any meaningful way

Well since 2000 they have used their Blackjacks in two major exercises and have developed conventional weapons for it and changed its role from pure nuclear cruise missile carrier to a role more like the one the US use the B-52s for. It will get both long range conventionally armed cruise missiles as well as guided conventional bombs using satellite guidance. It will have its radar and avionics suite upgraded as will the remaining bears and backfires to a similar standard and its payload will be increased to 45 tons of conventional weapons.


given the speed advantage of the SA12 over the Aurora, how would the engagement scenario play out? I can see a head on shot being successful but from any other angle seems dubious.

Why do you assume a shot from the side would miss? Do you assume that the people programming the missile guidance are stupid?


Im assuming that the missle tracks onto the targets central mass. If it did that from an offset angle wouldnt that put the missle in a lag situation where it is chasing after the target?

Yes, you do think the people programming the missiles guidance are stupid.


how long can it travel at mach 10 if that is the case?

The SA-12 is based on two missiles. The SA-12A and SA-12B. One missile flys at mach 5.4 and the other at mach 7.2. They can engage targets flying at up to mach 9. A target flying at mach numbers in the 6-10 range fly pretty straight and pretty high. This makes them easy to spot and easy to track.


Seems as if it would need to know to lead the target so as to travel over less space. Not sure on AAD so is this what normal SAMS do?

AAMs and SAMs use proportional guidance. They fly toward the point where the target will be when the missile gets there rather than where the target is at the time. Also with major SAMs like the SA-12 the missile itself doens't track the target... the large ground based phased array radars do that and send flight command instructions to the missile in flight.

The job of the missile is to get to the point in space and time where the missile and target will be present at the same time at the right time.


Again... Blackbird sorties come to mind and yes I am aware that aurora may not even exist.

Do you mean the blackbird sorties over vietnam where the Chinese were sending tracking information to the Vietnamese telling them when the SR-71s took off and giving them the exact flight path to the point where they landed in Japan? Yeah, I don't think warning would be a problem. The only problem was having a missile that was big enough to intercept but small enough to hide so the SR-71 mission planners didn't just make the SR-71s flight path outside the weapons engagement envelope.

Considering the SR-71 was retired because it was too expensive, and considering F-22s cost quarter of a billion each, I really doubt a mach 6 stealth recon aircraft exists. Why would they have brought the SR-71 out of retirement if that were true?

[NicNZ]

Ah Gaz, you continue to impres.


A jammer is vulnerable to a well equipped opponent.
...and Mig-25s.

[manuel]

no i meant blackbird sorties over cuba and russia as well

[Roaming East]

Except the supposed aurora flys at mach 6. The S-300V or to give it its NATO name SA-12 can hit targets flying at 2,800m/s. Basing mach one as 320m/s at sea level that suggests to me that unless the aurora can fly faster than mach 10 it is in trouble. The S-300V entered service in the early 80s. Later systems like the S-400 are credited with a capability against targets travelling over 4,000m/s



I dont know man.. hitting a fast moving target is one thing.... hitting one that you had no idea was coming is totally different.... a plane traveling as fast as a supposed aurora would be out of range before personel could respond
Again... Blackbird sorties come to mind and yes I am aware that aurora may not even exist.

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~oblivion/Aurora.jpg

[Roaming East]

i recall the Patriot missle system as being created by very intelligent people and that it had a VERY crucial timing flaw that was only revieled in the field at the expense of lives. So i suppose question a missle platform instead of wholeheartedly agreeing to its potency is a healthy thing to do

[sergey31]

no i meant blackbird sorties over cuba and russia as well

SR 71's did not really fly over Russia, they could take photos from high altitude and at a angle. So just cruising along the border made Americans somewhat happy and they knew the risks if they happen to cross the airspace for a minute or so.

[Roaming East]

How fast do the fragments of an exploding warhead travel? if a missle is traveling at like mach 8 and explodes its fragments would have to also be traveling as fast or faster than the target in order to hit it unless it is a direct hit. my grasp of physics is tenous at best

[melon]

The point I was trying to make was: Soviet Mig 15 were not inferior to F86 fighters both planes had their ups and downs; Over all Mig was a more maneuverable plane.
The training is the thing that made the difference, machines can do so much.

In Vietnam F4's were not superior to Mig 21's hell Mig 17 gave them run for their money, Again training. IMO American pilots had much better air-to-air training especially in the later part of the war, and should have done even better.

So..... Again my point to some imbeciles on this tread is to open their eyes and see that American equipment was not always victorious against Soviet equipment. But training did make up the difference.


Any success stories from the last 30 years? Since you were born, perhaps? You're using 50 year old stories, anything recent? Please, inform my all knowing trap of them. I would love to hear the victories racked up in, say, the last 20 years. I don't have the time to go on a "little research" hunting expedition.


You put propoganda, biased research material, unproven designs and emotional rhetoric ahead of cold, hard mission success rates and somehow claim, based upon irrelevant historical examples, that everyone else is crazy. People use the phrase: "the point I was trying to make was..." when logic or results don't support your hypothosis. Its called bull****.

Have a good one, junior.

[Lokos]

Roaming East:

So you'd be willing to say that if American F-15s flew against Iran's F-14s the exchange ratio wouldn't be lopsided?

Come on.

The ARVN used American equipment against Soviet equipment and got smashed to nothingness within weeks after the Americans left.

If the Russians somehow decided to invade Saudi Arabia, those M1A1s the Saudis have wouldn't pose much threat at all.

It's NOT about the equipment. It's about who uses it, and how.

And that is the fundamental point most people here choose to forget.

Lokos

[Lokos]

melon:

I'd love to hear of a war the US fought in the last twenty years against a Soviet-armed and trained opponent.

Saddam don't qualify.

Lokos

[Lokos]

Melon:

They also use 'the point I was trying to make' when people like you refuse to grasp it.

Lokos

[Sayeret]

no i meant blackbird sorties over cuba and russia as well

SR 71's did not really fly over Russia, they could take photos from high altitude and at a angle. So just cruising along the border made Americans somewhat happy and they knew the risks if they happen to cross the airspace for a minute or so.

It's probably confidential to what degree SR-71s flew over Russia, just like Soviet aircraft spying on the US. There's a lot of stories that were kept secret to avoid starting a third world war.

SR-71s were made to be able to counter the air defense threat that had made the U-2 vulnerable. Since the U-2 was flown over the Soviet Union, I'd be surprised if a SR-71 never flew over it, considering all the other places they have flown over.

[melon]

melon:

I'd love to hear of a war the US fought in the last twenty years against a Soviet-armed and trained opponent.

Saddam don't qualify.

Lokos

Of course it doesn't. In my opinion, it would have made ZERO difference who was manning those tanks and BMP's.

Saddams core army, the first go around, was battle hardend and well trained. They suffered horribly to US equipment and tactics. His whole army was set up under Soviet doctrine, down to C3 and tactical formations. The only difference it would have made was in the KIA the US and coalitions suffered, but the result would have been the same. But your right, it is more than equipment. The old soviet doctrine was ****, WW2 massed attacks supported by divisions of artilery and air. Too predictable. Our whole military apparatus at the time was set up to defeat this type of threat.

[Lokos]

How much do you really know about Saddam's army, circa 1990-1991?

It wasn't 'battle hardened'. It was mauled. It had spent eight years in continuous combat against Iran, suffering hundreds of thousands of KIAs and millions of WIAs/MIAs. Soviet support had been withdrawn by the late 80s, resulting in chronic equipment shortages and other logistical difficulties. T72s were stuck using T55 ammo that was only suited to fighting M48s in Europe.

The Iraqi army of 1991 was a weaker beast (much weaker) than the Iraqi army of 1980. Their so-called 'Soviet' C3I was a joke. Their air defence was out dated. Their air support next to non existent - lack of maintenance, lack of pilot training, lack of spare parts, lack of ammo stock piles, lack of everything else there can be a lack of.

This was NOT a Soviet trained/equipped army. This was the remnant of such an army. A shadow, and nothing more, still using technology from the late 70s.

Now, how much do you really know about Soviet tactical/operational doctrines? Not much, I see. Especially with statements like 'WW2 massed attacks'. Soviet military art/science was not to be trifled with - and NATO commanders understood this well enough.

As suited as NATO was to fighting the Soviets in Europe, so were the Soviets suited to fighting NATO in Europe.

Your continued dismissal of the Soviets as a force to be reckoned with is just a testament to your own ignorance.

Lokos

[Roaming East]

ive stated the man v the machine argument plenty of times, i wasnt very eloquent in that regard but the last time the US went up against a soviet trained army i guess was 'nam and we all have different views of that debacle.
Oh and i hate F14's so i'd never say that battle would be lopsided against the F15 :)

[Lokos]

'Nam was actually mostly supported by the Chinese. The Soviets sent some equipment, and some advisors, but I don't think that qualifies the NVA as a Soviet trained army.

But don't you think most people here are just swinging their ****s about without actually looking at the nature of the beast objectively and disapassionately?

Lokos

[sergey31]

The point I was trying to make was: Soviet Mig 15 were not inferior to F86 fighters both planes had their ups and downs; Over all Mig was a more maneuverable plane.
The training is the thing that made the difference, machines can do so much.

In Vietnam F4's were not superior to Mig 21's hell Mig 17 gave them run for their money, Again training. IMO American pilots had much better air-to-air training especially in the later part of the war, and should have done even better.

So..... Again my point to some imbeciles on this tread is to open their eyes and see that American equipment was not always victorious against Soviet equipment. But training did make up the difference.


Any success stories from the last 30 years? Since you were born, perhaps? You're using 50 year old stories, anything recent? Please, inform my all knowing trap of them. I would love to hear the victories racked up in, say, the last 20 years. I don't have the time to go on a "little research" hunting expedition.


You put propoganda, biased research material, unproven designs and emotional rhetoric ahead of cold, hard mission success rates and somehow claim, based upon irrelevant historical examples, that everyone else is crazy. People use the phrase: "the point I was trying to make was..." when logic or results don't support your hypothosis. Its called bull****.

Have a good one, junior.

Hey Kid. Look up German Luftwaffe Mig 29 training vs F16's and F18's..... Not a real warfare but if it was I would put my money on Germans and their Migs.

And when was the last time Soviets were fighting a secret war against Americans similar to Korea and Vietnam?

So what your saying is that in 1991 Gulf War, if Sadam had all the American equipment (tanks, planes etc) and used American tactics then he would have defeated the 50 or so nation coalition against him or would he have faired any better then he did? No the results would have been exactly the same even if he used American tactics and equipment.
So stop all the crap comparison about Iraq and their old Soviet equipment.
Hmmm...Smart, I see you are.

[Roaming East]

Hell i learned plenty bof stuff in this thread already. Still kinda reeling from the ownage that the Soviets did upon the USAF in Korea

[stuntman]

Hell i learned plenty bof stuff in this thread already. Still kinda reeling from the ownage that the Soviets did upon the USAF in Korea

You mean the ownage the USA did because even though we lost lots of pilots it was always 3 to 1 our(US) favor!

[sergey31]

edit:

[stuntman]

edit:
EHH!!!
Well consider the source...
I felt the articles and accounts were very fair and very interesting , but I felt alot of bull**** also. I love the story how one Russian pilot took down 3 planes. Now this maybe true, but in the story it ended up out of the 3 two of them were former US Ace's from ww2. Now this stuff reads more like part of the climax of a novel not like a real account of Soviet abilities which I respect but lots of imbelishment was written into these accounts and I don't blame the brave Russian pilots for that.
Stories are a little shaky to me but in all they did respect our pilots and I never said they (Soviets) were bad pilots I just said the ratio through out the war was still 3 to 1 !!!!

[sergey31]

edit:
EHH!!!
Well consider the source...
I felt the articles and accounts were very fair and very interesting , but I felt alot of bull**** also. I love the story how one Russian pilot took down 3 planes. Now this maybe true, but in the story it ended up out of the 3 two of them were former US Ace's from ww2. Now this stuff reads more like part of the climax of a novel not like a real account of Soviet abilities which I respect but lots of imbelishment was written into these accounts and I don't blame the brave Russian pilots for that.
Stories are a little shaky to me but in all they did respect our pilots and I never said they (Soviets) were bad pilots I just said the ratio through out the war was still 3 to 1 !!!!

I agree with you that the credibility of that site is a bit shaky... But Americans did have over all edge against Migs but what your forgetting is that most of those shot down Migs were piloted my Korean, Chinese and not Russian pilots..... Russian Pilots scored overall higher against Americans don't putt them under the same table with the rest Mig pilots.

[Seiyuuki]

BTW Pyotr Ufimtsev came to U.S in early 90's way after F117 was operational and B2 was manufactured. Do some research before talking crap.

Did anyone said Pyotr Ufimtsev came over to the U.S. and worked on the F-117 and B-2, except you, nice try, but still miss the point.


Without a Russian mathematition to actually create the formulas stealth as we know would not exist... the best you could do would be relatively LO.

For the umpteenth time, "stealth" IS low-observability. You can't pick and choose the definition whenever it is convenient for your argument. Reduce RCS, reduce IR, reduce visibility, all working toward one goal...so it is harder for the enemy to see you coming by it be radar, FLIR, or whatever sensory systems they got set up. Difficult to see, perceive, detect, observe, etc... = low-observability = stealthy. The Horten's prototype and its subsequent spawning of the B-2, along with the F-35, F/A-22, Eurofighter, Rafale, YF-23, S-47, etc. are all low-observable = stealthy aircraft.

Let me repeat myself, just as there are 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. generation of aircraft, stealth follow the same trend of evolution. Pyotr Ufimtsev mathematical equation took stealth to the next level (Notice I never discredit the man for anything). Just as the F-35 and F/A-22 is the next step in stealth design. As you proven my point in that explanation on curve designs. As technology evolve, so does the improvement in stealth. The introduction of RAM, IR signature suppression on engine exhaust, using composite materials to reduce the number of rivets, fly-by-wire and advance computing allow for the elimination of the vertical tail and still maintain control over the aircraft, without a vertical tail, the RCS of flying wing was reduce and so forth. Just for the sake of argument, I buy into the plasma stealth, again, an additional advance in stealth. Just because the technological advance of today make the modern aircraft so much more different than earlier design doesn't mean the Wright brothers were not the first to fly an aircraft.

[sergey31]

BTW Pyotr Ufimtsev came to U.S in early 90's way after F117 was operational and B2 was manufactured. Do some research before talking crap.

Did anyone said Pyotr Ufimtsev came over to the U.S. and worked on the F-117 and B-2, except you, nice try, but still miss the point.



Who wrote this? Not you?


that just made it a lot easier for Pyotr Ufimstev to come over to the U.S. and give Denys Overholser a hand.

[Seiyuuki]

BTW Pyotr Ufimtsev came to U.S in early 90's way after F117 was operational and B2 was manufactured. Do some research before talking crap.

Did anyone said Pyotr Ufimtsev came over to the U.S. and worked on the F-117 and B-2, except you, nice try, but still miss the point.



Who wrote this? Not you?


that just made it a lot easier for Pyotr Ufimstev to come over to the U.S. and give Denys Overholser a hand.

And...F-117, B-2, 70's, 80's, Skunk Work, worked, build, make...would be in there where...Get a clue (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=figure%20of%20speech) and get the missing point.

[sergey31]

BTW Pyotr Ufimtsev came to U.S in early 90's way after F117 was operational and B2 was manufactured. Do some research before talking crap.

Did anyone said Pyotr Ufimtsev came over to the U.S. and worked on the F-117 and B-2, except you, nice try, but still miss the point.



Who wrote this? Not you?


that just made it a lot easier for Pyotr Ufimstev to come over to the U.S. and give Denys Overholser a hand.

And...F-117, B-2, 70's, 80's, Skunk Work, worked, build, make...would be in there where...Get a clue (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=figure%20of%20speech) and get the missing point.

There is no clue, only BS backpedaling.

You stated that he came over here and helped them, didn't you?

I pointed out that they got his concept idea while he was there from his work translated into English. He was not involved in the skunkworks himself nor did he collaborated with Americans on anything while he lived in Russia.

If you by all that tried to make some sarcastic joke, well it does not fit in anyway with your logic and sentence composition.

And yes Russians were never interested in his ideas and that is why they did not jump into expensive and useless projects.

[Kilgor]

The rear firing missiles have been operational since the mid 80s... they are unmodified R-73 Archers. The only thing you need to fire them backwards is a rear facing pylon and a small fairing to cover the rear of the missile. The vectored thrust capability of the R-73 means it needs no other modification fore a rearward launch.

Regarding plasma stealth it was to be integrated to the Su-34. The Su-34 has entered production and 8 have been delivered already.


I remember someone like AF cadet has said that rear firing missles have NEVER worked properly. And as for plasma stealth, ive got bridge to sell you.

This whole thread has gone to ****ter. No proof of rear firing missles, no proof of plasma stealth, and no proof of this super uber see all russian radar which belongs in the same catagory of internet chest beating bull****.

Proof or STFU

[sergey31]

The rear firing missiles have been operational since the mid 80s... they are unmodified R-73 Archers. The only thing you need to fire them backwards is a rear facing pylon and a small fairing to cover the rear of the missile. The vectored thrust capability of the R-73 means it needs no other modification fore a rearward launch.

Regarding plasma stealth it was to be integrated to the Su-34. The Su-34 has entered production and 8 have been delivered already.


I remember someone like AF cadet has said that rear firing missles have NEVER worked properly.
And let me guess, AF cadet was working with Russians in testing their missiles. I also remember his little BS about Mig 29 maneuverability discussion.
And as for plasma stealth, ive got bridge to sell you.
So you say it does not work? Does B2 stealth features meke it invisible? How fast is B2?
In theory Plasma stealth should work and no one here is qualified enough to know much about it anyway.
But then again in theory "Stealth" B2 should work as well and most of us know just how well it really works.

Proof or STFU


That mostly applies to people who this tread bothers the most, STFU and stay out.

[Roaming East]

Anybody seen pics of combat loaded Sukhois during training missions with missles regularly pointed rearward? If not than i suppose that the possibility of it doesnt factor out the practicality of doing it.
The F117a has a drop in bustle system that gives it provisions for carrying an AIM9M missle as opposed to a bomb for supposed AntiAWACS work. they never use the thing and they dont train for it but that doesnt mean it cant be done. same situation really

[sergey31]

The tests were successful.
http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/R-73.gif

[sergey31]

Anybody seen pics of combat loaded Sukhois during training missions with missles regularly pointed rearward? If not than i suppose that the possibility of it doesnt factor out the practicality of doing it.
The F117a has a drop in bustle system that gives it provisions for carrying an AIM9M missle as opposed to a bomb for supposed AntiAWACS work. they never use the thing and they dont train for it but that doesnt mean it cant be done. same situation really

F117 to be used as fighter? rofl

I'm sure drunk pilot in Yak 38 would take on several of them.

[Kilgor]

the A-10 can carry sidewinders but it doesnt make it a fighter.

Your pretty ignorant sergey.

But please link us some information about rear firing missles.

[Kilgor]

oh yeah.. shooting down drones in tests.

real operational status. none.

the US missle sheild has shot down drones in tests too rofl

[Roaming East]

since im sure im gonna be called on the F117 thing heres the guy who'd now best. robert.clayton@shaw.af.mil

[sergey31]

the A-10 can carry sidewinders but it doesnt make it a fighter.

Your pretty ignorant sergey.

But please link us some information about rear firing missles.

I did not say F117 was a fighter. I said to be used as one. It only has two internal hardpoints and if it to carry AA missiles then that would make it a fighter primary role. I don't think A10 would be sent on a mission armed with only AA missiles.

There is allot of secrecy still hidden in Russia, so not that much information is available to people on the internet about their tests and experiments.
Even little that they do have is good enough and just shows that they are doing something new. It is a tip of the iceberg.

And when it comes to AA 11 it does not matter if it's UAV or other highly maneuverable fighter, the missile can easily deal with both... Nothing funny about that. Or maybe your implying that they actually send manned fighter on a suicide mission?

[Berkut]

By the way, the type of stealth technology the US uses (shape stealth) was invented by a Soviet mathematician...

[Kilgor]

By the way, the type of stealth technology the US uses (shape stealth) was invented by a Soviet mathematician...

Of course it was

Just like things like the lightbulb and countless other western and european inventions when the communist party decided to revise history.

[jmatucd]

ok everyone.... just shut up and leave it be.... for heaven's sake, someone lock this before there is any more suffering.... think of the children!

[GazB]

no i meant blackbird sorties over cuba and russia as well

What blackbird sorties over Russia?

The only Russian sorties were actually soviet sorties using SLAR or side looking airborne radar. In other words you fly along the border of a country and use a side mounted radar to look over the border into the country. There were no across Russia or Across Soviet Union flights in the SR-71. The Russian Mig-25s and Mig-31s practised intercepting SR-71s on every flight they flew. They knew when it took off and when it landed and what exact precise flightpath it took. (its speed and altitude identified it immediately... there were no boeings flying at mach 3). It was only the fact that the SR-71s remained in international airspace the prevented the Mig-25s and Mig-31s from launching weapons at them.


i recall the Patriot missle system as being created by very intelligent people and that it had a VERY crucial timing flaw that was only revieled in the field at the expense of lives.

I didn't know any of the people who made patriot personally but would assume they were intelligent and competant people. What they weren't was telepathic. The US armed forces asked for a SAM system to engage aircraft. A scud coming in at mach 7 from a ballistic launch several hundred kms away was not part of the design specs for the patriot. Equally as the scuds in this case were extended range versions that were not structurally improved and tended to break up as they came in because they were flying faster than they were designed to fly so the patriot successfully hit the largest part... the rocket motor... rather than the warhead, you could say the patriot was a huge success but was designed for the wrong mission in this case.

The SA-12 was designed from the outset as an anti theatre ballistic missile system... or ATBM. Otherwise the S-300 series (SA-10) would be a bit redundant as it does pretty much the same thing as patriot, though being a larger missile it does it at longer range with slightly more speed. (mach 6).


if a missle is traveling at like mach 8 and explodes its fragments would have to also be traveling as fast or faster than the target in order to hit it unless it is a direct hit. my grasp of physics is tenous at best

How fast does a bullet proof vest travel? How fast does the armour on a tank move to stop APFSDS rounds flying at 1.6km/s?

It is not how fast you travel but when you detect the threat, plot its path and get something to a point where the target will be when the missile gets there too.

The Russian missiles have adaptive warheads. Ie they have multiple detonators so they can direct the stream of fragments directly at the target when the proximity fuse fires the warhead. With the velocity of the fragments known by the designers and the missile knowing its position relative to the target at the time of the detonation a simple calculation will determine which detonator to fire to direct the fragments at the point of most effect... generally the warhead section.


It's probably confidential to what degree SR-71s flew over Russia, just like Soviet aircraft spying on the US. There's a lot of stories that were kept secret to avoid starting a third world war.


Two important facts. First the US itself banned US overflights of the Soviet Union after Powers was shot down in his invulnerable plane. Second the Mig-31/S-300V/-S-300 generation were designed to shoot down SR-71 and faster type targets. All current evidence suggests they could perform their mission reliably enough to pretty much ensure a kill.

If an SR-71 violated Soviet airspace they would shoot it down and it would not cause WWIII. The U-2 incident didn't cause WWIII, why would this.

Ask yourself how many US personel were killed flying recon missions on the borders of the Soviet Union. These numbers are not trumpeted, but they are available... they aren't hidden. (and we are talking over 1 hundred personel BTW)


SR-71s were made to be able to counter the air defense threat that had made the U-2 vulnerable.

So the SR-71 was designed to evade the SA-2... so what?
The Mig-25 was designed to destroy the SR-71, and considering at normal operating speed the SR-71 glows so hot the IRST alone on a Mig-25 can detect an SR-71 at over 120km and an R-40TD can kill an SR-71 from 80km I am thinking there wouldn't be a problem intercepting SR-71s over the Soviet Union.


Saddams core army, the first go around, was battle hardend and well trained. They suffered horribly to US equipment and tactics.

They suffered horribly because they didn't have air superiority. Saddams forces were an eggshell. Fine against another eggshell like Iran, but not against the world... it wasn't just the US there afterall.


Oh and i hate F14's so i'd never say that battle would be lopsided against the F15

So you have bad taste too. The F-14 in the D model with decent engines was a very impressive aircraft. Swap the Sparrows for AMRAAMs and give it new model Sidewinders with staring IR arrays and it would be a much better fighter than the F-15. It was not an accident that during the Gulf war when the Iraqi pilots detected an F-14s radar in the air they turned and ran.



For the umpteenth time, "stealth" IS low-observability. You can't pick and choose the definition whenever it is convenient for your argument.

Wrong. Rafale and Typhoon are LO. F-22/F-117/B-2 is stealth.


The Horten's prototype and its subsequent spawning of the B-2,

Hortens flying wing was about flight efficiency... low drag by removing the fuselage. It had nothing to do with radar signature. The low frequencies they used for GCI radars was too low to be effected by shape.


As you proven my point in that explanation on curve designs.

Proven what point?

this one?


As technology evolve, so does the improvement in stealth.

Well duh!!! As technology improves, so does {insert any technology here} improve. Wow. Thanks for sharing that.


elimination of the vertical tail and still maintain control over the aircraft, without a vertical tail, the RCS of flying wing was reduce and so forth.

Except the german flying wing got rid of the vertical tail to reduce weight and drag... nothing to do with RCS.


Just for the sake of argument, I buy into the plasma stealth, again, an additional advance in stealth.

Plasma stealth has little to do with american ideas of stealth. It is not meant to hide the aircraft from detection. It is an ECM device. Why do you think it is designed to be fitted to a strike aircraft instead of a fighter?

The Su-34 will fly low and fast to evade radar detection. The plasma stealth is to protect it from radar guided weapons like Patriot, Hawk, and AMRAAM. ie when they are launched the plasma stealth is turned on and they miss what they can't see. When the IRST on the Su-34 sees no more inbound missiles the plasma stealth is turned off and the aircraft continues its mission without having to dump its warload or even deviate its flight path much.

Plasma stealth was originally designed to be fitted to the warheads of ICBMs and other balistic missiles to make them uninterceptible. They view their aircraft as manned missiles/missile platforms.


Just because the technological advance of today make the modern aircraft so much more different than earlier design doesn't mean the Wright brothers were not the first to fly an aircraft.

If is rarely questioned in the US but not everyone believes the Wright Brothers were the first to fly an aircraft.


I remember someone like AF cadet has said that rear firing missles have NEVER worked properly.

They were tested and they worked as expected. The only failures were the rear launched R-27s. That is to be expected as the R-27 has large control fins to stabilise it in flight and no thrust vectoring. When fired backwards a missile starts out travelling backwards and its acceleration basically takes it from a speed of -400km/h or more through to zero and then acceleration up to flight speed, which would be about mach 1-2. When it is hanging there at 0 speed the flight controls based on wings and other physical control surfaces don't work so an R-27 just drops its nose. This causes it to lose lock and although the rocket motor is still burning it will tend to just accelerate unguided straight into the ground. The R-73 on the other hand has vectored thrust and can maintain its nose pointing in a certain direction at any speed and maintains lock. The main problem is greatly reduced range. Its range at low level (it is intended for strike aircraft) would be less than 4kms. Against a threat like an incoming patriot or HAWK then that is still very useful, but as the standard Russian strike aircraft will be the Su-34 and it is supposed to have plasma stealth capability the idea was dropped. It was also found that installing an auto pilot and having the missile launched forward do a 180 degree turn achieved much the same thing but also added height to the missiles flightpath, which added range to the missile fired at rearward targets. (incidently while these test were going on the Israelis released info about their Python AAM that does 180 degree turns to engage rear targets too.)


And as for plasma stealth, ive got bridge to sell you.


Impressed that you are an expert in this area... and you sell bridges too?


In theory Plasma stealth should work and no one here is qualified enough to know much about it anyway.


Not in theory. During reentry spacecraft are "lost" from radar and radio communication due to ionisation. Plasma stealth is based on the results but not the method. Instead of friction and heat, they plan to generate an ionising field around the aircraft using an electric field.


Anybody seen pics of combat loaded Sukhois during training missions with missles regularly pointed rearward? If not than i suppose that the possibility of it doesnt factor out the practicality of doing it.

If you have a photo of an operational Su-34 armed with real weapons I'd like to see it. And if you don't, what does that prove? That the 8 Su-34s that were delivered the the Russian airforce this year don't exist? Interesting.


The F117a has a drop in bustle system that gives it provisions for carrying an AIM9M missle as opposed to a bomb for supposed AntiAWACS work. they never use the thing and they dont train for it but that doesnt mean it cant be done. same situation really

When was it tested? And no, considering the AIM-9M doesn't have thrust vectoring and can't be fired in a lock on after launch mode it can't be fired backwards it is not the same thing. It is more like fitting a Nimrod MPA with sidewinders... no big deal... just a matter of rewiring the pylon and an avionics update. Firing missiles backwards is rather more difficult... and impossible for any 1980s US AAM.

[Roaming East]

The F14 D model was an interim project designed to keep the 14 flying for the limited time it would take for the super hornet to be introduced. The abilit to carry a pair of bombs marginally further than a regular hornet could carry 4 or so in no way made it a superior aircraft. For what the D model was designed to do it was over rated and overly expensive and time consuming to work on. But thats all a matter of opinion really. Never stated the F117 was going to fire missles backwards. As far as i know the bustle system for its internal bay was never actually fielded so its a moot point anyway.

Oh and the flaw in the patriots system had nothing to do with what it was engaging. the radar on it recycled a few microseconds every hour it was left active so when it was fired the missle would be under estimating its actual engagment envelope by anywhere from a few seconds (a miss) to a minute (failure to detonate at all) or something to that effect

[Seiyuuki]

For the umpteenth time, "stealth" IS low-observability. You can't pick and choose the definition whenever it is convenient for your argument.


http://www.anomalous-images.com/news/news332.html

As academic explained, American approach to LO (Stealth technology) applied on B-2, F-117A, and fifth generation fighter F-22 "Raptor" is based on the following principles. The airframes of these aircrafts are designed to minimize their radar cross section (RCS), avoid all possible elements of the structure, which could reflect electromagnetic radiation. In order to minimize reflected radiation radio absorbing materials (RAM) are also applied to the surface of the structure. The main drawbacks of the Stealth technology are its negative effects on the flight and agility characteristics of the stealth aircrafts.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-stealth.htm

A quick look at the F-22 reveals an adherence to fundamental shaping principles of a stealthy design. 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 canopy seam, bay doors, and other surface interfaces are sawtoothed. The vertical tails are canted. The engine face is deeply hidden by a serpentine inlet duct and weapons are carried internally.

Advances in low-observable technologies provide significantly improved survivability and lethality against air-to-air and surface-to-air threats. The F-22's combination of reduced observability and supercruise accentuates the advantage of surprise in a tactical environment. The most publicized and most revolutionary technology for aircraft is stealth. Stealth makes an object become very difficult to detect by sensors such as radar, heat seekers (infrared), sound detectors and even the human eye. While not invisible, the F-22's radar cross section is comparable to the radar cross sections of birds and bees. Compared to other current fighters, the F-22 is much more difficult to detect.

To make a stealthy aircraft, designers had to consider five key ingredients: reducing the imprint on radar screens, muffling noise, turning down the heat of its infrared picture, stifling radio transmissions and making the plane less visible. 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 canopy seam, bay doors and other surface interfaces are saw-toothed. The vertical tails are canted. The engine face is deeply hidden by a serpentine inlet duct and weapons are carried internally.


http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=82

The revolutionary blending of low-observable technologies with high aerodynamic efficiency and large payload gives the B-2 important advantages over existing bombers. Its low-observability provides it greater freedom of action at high altitudes, thus increasing its range and a better field of view for the aircraft's sensors. Its unrefueled range is approximately 6,000 nautical miles (9,600 kilometers).


http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/products/usaf_products/b2/b2.html

Structurally, the B-2's design can be traced back to Jack Northrop's flying wing designs of the 1940s. The aircraft's integrated computer systems comprise over 130 computers and nearly 2 million lines of software code. Operated by the U.S. Air Force, the B-2 is the world's preeminent strategic, long-range multi-role bomber. Its low observable characteristics make it the world's most survivable aircraft as well, able to penetrate hostile air space without being detected. The B-2 has repeatedly demonstrated this and its all-weather capability during Operation Allied Force and Operation Enduring Freedom with missions of up to 44 hours duration.

For the umpteenth time, "stealth" IS low-observability. You can't pick and choose the definition whenever it is convenient for your argument.

The only differential matter is the principles of low observability as its apply to the advances of technologies and cost.

[manuel]

although quite impressive for the time Mig-25s and Mig-31s had no chance of intercepting the SR-71 other than a head on shotand as fast as the Sr-71 travels we all know how unlikely that would be. And i find it interesting that you say that the only reason they did not engage was because the sr-71 was in international airspace even that russian defector stated that mig 25's and 31s regularly tried to engage the black bird but failed to place themselves in any advantagous positions.

[sergey31]

although quite impressive for the time Mig-25s and Mig-31s had no chance of intercepting the SR-71 other than a head on shot. sorry to burst your bubble.



How fast is SR 71?..... What's maximum speed of Mig 25? How fast can be those AA's be at high altitude lunched at Mach 3 ....well you do the math.....
Not to mention Mig 31 with newer and faster missiles and better radar.

[sergey31]

even that russian defector stated that mig 25's and 31s regularly tried to engage the black bird but failed to place themselves in any advantagous positions.

And who is this Russian defector?

[manuel]

the math played itself out... how many blackbirds were shot down?

[manuel]

to be quite honest.. i dont remember his name. But he defected with a mig 25 or 31 cant recall... But if my memory serves correctly there was a thread posted about that not too long ago.. I'll see if i can dig it up. brb

[jmatucd]

... the one in japan is most likely what you are thinking of..... which gets me to the point................................................................................... cool it people, my stealth poncho owns you all

[manuel]

here it sergey i found it. And please dont think Just because Im american and willingly admit i do fancy American Hardware means that im trying to bash on Soviet/Russian Hardware. Im not overly prejudice like many people on this board. Just trying to turn up some info thats all.


http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=46563&highlight=mig

[sergey31]

Ahh I see you mean Victor Belenko (that was an easy trap :D )

O.K..... How many Mig 31's were operational when he defected? Were AA-10's in service as well then?

And to your other question about how many SR 71's were shot down..... How many of them actually crossed the Soviet Airspace? And if they did where did they fly and for how long? If you can answer those questions then I might believe you.

[Roaming East]

pretty sure such info is classified as the pilots are still alive and would most likely like to remain so

[Shiftyfive]

Ahh I see you mean Victor Belenko (that was an easy trap :D )

O.K..... How many Mig 31's were operational when he defected? Were AA-10's in service as well then?

And to your other question about how many SR 71's were shot down..... How many of them actually crossed the Soviet Airspace? And if they did where did they fly and for how long? If you can answer those questions then I might believe you.

they flew right at the edge of soviet airspace and never over it as far as we know -and the soviets would launch mig 25s and others after them to try and intercept - but they never succeded. How ever SR-71 did face russian anti-air forces manned by russian personel on more than one occasion - Libya ring a bell? but that doesnt count since it was probably the export versions :roll:

you ought to read the first hand accounts by SR-71 pilots - pretty interesting read - but it might put an end to that perpetual ***** you have for all things russian my america living friend.

[Shiftyfive]

the A-10 can carry sidewinders but it doesnt make it a fighter.

Your pretty ignorant sergey.

But please link us some information about rear firing missles.

I did not say F117 was a fighter. I said to be used as one. It only has two internal hardpoints and if it to carry AA missiles then that would make it a fighter primary role. I don't think A10 would be sent on a mission armed with only AA missiles.

There is allot of secrecy still hidden in Russia, so not that much information is available to people on the internet about their tests and experiments.
Even little that they do have is good enough and just shows that they are doing something new. It is a tip of the iceberg.



what a copout :roll:

there is still alot of secrecy in the US - that must mean what we see the US display is the tip of the iceberg too. I know about the deathstar we have developed but due to secrecy in the US I can not tell you anymore than that. But because I have told you of it - you phones and internet is mostly likey tapped now - sorry my bad. :roll:

[Lokos]

Shifty:

You're so God damned stupid it's just... sad.

Lokos

[Shiftyfive]

Shifty:

You're so God damned stupid it's just... sad.

Lokos


your just jealous of my pony and my spaceship - but you got "papers"

rofl

[Lokos]

:petting:

Lokos

[Shiftyfive]

:petting:

Lokos


rofl god your so much fun

and dude why do you always want to pet me? I dont swing that way - an exit is a exit on the ol shiftyfive - sorry to burst your bubble. but maybe you could come over and show me those "papers" rofl

[sergey31]

edit:

[sergey31]

Ahh I see you mean Victor Belenko (that was an easy trap :D )

O.K..... How many Mig 31's were operational when he defected? Were AA-10's in service as well then?

And to your other question about how many SR 71's were shot down..... How many of them actually crossed the Soviet Airspace? And if they did where did they fly and for how long? If you can answer those questions then I might believe you.

they flew right at the edge of soviet airspace and never over it as far as we know -and the soviets would launch mig 25s and others after them to try and intercept - but they never succeded. How ever SR-71 did face russian anti-air forces manned by russian personel on more than one occasion - Libya ring a bell? but that doesnt count since it was probably the export versions :roll:

you ought to read the first hand accounts by SR-71 pilots - pretty interesting read - but it might put an end to that perpetual ***** you have for all things russian my america living friend.

So if they flew at the "edge" of Soviet airspace then what right did Soviets had in shooting them down if they actually never CROSSED the airspace???

Libya? SR 71 or any recon plane can take photos of Libya from Egypt and not even cross their air space... What a joke, Libya. Have to come up better then that.

[oldsoak]

we seem to be sliding into the "mine is bigger than yours" debate again. First thing - technology never stands still. There is stuff that is that is public domain now that would have been top secret a few years back. If they had to design the F22 from scratch now, they'd come back with more advanced technologies, the same is true for anyone else. Secondly, US fighters were designed to be equal or superior to what would be around when they entered service. no one designs a fighter to be inferior to what they are likely to face. How long that supeiority would last is anyones guess. The Russians have suffered a lot of disruption to their R&D and arms programs in a detrimental way of late. Thats not talking down their capabilities, their R&D teams are very good - after all Raptor is good because it had to be designed against what the US thought the Russians could do. In a way, its a most sincere form of flattery .
BTW There is talk of applying torpedo wake homing technology to air to air missiles. Yes, I know it sounds bizarre, but if its possible, stealth now becomes very interesting. You cant hide the turbulent air you create flying supercruise.
It is an accepted fact that once one fighter enters service someone somewhere will attempt to design one better. So the Russians will attempt to counter US fighters with the next generation of weaponry. And then the US will do the same and so it goes on. The US and the Russians are already focussing on the next generation - beyond Raptor. The Russians probably conclude that trying to develop an aircraft to counter Raptor is pointless given lead times. Getting the next generation is a better solution, or getting the next generation of weaponry capable of taking down a stealth aircraft.

[Lokos]

Shifty:

Lo-hoo-ser.

Lokos

[Shiftyfive]

Shifty:

Lo-hoo-ser.

Lokos\

rofl

Lokos:


Po -ooo-ser

rofl

[Shiftyfive]

Ahh I see you mean Victor Belenko (that was an easy trap :D )

O.K..... How many Mig 31's were operational when he defected? Were AA-10's in service as well then?

And to your other question about how many SR 71's were shot down..... How many of them actually crossed the Soviet Airspace? And if they did where did they fly and for how long? If you can answer those questions then I might believe you.

they flew right at the edge of soviet airspace and never over it as far as we know -and the soviets would launch mig 25s and others after them to try and intercept - but they never succeded. How ever SR-71 did face russian anti-air forces manned by russian personel on more than one occasion - Libya ring a bell? but that doesnt count since it was probably the export versions :roll:

you ought to read the first hand accounts by SR-71 pilots - pretty interesting read - but it might put an end to that perpetual ***** you have for all things russian my america living friend.

So if they flew at the "edge" of Soviet airspace then what right did Soviets had in shooting them down if they actually never CROSSED the airspace???

Libya? SR 71 or any recon plane can take photos of Libya from Egypt and not even cross their air space... What a joke, Libya. Have to come up better then that.

rofl

they couldnt shoot them down cause we were using american "plasma stealth" its uber secret and due to the secrecy in the US I can not tell you more.
rofl

Dude pick up any book written by a SR-71 pilot - read it - lose the *****

[Lokos]

Shifty:

Uhh, 'Po-ooo-ser' doesn't really roll off the tongue the way you mean it to, dildo.

Try again. This time, wow me and employ 4th grade articulation, as a change of pace. You've been employing the 2nd grade long enough.

Lokos

[Shiftyfive]

Shifty:

Uhh, 'Po-ooo-ser' doesn't really roll off the tongue the way you mean it to, dildo.

Try again. This time, wow me and employ 4th grade articulation, as a change of pace. You've been employing the 2nd grade long enough.

Lokos

lokos I was thinking about getting a new paintjob what do you think? maybe you could come over later and see it in person

http://img73.echo.cx/img73/6611/lokosisaposer0xw.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

rofl

[Lokos]

Why don't you post that picture again in your next 'retort'? It will make it look all the more effective and original.

rofl

You're kind of like a wall, Shifty. Arguing with you is stupid precisely because you never have anything to say. All you do is sit there and repeat nothing, over and over again, hoping that other people don't notice the fact that you're braindead. Obstinance is your single greatest weapon.

Lokos

[Shiftyfive]

Why don't you post that picture again in your next 'retort'? It will make it look all the more effective and original.

rofl

You're kind of like a wall, Shifty. Arguing with you is stupid precisely because you never have anything to say. All you do is sit there and repeat nothing, over and over again, hoping that other people don't notice the fact that you're braindead. Obstinance is your single greatest weapon.

Lokos

yet you follow me around on here - your just mad my fanclub wouldnt let you join cause they said they dont allow anyone under 12 - but I tell you what produce those magical papers and I see what I can do for you - i cant promise anything but I will do my best.

[Lokos]

I follow you around?

I'm sorry, where is this discussion taking place? A Russian thread. I visit these forums for precisely one reason: to look at pictures of Eastern European gear and to discuss Eastern European militaries/history etc.

The fact that you troll in those exact threads, forcing me to respond to your vitriolic crap, seems to suggest only that I stick to where I usually tread.

Have I 'followed' you to any of your other, non-Eastern European/Russian threads? No.

Next: You again bring up this ridiculous 'poser' allegation. It's like I'm talking to a small dog, which may hear what I'm telling it, without actually hearing what I'm telling it.

1) You are NOT getting a look at my service record. The end. The reasons for this have been laid out. I don't need you to believe me. That's not the issue (as if I give a God damn whether you personally believe me or not). It's only when you use this idiotic allegation as a technique to discredit me in discussion that I feel obliged to keep responding to your nonsense.

2) You are NOT getting a look at any of my pictures from the period in question. For the same reasons as outlined both here and in other posts in regards to this topic.

You're making me expend a lot of energy typing stuff that should be blindingly obvious. Is this the highlight of your day?

Lokos

[Shiftyfive]

I follow you around?

I'm sorry, where is this discussion taking place? A Russian thread. I visit these forums for precisely one reason: to look at pictures of Eastern European gear and to discuss Eastern European militaries/history etc.

The fact that you troll in those exact threads, forcing me to respond to your vitriolic crap, seems to suggest only that I stick to where I usually tread.

Have I 'followed' you to any of your other, non-Eastern European/Russian threads? No.

Next: You again bring up this ridiculous 'poser' allegation. It's like I'm talking to a small dog, which may hear what I'm telling it, without actually hearing what I'm telling it.

1) You are NOT getting a look at my service record. The end. The reasons for this have been laid out. I don't need you to believe me. That's not the issue (as if I give a God damn whether you personally believe me or not). It's only when you use this idiotic allegation as a technique to discredit me in discussion that I feel obliged to keep responding to your nonsense.

2) You are NOT getting a look at any of my pictures from the period in question. For the same reasons as outlined both here and in other posts in regards to this topic.

You're making me expend a lot of energy typing stuff that should be blindingly obvious. Is this the highlight of your day?

Lokos

fine no papers - no peak at my spaceship - but you can enjoy the picture

http://img230.echo.cx/img230/6042/lokosisaposer3fh.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

[Lokos]

Ooh, clever.

:roll:

Lokos

[Falco]

What I'd like to really know is what formal backgroud do people here have in the field of aeronautics, radio waves or other related fields to the discution. Who here has operationnal experience on the SR-71, F-22, F-35, Su-27, MiG-31, etc or one of those special russian radars? Who here has a security clearence to have access to data concerning the true performances of modern military hardware such as stealth aircraft, advanced radars. Who here has access to the files detailling each and every SR-71 mission? Perhaps we the key to ending the futile debate we have on our hand is the input from a qualified person. In this whole thread I haven't seen one reference to factual information reguarding the subject of the efficiency of stealth reguarding it's capabilities to defeat various radar systems. All I have seen in incessant bickering on both sides regarding various subjects that are very probably still confidencial. So until someone brings forward some irrefutable proof, I saw we stop acting like a bunch of kids at a pissing contest and try to act like adults (for those of us who are).

[Midav]

What I'd like to really know is what formal backgroud do people here have in the field of aeronautics, radio waves or other related fields to the discution. Who here has operationnal experience on the SR-71, F-22, F-35, Su-27, MiG-31, etc or one of those special russian radars? Who here has a security clearence to have access to data concerning the true performances of modern military hardware such as stealth aircraft, advanced radars. Who here has access to the files detailling each and every SR-71 mission? Perhaps we the key to ending the futile debate we have on our hand is the input from a qualified person. In this whole thread I haven't seen one reference to factual information reguarding the subject of the efficiency of stealth reguarding it's capabilities to defeat various radar systems. All I have seen in incessant bickering on both sides regarding various subjects that are very probably still confidencial. So until someone brings forward some irrefutable proof, I saw we stop acting like a bunch of kids at a pissing contest and try to act like adults (for those of us who are).

x2

Not aimed at everyone, but lot's of ignorant people posting in here. Best thing that can happen to this thread is it being locked.

[jmatucd]

lock, lock, lo... er, yea

[Roaming East]

guess i'll give it a go. USAF trained meteorologist. Part of the job entails Aircraft support and knowledge of (US anyway) airframe specifics in regards to certain environments and weapon capabilities thereof. Also includes Lot of practical works with WSR88D doppler radar and technical courses on radar technology,application and etc. Im by no means a theorist but ive done enough stuff with them to have a pretty good knowledge base on Radar in general and ground based sets in particular.
Oh and i got Top secret clearance but that still doesnt give me access to the cool files like who popped kennedy and all that jazz

[sergey31]

What I'd like to really know is what formal backgroud do people here have in the field of aeronautics, radio waves or other related fields to the discution. Who here has operationnal experience on the SR-71, F-22, F-35, Su-27, MiG-31, etc or one of those special russian radars? Who here has a security clearence to have access to data concerning the true performances of modern military hardware such as stealth aircraft, advanced radars. Who here has access to the files detailling each and every SR-71 mission? Perhaps we the key to ending the futile debate we have on our hand is the input from a qualified person. In this whole thread I haven't seen one reference to factual information reguarding the subject of the efficiency of stealth reguarding it's capabilities to defeat various radar systems. All I have seen in incessant bickering on both sides regarding various subjects that are very probably still confidencial. So until someone brings forward some irrefutable proof, I saw we stop acting like a bunch of kids at a pissing contest and try to act like adults (for those of us who are).

x2

Not aimed at everyone, but lot's of ignorant people posting in here. Best thing that can happen to this thread is it being locked.

I say the best thing that can happen is for people who think this is stupid tread or dumb debate it to stop visiting or keep reading this tread. To me it's just common sense, If I find something dumb I just move on don't go around bitching and whining how stupid it is and it should be locked.... I guess that's how those Liberals operate.

And as for Falco. I've stated this earlier once; You don't have to be any of those to have a discussion on it. For example you don't have to be Astronomy teacher to talk about Mars or Sun/ stars etc, you don't have to be politician or work for the government to know or be able to discuss politics, you don't have to be "certified" mechanic to take apart your cars engine and put it back together (I've done it once).
My point is people can talk about anything and especially this subject. There is enough information available for any enthusiast to be knowledgeable and stay up to date, Look at GazB for example, I believe he knows broad of info that someone in only one specific field would not know because that someone was not interested or never learned about it.

Internet, Library, Book stores, magazines + self interest, hobby, passion, determination etc etc ....

On the other hand to amplify my point, this is "Military"Photos.net- So 95% of the people should get off this web site because they are not in the military and there is no way they can know about "Military".

[Blarney]

F-15 MTD is still the best of them all! ;)

[K-9s BEST]

It`s simply amazing how every internet forum draws the highest ratio of "experts" on any particular subject. All the professional people I`ve ever met never felt the need to belittle others on their ignorance of a particular subject, however most "true idiots" simply have their...50% opinion, 25% nonsense, 25% alliteration to technical statistics spewed at great volume and length. While I am not ALWAYS right about everything, (Yet amazingly I`m NEVER wrong on the subjects I know.), I would truly wonder how any Russian/Finnish/etc. "expert" can possibly quantify the factual, ever evolving worth & capabilities of American technologies in relation to American values and military interest? You throw out words of "worthless, inferior, waste of money, ineffective, not as good as mine, not as fast as mine, etc., etc.," ad nausem. Do you have ANY idea what you sound like? As for the American side, please realize as far as any "Conflict of Ideas or Means" apply, for all its faults, America has sacrificed its blood to liberate others with little or no gratitude in return.
Look at the history of the CCCP. Now "experts"... quantify THAT!

[K-9s BEST]

For Sergey31, (fine "expert" that you are) , as far as the arguement on whether SR-71s ever overflew the Soviet Union, you may never ever believe they did, nor WANT to believe they did, but sir, I can assure you that they did. As an image interpretation specialist I had access to photo recon from the SR-71, and the imagery I examined were not taken from an oblique angle, which for true scale identifying is not as accurate as a vertical shot. Oh, and they were based at Kadena AFB, (Okinawa).

BTW- while I`m sure the Soviet Air Force did have some very good pilots, I seem to remember in the early 1970s ,(during the War Of Attrition in the Middle-East) that Israeli pilots had NO problem with Mig-21s flown by SOVIET PILOTS over the Suez Canal while A-4 Skyhawks were bombing SAM sites on the Egyptian side. In less than 20 minutes, IAF:5--SAF:0
2 Migs by missiles, 3 Migs by cannon. All in all, not a good showing.
WHOOPS. Maybe the Mig-21s were EXPORT versions.

[Roaming East]

And the battle rages on...

[sergey31]

For Sergey31, (fine "expert" that you are) , as far as the arguement on whether SR-71s ever overflew the Soviet Union, you may never ever believe they did, nor WANT to believe they did, but sir, I can assure you that they did. As an image interpretation specialist I had access to photo recon from the SR-71, and the imagery I examined were not taken from an oblique angle, which for true scale identifying is not as accurate as a vertical shot. Oh, and they were based at Kadena AFB, (Okinawa).
So what are the names of those Soviet sites that you saw on those photos? (I can't wait for this answer).
BTW- while I`m sure the Soviet Air Force did have some very good pilots, I seem to remember in the early 1970s ,(during the War Of Attrition in the Middle-East) that Israeli pilots had NO problem with Mig-21s flown by SOVIET PILOTS over the Suez Canal while A-4 Skyhawks were bombing SAM sites on the Egyptian side. In less than 20 minutes, IAF:5--SAF:0
2 Migs by missiles, 3 Migs by cannon. All in all, not a good showing.
WHOOPS. Maybe the Mig-21s were EXPORT versions.
And who were those Soviet pilots, they weren’t instructor by and chance? Were they? Do you know what Soviet foreign instructors qualifications were in air-to-air combat field?
For talking about others I see you are the one that is full of it....Mr. Expert
BTW, those Mig were actually "export" version (at least you can do one thing right and it's guess right).

[GazB]

The F14 D model was an interim project designed to keep the 14 flying for the limited time it would take for the super hornet to be introduced.

Except that the Hornet has been in service for more than a couple of decades and took on the role of strike aircraft rather than main fighter on US carriers. The D model introduced decent engines that were so much more powerful it didn't even need to use its afterburner on takeoff as the dry thrust of the D model was the same as the thrust of the A model in full burner. Also it was rather more reliable in operation.

With the receeding threat of Backfires with AS-6s the F-14 has been replaced by an inadequate fighter that got the job of fighter because it was cheaper. Ironically the E/F models are not that cheap. With the JSF approaching service the strike hornet will become the fighter and the JSF will become the strike aircraft. I really don't think the Hornet is good enough for that role.


The abilit to carry a pair of bombs marginally further than a regular hornet could carry 4 or so in no way made it a superior aircraft.

The difference between bombing afghanistan or not...


Never stated the F117 was going to fire missles backwards. As far as i know the bustle system for its internal bay was never actually fielded so its a moot point anyway.


So how can it be the same as the backwards firing tests of the archer?


For the umpteenth time, "stealth" IS low-observability. You can't pick and choose the definition whenever it is convenient for your argument.


I disagree. You have quoted several documents, which is fine, but the Rafale and Typhoon are described as LO. They are certainly not I think you will agree Stealth.


although quite impressive for the time Mig-25s and Mig-31s had no chance of intercepting the SR-71 other than a head on shotand as fast as the Sr-71 travels we all know how unlikely that would be.

So what is an SR-71? Please tell me. Is it a satellite? Or is it magic? The U-2 had to fly over its targets to take photos of them. With SLAR the SR-71 still needs to fly near the things it is having a look at. Where do you think the Migs are based? Near strategic targets and spaced to cover the northern border of the former soviet union. When an SR-71 takes off it is tracked. It wouldn't matter if it could fly twice as fast as it does the migs in the area would be up and waiting. The SR-71 can't turn 180 degrees in stay inside the US state of california at full speed. It is hardly going to jink its way through the defences. 4 Mig-31s operating together can link their radar systems to cover a front of almost 1,000km... I'd really like to see an SR-71 get through that.


sr-71 was in international airspace even that russian defector stated that mig 25's and 31s regularly tried to engage the black bird but failed to place themselves in any advantagous positions.

You mean Belenko? Interesting considering he defected before the Mig-31 was operational...


the math played itself out... how many blackbirds were shot down?

The same number of blackbirds that crossed the Soviet Union.


they flew right at the edge of soviet airspace and never over it as far as we know -and the soviets would launch mig 25s and others after them to try and intercept - but they never succeded.

The P upgrade of the Mig-25 that was initiated after belenkos defection improved the systems and computers used to the point that the SR-71 was vulnerable. They just were never allowed to press that fire button. And for your information the system used in the P model wouldn't lock a target it couldn't track... hardly rocket science that... and they locked up SR-71s regularly. It was generally accepted amongst the Mig crews that if they could lock up they could hit. I really don't care what you think about that.


BTW There is talk of applying torpedo wake homing technology to air to air missiles. Yes, I know it sounds bizarre, but if its possible, stealth now becomes very interesting. You cant hide the turbulent air you create flying supercruise.


Not to mention the fuel sniffer technology that is also being developed (similar tactics were used against diesel subs during WWII by Maratime Patrol Aircraft).


You're making me expend a lot of energy typing stuff that should be blindingly obvious. Is this the highlight of your day?

The problem with arguing with a moron is they'll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience... Don't feed the troll... I know... easier said than done... :oops:


America has sacrificed its blood to liberate others with little or no gratitude in return.


When?


As an image interpretation specialist I had access to photo recon from the SR-71, and the imagery I examined were not taken from an oblique angle, which for true scale identifying is not as accurate as a vertical shot.

Location and dates please. Open Skies missions hardly count.


BTW- while I`m sure the Soviet Air Force did have some very good pilots, I seem to remember in the early 1970s ,(during the War Of Attrition in the Middle-East) that Israeli pilots had NO problem with Mig-21s flown by SOVIET PILOTS over the Suez Canal while A-4 Skyhawks were bombing SAM sites on the Egyptian side.

And what does that have to do with PVO pilots? How many US recon aircraft have been blown to bits for getting too close to mother Russia? Didn't seem to have any trouble taking those planes down did they?

[Sergei]

even that russian defector stated that mig 25's and 31s regularly tried to engage the black bird but failed to place themselves in any advantagous positions.

And who is this Russian defector?

The guy who defected to Japan, I guess. Belenko?

[sergey31]

even that russian defector stated that mig 25's and 31s regularly tried to engage the black bird but failed to place themselves in any advantagous positions.

And who is this Russian defector?

The guy who defected to Japan, I guess. Belenko?

I knew who he was talking about I was just setting up a trap. :lol:

[Falco]

And as for Falco. I've stated this earlier once; You don't have to be any of those to have a discussion on it. For example you don't have to be Astronomy teacher to talk about Mars or Sun/ stars etc, you don't have to be politician or work for the government to know or be able to discuss politics, you don't have to be "certified" mechanic to take apart your cars engine and put it back together (I've done it once).
My point is people can talk about anything and especially this subject. There is enough information available for any enthusiast to be knowledgeable and stay up to date, Look at Gaz for example, I believe he knows broad of info that someone in only one specific field would not know because that someone was not interested or never learned about it.

Internet, Library, Book stores, magazines + self interest, hobby, passion, determination etc etc ....

On the other hand to amplify my point, this is "Military"Photos.net- So 95% of the people should get off this web site because they are not in the military and there is no way they can know about "Military".

I would agree with you if we were having a discussion on something to do with public knowledge, but were not. You can only be an expert in a field if you have access to accurate information regarding the subject. As individuals (for most of the people in this thread) who do not have access to data concerning stealth fighters, military radars, and the likes, we cannot emit statements like the F-22 is based on an obsolete concept.

[Baltic]

BTW- while I`m sure the Soviet Air Force did have some very good pilots, I seem to remember in the early 1970s ,(during the War Of Attrition in the Middle-East) that Israeli pilots had NO problem with Mig-21s flown by SOVIET PILOTS over the Suez Canal while A-4 Skyhawks were bombing SAM sites on the Egyptian side. In less than 20 minutes, IAF:5--SAF:0
2 Migs by missiles, 3 Migs by cannon. All in all, not a good showing.
WHOOPS. Maybe the Mig-21s were EXPORT versions.
And who were those Soviet pilots, they weren’t instructor by and chance? Were they? Do you know what Soviet foreign instructors qualifications were in air-to-air combat field?
For talking about others I see you are the one that is full of it....Mr. Expert
BTW, those Mig were actually "export" version (at least you can do one thing right and it's guess right).
[/quote]

I think he has in mind Heil Havir incident:
http://www.waronline.org/IDF/Articles/attrition_war3.htm
Well, these instructors were from Achtiubinsk training center. For truth I must say that 1 Israel plane was damaged in that incident but was later repaired :)

[VISTREL]

just read this

http://www.newsru.com/world/28jun2004/mig.html

would be nice if someone could translate, I am too lazy.... :roll: :)

edit

http://users.senet.com.au/~wingman/cope.html



Not long had the exercises finished when the media in both countries painted the exercises as a 'rude shock' for the USAF and the Washington establishment. According to respected media reports, Indian pilots outflew the Americans, right through the exercise. “On the first day all four American planes were shot down. Never once did the Indians come off second”. According to United States media, the F-15C's were defeated more than 90 percent of the time in direct combat exercises against the IAF. It should be noted that the IAF did not field its newest “near fifth-generation” Sukhoi-30MKI air-dominance fighters and if it did so, the results may have been even more favourable to the IAF. Nevertheless the IAF had the benefit of operating the two-seater Sukhoi-30MK/K “four plus-plus-generation” fighters.



While the superb performances of the Sukhoi-30's were somewhat anticipated, the performance of the MiG-21 Bisons came as a major “unpleasant surprise” to USAF officials. The Bison with new powerful R-25 engines, latest radar, missiles and EW (Electronic Warfare) were credited with “jackrabbit” acceleration and great dog-fighting ability. It also validated the claim of Russian officials that they are capable of successfully converting “second generation” late-model MiG-21 bis fighters into “fourth generation combat platforms”.

[sergey31]

And as for Falco. I've stated this earlier once; You don't have to be any of those to have a discussion on it. For example you don't have to be Astronomy teacher to talk about Mars or Sun/ stars etc, you don't have to be politician or work for the government to know or be able to discuss politics, you don't have to be "certified" mechanic to take apart your cars engine and put it back together (I've done it once).
My point is people can talk about anything and especially this subject. There is enough information available for any enthusiast to be knowledgeable and stay up to date, Look at Gaz for example, I believe he knows broad of info that someone in only one specific field would not know because that someone was not interested or never learned about it.

Internet, Library, Book stores, magazines + self interest, hobby, passion, determination etc etc ....

On the other hand to amplify my point, this is "Military"Photos.net- So 95% of the people should get off this web site because they are not in the military and there is no way they can know about "Military".

I would agree with you if we were having a discussion on something to do with public knowledge, but were not. You can only be an expert in a field if you have access to accurate information regarding the subject. As individuals (for most of the people in this thread) who do not have access to data concerning stealth fighters, military radars, and the likes, we cannot emit statements like the F-22 is based on an obsolete concept.

:lol: There's plenty de-classified information available on these subjects, all you have to do is have will/ desire to find it.
There's nothing classified about Mig 31 or SR 71 performances, capabilities etc etc.... It's been available since early 90's.
There have been numerous cases where "stealth" aircraft was tracked on radars when it tried to be "stealth".

Like I said, it wont come to you while your watching TV but a little hard work will pay of in the subject of anyone's interest.

[Roaming East]

in concerns to the F117 missle post, what i meant by the situations between the two being the same i meant in the technology available to actual use angle of things. I am aware that the archer has a backfire variant that was successfully tested by how often do they load rearward facing missles on these for flight operations? im not sure because ive never seen photos of Flankers actually combat loaded all that often and the ones i do see often have only frontward facing ordance.
The F117 has a similar capability to fire missles(not backwards mind you) but its never used because its not practical enough to want to start going into installing the packages for it and training what are essentially bomber filots to do ACM

[Roaming East]

just read this

http://www.newsru.com/world/28jun2004/mig.html

would be nice if someone could translate, I am too lazy.... :roll: :)

edit

http://users.senet.com.au/~wingman/cope.html



Not long had the exercises finished when the media in both countries painted the exercises as a 'rude shock' for the USAF and the Washington establishment. According to respected media reports, Indian pilots outflew the Americans, right through the exercise. “On the first day all four American planes were shot down. Never once did the Indians come off second”. According to United States media, the F-15C's were defeated more than 90 percent of the time in direct combat exercises against the IAF. It should be noted that the IAF did not field its newest “near fifth-generation” Sukhoi-30MKI air-dominance fighters and if it did so, the results may have been even more favourable to the IAF. Nevertheless the IAF had the benefit of operating the two-seater Sukhoi-30MK/K “four plus-plus-generation” fighters.



While the superb performances of the Sukhoi-30's were somewhat anticipated, the performance of the MiG-21 Bisons came as a major “unpleasant surprise” to USAF officials. The Bison with new powerful R-25 engines, latest radar, missiles and EW (Electronic Warfare) were credited with “jackrabbit” acceleration and great dog-fighting ability. It also validated the claim of Russian officials that they are capable of successfully converting “second generation” late-model MiG-21 bis fighters into “fourth generation combat platforms”.


Might want to read up on the actual engagement criteria for those fights. When i get back to my work station ill post a link but the F15's were crippled by the ROE of each engagement. Flying 4 Eagles with no AESA radar or awacs support into nest of SU30's with Mig topcover doesnt exactly allow for a true comparison between aircraft. Most of us in the USAF dont really care cause we see it as for what it is, a heavily publicised ploy to goad congress into buying the F22. And it worked

[Lokos]

Hate to say it, but it's true.

The exercises against the Indian fighter craft were a very clever political machination, aiming to force the government to spend many hundreds of millions of dollars more to upgrade an already top-notch air force.

Lokos

[sergey31]

I don't think it was the case at all, I do believe they underestimated their opponents and got their asses kicked.
And German pilots with their Mig 29's did kick some F16 and F18 asses many times over not to mention they flew under restrictions in those mock dog-fights.... Same story IMO.

[Michael RVR]

I don't even think it went that far. From what i read it was essentially based on who could get lock on earlier. Su-30's had longer ranged AA-10's. *shrug*

While the east german MiG's did serve up many a NATO arse - this fight was purely political.

[Lokos]

Yeah, the East Germans had a very good pilot programme and produced many a fine dog fighter - but I just cannot see Indian pilots defeating US pilots unless there was something else at play here.

The Su model used CAN be a good match for an F15 in a scenario where both pilots are of equal quality. But I just do not think Indian pilots measure up in that regard, when compared to US pilots.

IMHO.

Lokos

[Roaming East]

Ive done support operations for Red flag ops at Nellis. Dont even think about telling me these guys were fighting in a realistic scenario. Every single nation that sends its boys to Nevada for training gets its ass handily served to them. American concept for airwar consist of combined air doctrine. ie having top flight F15's vectored in offset phases towards air threats, not limiting their weapon engagements and threat detection abilities to "what indias enemies will have" and other such nonsense.
dont get me wrong, im glad the USAF had an oppurtunity to go up against the Su30 but its not like the engagement proved anything other than that superior numbers, superior weapon abilities, and superior combat control will own an enemy who is degraded to basically flying around as targets

Actually, i believe the IAF is supposed to come down to nellis for 2 weeks in any event. now that the brass isnt trying to get the F22 on the payroll anymore we'll see how the Indians handle a real training enviroment. Anyone want to place bets now on who'll come out on top?

[Michael RVR]

I don't think i'd go that far, simply because i have no way of making an accurate assessment of it.

The Airframes are roughly equal (each are better in their own way) so it would have come down to training - and the Indians have been training hard.

Would have made an interesting contest, but from everything i've seen it was a situation which put the US fighters at a disadvantage as opposed to a level playing field.

[sergey31]

True to extend... I mean Su30 do have an edge in BVR capability then F15's. If you don't believe me then with what missiles can they engage Su30 before they are tracked, locked and shut down?
AMRAM or ASRAM have 40% less range then some AA-10 versions, what good does it do to you that you can see the adversary but can't do anything about it (except keep heading toward him).

[Sabre]

Glad to see that this thread has moved into the training and doctrine side of air-war. You can't pull out a singularly unimportant piece of the air-war picture (an airframe) and compare them. The air war 'picture' is created from a wide range of inter-related, inter-dependant systems that span Command, Control, Communication, Intelligence, maintenance and supply, air defence (airborne and AAA/SAM) etc etc. It would be better to compare the training tactics taught to Fighter Controllers than to compare the stats of the airframes they control.



Anyway, if you want to go down to a p*ssing contest again, this guy owns you all!!!

http://vnexpress.net/Vietnam/The-gioi/Tu-lieu/2003/12/3B9CE15B/Frank1.jpg

;)

[sergey31]

Hey Sabre, off topic but what rifle is that? In your Avatar? Is it L42A1?
Sorry :oops: for taking it off the subject (a great fan of Enfileds)

[Thor]

So Russia is going to test their new 4th generation fighter in 2007.

Looking forward to that!!

[Lokos]

We can always rely on you, Thor, to make a mockery of a carefully balanced cease fire...

Lokos

[Thor]

I was actually just saying a nice thing, oh well.

[Lokos]

If you say so. I'd have a look at the thread title, then at what you wrote, first, though.

Lokos

[Werewolf01]

Hate to say it, but it's true.

The exercises against the Indian fighter craft were a very clever political machination, aiming to force the government to spend many hundreds of millions of dollars more to upgrade an already top-notch air force.

Lokos

The more I read about this, the more I want to go back and read my old copies of Soviet Military Power and laugh at how creative the Pentagon is when they want a new toy! :lol:

[sergey31]

Hate to say it, but it's true.

The exercises against the Indian fighter craft were a very clever political machination, aiming to force the government to spend many hundreds of millions of dollars more to upgrade an already top-notch air force.

Lokos

The more I read about this, the more I want to go back and read my old copies of Soviet Military Power and laugh at how creative the Pentagon is when they want a new toy! :lol:



True to extend... I mean Su30 do have an edge in BVR capability then F15's. If you don't believe me then with what missiles can they engage Su30 before they are tracked, locked and shut down?
AMRAM or ASRAM have 40% less range then some AA-10 versions, what good does it do to you that you can see the adversary but can't do anything about it (except keep heading toward him).

[Andeh]

God damnit, you are all so god damn retarded.

WAR IS ****ING USELESS, especially between the US and Russia.

Cant Russia spend their money on something else than corruption and military?

[High drag]

God damnit, you are all so god damn retarded.

WAR IS f*** USELESS, especially between the US and Russia.

Cant Russia spend their money on something else than corruption and military?

This is a perfect opportunity to delineate the problems on this board by using this post. Unfortunately Andeh, you are the guinea pig.

1. Drop the needless profanity. This board does not need to be pristine (it is topically military for crying out loud), but seriously, what does it add here? Even if English is a second language, there are easily accessible words that reflect intellect instead of knee-jerk reactions.

2. If you cast a dispersion regarding an individual, government, ethnicity, or creed, do it with facts and try to reduce your internal bias. Presuppositions destroy your argument. Take a minute to think before posting a highly charged emotional response. And if you post something just to create chaos or an emotional response, then you are the definition of a troll and should be removed.

Andeh, you got a problem with the Russian government, fine. Then discuss the specific problems avoiding needless pejoratives. I you (or us corporately) are unable to do this, then just avoid the topic all together.

My intent is not to act as board police, but it seems the board seems to devolving into chaos where the convicts are running the asylum. I choose to not sit by and watch idly.

[JoaMei]

Hate to say it, but it's true.

The exercises against the Indian fighter craft were a very clever political machination, aiming to force the government to spend many hundreds of millions of dollars more to upgrade an already top-notch air force.

Lokos

The more I read about this, the more I want to go back and read my old copies of Soviet Military Power and laugh at how creative the Pentagon is when they want a new toy! :lol:



True to extend... I mean Su30 do have an edge in BVR capability then F15's. If you don't believe me then with what missiles can they engage Su30 before they are tracked, locked and shut down?
AMRAM or ASRAM have 40% less range then some AA-10 versions, what good does it do to you that you can see the adversary but can't do anything about it (except keep heading toward him).

Missile warfare is more complicated than you might think. Jamming for example will make engagement ranges much shorter. In addition to that the maximum range of a missile does not equal its "no escape zone", the Pilot the missile is locked on will just turn in the other direction and the Missile runs out of fuel. At long ranges you dont know what you are having there on your radar, a passenger plane, a fighter, a cheap decoy UAV?

By the way, the range of AAMRAM is still classified. If you read the stats you found about it you will usually see: "more than..." "at least" "....+".

[Roaming East]

In the very least theyll shoot each other down, im pretty certain an AMRAAM would get within its engagement envelope before a Russkie missle would blot an Eagle from the sky. them fire and forgets are a bitch.

I'll certainly cede that combat proven experiance aside, the Russians seem to have themselves some pretty nasty hardware in the archer and adder.
Ill just content myself with the knowledge that Chinese PL-10's suck

[Lokos]

While we're on the topic of Russian military air craft, can someone endow me with some details in regards to the Mystic (NATO designation, I believe)?

It is supposed to be an evolution of the Mainstay, in some capacity.

Lokos

[Abbyy]

By the way, the range of AAMRAM is still classified. If you read the stats you found about it you will usually see: "more than..." "at least" "....+".

:)

Same about Soviet equipment as well. Specs give you minimal guaranteed range.
Ukranian missile shot down that poor Tu-154 over Black Sea beyond its officialy specified range. I remember reading about similar case when missile launched from MiG-25 instead of target hit plane which being outside poligon and at much higher altitude than initial target.

[Rumsfailed]

Isn't the AA-10 only Semi Active Radar homing versus the Active seeker that the AMRAAM has?

[DPGLAW]

Isn't the AA-10 only Semi Active Radar homing versus the Active seeker that the AMRAAM has?

What a nice screenname you have.....**Sarcasm intended** Figures that your location is old europe :)

[Lokos]

So, no one can tell me anything about the Mystic?

:(

Lokos

[Sabre]

Hey Sabre, off topic but what rifle is that? In your Avatar? Is it L42A1?
Sorry :oops: for taking it off the subject (a great fan of Enfileds)

===============OFF TOPIC=================

Yep, good eyes mate! It's an L42A1 I think.

Would quite like to have a go with one, shame they're out of service.

Alas, it's just like the (old) LMG. Good WW2 era kit that still holds its own in the modern era, but replaced by modern plastic weapons....

Mind you, the L96 is a cracking bit of kit.

=========RESUME ON TOPIC POSTS=============