Reply With QuoteOriginally Posted by LS1 Miata
Kopp is legendary for fantasies and making BS up.
I would like to see the reaction on his face when the first F-35 gets delivered to Australia.
It isn't a "complete" testbed. It is only testing some variations of new technologies like the OLS system, the other system for air-to-ground scanning (much like the OLS system), the wingtip radar, tail based radar and some of the other avionics. But they are also testing the SU-47 berkut and Mig-1.41 for the PAK FA as well (SU-47 for technology aspect and internal weapons). At MAKS, there was a showcase of PAK FA's radar which was AESA
Kopp is legendary for fantasies and making BS up.
I would like to see the reaction on his face when the first F-35 gets delivered to Australia.
Dr Carlo Kopp is a tool. Don't understand why people keep on refering to himI would like to see the reaction on his face when the first F-35 gets delivered to Australia.
I would love to see some actual science behind this. I see this all the time, but so far it's just a claim. As we all know, Russian claims are often quite legendary, particularly when it involves anything dealing with stealth aircraft (for example, plasma stealth).
BTW, power doesn't really matter when it comes to detecting a stealth aircraft. It's more about frequency, but even that is inaccurate and doesn't lead to any advantage over said stealth aircraft whatsoever. I'd also like to say that current development in stealth UCAV's defeats lower frequency radars.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...a-983bc8260bb5The flying wing design will offer “wide-band, low observable” protection against “all radar bands,” says Scott Winship, Northrop Grumman’s UCAS-D program manager. That means maintaining stealth in the presence of both high frequency (anti-aircraft radars and ground-to-air or air-to-air missiles) and low frequency (long-range search radars) emitters, a capability that earlier stealth designs didn’t have.
http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2...rcesystems.htmOLS-27 IRST, 80-100KM range
United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission
Developers are pretty good as well as making claims. **** isn't spewed just on one end. Who is right and who isn't? Kinda like how professionals say current war machines are immune to EMP and hacking, right? Of course they will make their own weapons sound like they are the end all solution, but reality is it is just a marketing scheme. The Americans are just good at doing it more so then the Russian's.
Edit: Funny example would be like If I went into a Sony store to buy a TV that is relatively the same as a Panasonic model at bestbuy but is more expensive. The Sony store clerks will say how great it is with its 600mhz is better then that of the 120mhz on the TV (when it is a 60hz, 10 stage compared to 120hz one stage). They can talk about how great it is, but in the end, it isn't much different in comparison to the Panasonic. But they will try to justify its cost and try to make a sale. It would be stupid for the sales man to go in and say "It is as good as the cheaper Panasonic one at Best Buy. Go buy that.
By the way, according to many, L-band radar is capable of detecting stealth at long ranges. L-band radar is also attached to SU-35 wings. Also, it is more then likely that AWACS, Ground based radar or the optical tracking will pick up the stealth craft rather then the onboard radar.
Last edited by sepheronx; 01-02-2010 at 03:29 PM.
We'll have to wait and see Su-35 undego all govenment - military tests, then get into service. Those of us who monitor russian aviation forums may then have some more to tell. Maybe with all the PAK-FA hype, the Su-35s info will be relatively more open(also its designed for export from the start)
Until then I agree that its more designers claims.
Well, I would hand it to the engineers over at the development centers as they would know a lot more about it then the rest of us. I doubt they would create an aircraft without thinking about stealth or capabilities to defeat it. We are just simple people, whatever Miata says, you, I or anyone else on this forums, do not beat out the credentials of the engineers who created it. But of course, they too are ****e to exaggerate things.We'll have to wait and see Su-35 undego all govenment - military tests, then get into service. Those of us who monitor russian aviation forums may then have some more to tell. Maybe with all the PAK-FA hype, the Su-35s info will be relatively more open
Until then I agree that its more designers claims.
The only problem is that the stealth aircraft would have already fired long before being detected. The AMRAAM-D has a longer range than any optical tracking system. If a stealth aircraft is detected, then it was used in the wrong way.
As for the X-47B...
http://www.aviationnow.com/aw/jsp_in...headLine=UltraNorthrop Grumman has stressed the "all-aspect, broadband" stealth inherent in the X-47B. Tailless shapes don't have the "bow-tie" RCS pattern, with the smallest RCS on the nose and tail and peaks on the beam configurations, which characterizes conventional aircraft. They are stealthier against low-frequency radars -- including updated, active-array VHF radars marketed by Russia -- because they do not have shape features which are so small that their RCS in the VHF band is determined by size, rather than shape or materials. It may be significant that John Cashen, leader of the B-2 signatures team, returned in 2006 after 10 years in Australia and is now a consultant for Northrop Grumman.
RCS test facilities across the U.S. have been upgraded since the F-22 and B-2 were designed: USAF's range at Holloman AFB, N.M., was reequipped to handle bistatic measurements, and a sophisticated airborne RCS measurement program based on a modified 737 was delivered in 2001.
How low can LO go? One paper, co-authored by a principal in DenMar Inc., the company founded by Stealth pioneer Denys Overholser, refers to the development of fasteners for a body with an RCS of -70 dB./sq. meter -- one-thousandth of the -40 dB. associated with the JSF, and one-tenth that of a mosquito. DTI queried RCS engineers who don't believe such numbers are possible; but then, when mention of a -30 dB. signature leaked out in a 1981 Northrop paper, nobody believed that either.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...2-4278cb55e8aaThe ability of low-band radars to degrade or negate stealth technology is not a matter for debate. Radar-absorbent material performance varies widely with radar band (it's much easier to develop and use RAM against higher-frequency radars) and, in the VHF band, some shaping techniques are no longer effective.
This was known about in the earliest days of stealth, which is why the B-2 bomber - designed to penetrate deep into a live defense system that included many VHF radars - is a flying wing, with no shape features that are smaller than several meters and very deep-section RAM built into its leading edges. The same techniques are used on the X-47B UCAS-D, which is why it's described as using "all-aspect, wideband" stealth technology.
When hunting a flying wing design, you better have good optics
Like I said above, take everything you read on the internet with a grain of salt, as well as developers. Sales people are sleazy and tend to exaggerate. What people get out of what the companies state is what they post on other sites and forums.
As for ways of detecting stealth aircrafts (X-47B is no different. It may incorporate other kinds of stealth and airframe may be smaller and shaped in the way to defeat radar, but there will always be something to detect it), there will be something to defeat it. Stealth is just another jump in aircraft technology that will be obsolete in the coming years with new surveillance technology. Difference as to why companies create something with it is because they are still that one step ahead of the game then the people dealing with countermeasures. If this is just a means to create new optical tracking systems, then so be it. Or maybe there will be detection through radio signatures in the future? Who knows.
This is why I love seeing projects like PAK FA, F-22, F-35, etc as they are all competing against each others (because they are companies after all, and profit is #1) and with one companies creation, others try to create stuff like it or to counter it. Always interesting to see what is coming around the corner.
Yes, but by the time that detection technology is developed, there will already be something flying that defeats it. This process has happened several times since the 1970's.
Obsolete?Stealth is just another jump in aircraft technology that will be obsolete in the coming years with new surveillance technology.
Stealth will never be obsolete. It was used in the days of WWI when the undersides of aircraft were painted blue. Stealth will always be used.
Countermeasures are harder to come up with. Meanwhile, technology in IR reduction, RCS reduction, as well as the reduction in the visual spectrum are gaining everyday.Difference as to why companies create something with it is because they are still that one step ahead of the game then the people dealing with countermeasures.
I am talking about the current methods of stealth, not the general term stealth. Countermeasures are hard to come up with, but countermeasures are usually developed during the period the concept of stealth or electronic warfare or whatever is being developed. Because once you state what the aircraft is like and it is made public, then engineers of all areas will try to come up with something to deal with it. So the concept of detection against stealth aircrafts like B-2 and X-47 and alike has probably been on the thoughts of engineers for a long time.Yes, but by the time that detection technology is developed, there will already be something flying that defeats it.
Obsolete?
Stealth will never be obsolete. It was used in the days of WWI when the undersides of aircraft were painted blue. Stealth will always be used.
Countermeasures are harder to come up with. Meanwhile, technology in IR reduction, RCS reduction, as well as the reduction in the visual spectrum are gaining everyday.
As for the stealth comment, sorry for the confusion.
Here's first manual. As i said some of pages aren't perfect, far from it, but still are readable.
http://depositfiles.com/files/4jtgyo77r Su-27 manual in text.
does it mention the rasp file somewhere?
Posting Permissions
