Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Stealth Technology

    Share

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Russian Stealth Technology

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:30 am

    The latest development in the MAKS-2009: Plasma Wing
    11.08.2009

    Leading specialists in aerodynamics from the whole world going on Aviation salon MAKS-2009, which will be held from 18 to 23 August at the airport named Leah Gromov in Zhukovsky near Moscow, aircraft manufacturers intend to introduce the latest scientific advances in the design of supersonic aircraft, said in an interview with RIA Novosti Council member under President of Russian Federation for Science and High Technology, academician Vladimir Fortov.

    Flights in a cloud of plasma

    "As part of the MAKS-2009 for the first time in Russia will be held international conference FLUCOME-2009 on the aerodynamics. Until Russia Similar events were held only in the United States, China and Japan. That it will be on flights for hypersound", - told the agency interlocutor.

    "Civil aviation continues to fly at subsonic speeds, and there are objective reasons. But the future - for hypersound, and the task of science - to remove existing restrictions in this field. One of them - control airplane at high speeds when the steering elements of the wings and tail feathers are very heavy loads because of the powerful free-pressure air stream ", - explained the academician.

    Plasma flow in a supersonic wing

    "One of the ideas born in Russia (and here we have a fairly high priority), is that during the flight to sverhzvuke wing to create a flow of plasma. The free-air enters the area of electric discharge becomes ionized gas, which can be controlled under the influence of the magnetic field. This difficult, but chained to the development of great interest not only here but also abroad: Western and Russian manufacturers are very interested and have already begun to finance these developments, "- noted Fortov.

    How to manage "plazmoletom?"

    He described how this aircraft can operate.

    "You can imagine it like this: when you sit down to a normal flight, you can see the wing, where there are controls: Ailerons, flaps, etc., moved with the help of levers and hydraulics. And when you go to sverhzvuk, efforts to will need to attach to these elements, because of air resistance is extremely high, and not every hydraulic system with the right "- he said.

    "Withdrawal is that, for example, the front edge of the wing, you can artificially create a plasma discharge. He even visually could be considered as free-flow of air acquires other properties and will be lit. Managing this flow, you can confidently manage and own a plane" - confident Acad.

    According to him, the second area being developed by Russian scientists, is to create a straight air-breathing aircraft engine does not require, unlike the current sample set the compressor and turbine. Experts now understand how to control the turbulent combustion of fuel in a supersonic flow. On this subject already promising developments, and not only for the needs of aviation, but also to create a new generation of cruise missiles.

    In aerodynamics Russia - to key positions

    "When specialists choose a place in the world where they meet at the conference, they necessarily take account of how a high level on this issue in a particular country: it is the most important criterion, otherwise they simply will not come. The idea of this: as many practitioners arriving at the MAKS-2009 from around the world to read and with the fundamental ideas that have not yet implemented, but can change the entire face of aviation. Research in the field of aerodynamics, combustion, mechanics, composite materials - this is an area where Russian Scientists continue to occupy a worthy position in the world ", - assured Vladimir Fortov.

    Interest "Sukhoy: Fighter 5 th generation, and not only

    According to Vladimir Fortova, the latest developments of Russian scientists in the field of aerodynamics especially interested in the head of the company "Sukhoi".

    "Mikhail Pogosyan Aslanovich, Corresponding Member of Russian Academy of Sciences, one of the most naukolyubivoy part of the aviation community. It is truly interested in the new composite materials, and supports our research, although this is not his direct responsibility. It's no secret that this is now the most popular trend in military aviation is to make the fighter 5 th generation of funds for low radar enemy. It is a complex problem, and it is linked not only with themselves radio absorbing coatings, but also the aerodynamics of a fighter, "- said Academician Fortov.

    It will not be like "Stealth"

    "Dry" has a great deal of attention to research in the field of aerodynamics and radio absorbing cover. Developing a company "Sukhoi" fighter 5 th generation will not have "chooped form the fuselage, as American planes invisible, made on technology Stealth", but be sure to cover radio absorbing cover <plasma> will assure members of the Presidency of the Russian Federation for Science and High Technology Vladimir Fortov.


    Composites for the SuperJet-100 and MC-21

    He said the company "Sukhoi" very carefully and creatively applies to research conducted by the Russian Academy of Sciences. In particular, the draft of a new regional plane Superjet-100 in the composite materials also took place in the testing of one of the institutions of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

    Much attention is being paid at present the latest development of the domestic aviakostruktorov - civilian aircraft next generation of MS-21.

    Air show MAKS-2009: Mecca for professionals and a holiday for young people

    According to academician Vladimir Fortova, MAKS-2009 air show in Zhukovsky is important not only for world-class manufacturing companies and aircraft from around the world. Equally important is his moral and political significance: the citizens of the country can come to the airfield on Saturday and Sunday, 22 and 23 August to show their children the latest achievements of world aviation, and the best pilots.

    "I say so because, at each air show in Zhukovsky I meet boys and girls with burning eyes, genuinely enthusiastic aviation. They look at the latest generation of aviation, and see the people who created all this. It is a huge boost to self-identity: I does know that, as grown at a military airfield near Moscow campus, and the age of three with his own eyes saw the test aircraft, which had impressed on me for life. Our young people must know that apart from time with TV and view the "Chornukhi "to pour out on the screens every day, there is great science, which leads the world forward, and I think it is very important, hence the importance of MAKS air show for the education of future generations of aviators is difficult to overestimate," - concluded Vladimir Fortov.

    Права на данный материал принадлежат РИА Новости

    RussianStalinist
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 2
    Points : 4
    Join date : 2011-05-07
    Age : 23
    Location : The Holy Rus'

    RCS of PAK FA

    Post  RussianStalinist on Sat May 07, 2011 9:23 pm

    Sorry if something similar to this has already been asked, but here it goes:

    On the Sukhoi website, they state that the RCS of the F-22 is 0.3sqm. An Indian General (I believe) said that the PAK FA had an RCS of 0.5sqm.

    The 0.3sqm for the F-22 contrasts sharply what America has said the rcs of the f-22 really is (they said something like 0.0001sqm). Why is this? Is it because Russia calculates rcs differently?

    If that's the case, then what would the PAK FA's rcs be if it was calculated using the Western method?

    Thanks for any answers!

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Stealth Technology

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 08, 2011 3:13 am

    The US figure is likely the best figure for the aircraft at the specific frequency the design is designed to defeat.

    Unless it is a perfect sphere... which it clearly isn't, from different angles it will have different RCS figures.

    Needless to say it is perfectly visible in optical wavelengths and its cross section from above in optical frequencies is dozens of square metres... it is huge.

    The Russian figure is likely an average figure which gives an indication but is hardly accurate either.

    Average figures by their very nature are always wrong.

    If you have four people... two are 25 years old, one is 30 years old, and one is 6 years old... the average is 25 + 25 + 30 + 6 = 86 / 4 = 21.5.

    The average for the group is twenty one and a half years old yet none of the people are that age.

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: Russian Stealth Technology

    Post  nightcrawler on Mon May 09, 2011 2:37 am

    We can't speculate as of yet; these figures are so much surreptitious & Pak-FA test beds are tailored for aerodynamic testing & RCS figures aren't yet tested; that, one can plainly observe

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russian Stealth Technology

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon May 09, 2011 6:57 am

    RussianStalinist wrote:Sorry if something similar to this has already been asked, but here it goes:

    On the Sukhoi website, they state that the RCS of the F-22 is 0.3sqm. An Indian General (I believe) said that the PAK FA had an RCS of 0.5sqm.

    The 0.3sqm for the F-22 contrasts sharply what America has said the rcs of the f-22 really is (they said something like 0.0001sqm). Why is this? Is it because Russia calculates rcs differently?

    If that's the case, then what would the PAK FA's rcs be if it was calculated using the Western method?

    Thanks for any answers!

    F-22 is far less than .3m^2. That is the RCS of a clean Rafale. F-22 is said to be marble to golf ball which is like .004m^2 at its largest. There is no official figure for F-22 but the references have been given by Lockheed. PAK FA RCS was stated by Sukhoi officials giving a debrief to Russian officials visting the production site on the dawn of their decision to sign the JV production MoU. Ajay Shukla reported they said .5m^2.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Stealth Technology

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 09, 2011 9:05 am

    RCS is more than just shaping and materials.

    It is also about manufacturing quality and maintainence standard.

    An F-117 with a few screws not properly tightened can turn a tennis ball into a basket ball.

    Even water or ice on the airframe will effect RCS.


    It is very much governed by the law of diminished returns.

    It is a bit like speed... in the early 1950s designers started focusing on speed. Planes able to fly mach 3 and faster were designed in those years and it was simply thought that planes would just keep getting faster and faster and by the 1980s we'd have planes zipping around at mach 5 or more.

    The problem is that once you get to a certain speed things get harder... the best example is propeller driven aircraft. You get the biggest engine you can find and put it in your fighter. To get that plane to fly 100 mile an hour faster you need to double the engine power. If you double the engine power again you only get another 60 miles an hour faster. Double it again and you only get another 30 miles an hour in speed till eventually you double the engine power and the tips of the props are supersonic and instead of developing power or thrust they start developing noise and drag.
    The real unseen problem is that every time you double the engine power the cost goes up on a log scale.. first double in power = 10,000 dollars, second double in power is 100,000 dollars, third double of power is 1,000,000 dollars and the fourth is 10 million dollars etc etc.
    Pretty soon you are spending billions for a very small increase in performance.

    Look at the replacements for the F-15 and F-14... the F-16 and the F-18... they are both slower and shorter ranged than the aircraft they replaced and that was on purpose to keep costs down. The F-16 is a mach2 bird, and the F-18 is limited to mach 1.8 to keep the costs down... a choice was made at the design stage that the effort and cost to make both aircraft mach 2.5 birds wasn't worth it because modern fighters rarely travel at such speeds because it wastes fuel. By making them slower they possibly saved billions of dollars in design complication and operating costs.

    Clearly Sukhoi have decided that a super stealthy aircraft wasn't worth the extra cost and effort. The result is a much cheaper aircraft that might serve in rather larger numbers than the 189 odd F-22s.

    As technology improves reductions in RCS can be applied to further reduce the RCS of the design.

    Obviously there is also the possibility that the .5 squ m figure is a very conservative estimate, and of course being a single figure it is clearly an average anyway.

    RussianStalinist
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 2
    Points : 4
    Join date : 2011-05-07
    Age : 23
    Location : The Holy Rus'

    Re: Russian Stealth Technology

    Post  RussianStalinist on Tue May 10, 2011 4:09 pm

    How could the RCS of the PAK FA be that low? I think that Saab announced that the Gripen gets an rcs of something like 0.3sqm.

    I think that a plane designed with the intention of making it vlo would have a significantly lower rcs.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian Stealth Technology

    Post  medo on Tue May 10, 2011 4:24 pm

    How could the RCS of the PAK FA be that low? I think that Saab announced that the Gripen gets an rcs of something like 0.3sqm.

    I think that a plane designed with the intention of making it vlo would have a significantly lower rcs.

    We still don't know exact RCS. Maybe Sukhoi intentionally give to big RCS or that numbers go for shapes of the plane without coating when first prototype fly without colors. Also we don't know if PAK FA prototypes have RAM coating and if it is the same as the one for serial planes etc. We don't know even what will be actual RCS of serial Su-35, how than for serial PAK FA, which is designed for low RCS? The time will tell.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Stealth Technology

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 12, 2011 2:10 am

    How could the RCS of the PAK FA be that low? I think that Saab announced that the Gripen gets an rcs of something like 0.3sqm.

    A Gripen clean with a RCS of 0.3sqm will be in trouble against a PAK FA armed with AAMs.



    The point is that the Gripen carrys weapons externally and while the PAK FA can it normally wont.

    Perhaps the 0.5sqm for the PAK FA is with external weapons?

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Stealth Technology

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat May 14, 2011 9:04 am

    Uh, Carlo Kopp estimates that RCSs are:

    F-22: 0.00004 m2
    F-35: 0.0001 m2
    PAK-FA: 0.001 m2


    Those are all in the Frontal Section with X-band radars. In general, the design philosophy of the T-50 is not to be the stealthiest plane in the sky, but rather just stealth enough to get close where it'll win almost all the time v.s. the F-35 and have a chance v.s. the F-22.

    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 808
    Points : 894
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 28
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Russian Stealth Technology

    Post  Stealthflanker on Sat May 14, 2011 1:12 pm

    IronsightSniper wrote:Uh, Carlo Kopp estimates that RCSs are:

    F-22: 0.00004 m2

    this is new to me... commonly quoted figure is 0,0001 Sqm

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Stealth Technology

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 15, 2011 3:20 am

    In general, the design philosophy of the T-50 is not to be the stealthiest plane in the sky, but rather just stealth enough to get close where it'll win almost all the time v.s. the F-35 and have a chance v.s. the F-22.

    Exactly... and the main purpose of setting the bar below the F-22 is so that it is not too expensive and while it is very unlikely that they will build as many T-50s as there are F-35s made, they will likely produce more than 189 T-50s.

    Mig and UAC keep talking about a light 5th gen fighter they are developing that is seperate from the Mig 1.42/1.44. They mention that actual production work will not happen till the T-50 is fully ready for production so that the new design doesn't delay the T-50. This perhaps suggests that by 2025 they might have a heavy and light 5th gen fighter pair... with UCAVs and probably a few Su-35/Mig-35.

    BTW isn't 35 a popular number... F-35, Mig-35, Su-35...

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Stealth Technology

    Post  IronsightSniper on Mon May 16, 2011 12:42 am

    Stealthflanker wrote:
    IronsightSniper wrote:Uh, Carlo Kopp estimates that RCSs are:

    F-22: 0.00004 m2

    this is new to me... commonly quoted figure is 0,0001 Sqm

    Tbh, I forgot the last number in the F-22's Front RCS figure but I only remember that it starts with 4 0s Very Happy

    havok
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 75
    Points : 74
    Join date : 2010-09-20

    Re: Russian Stealth Technology

    Post  havok on Sun Jul 24, 2011 9:48 pm

    RussianStalinist wrote:Sorry if something similar to this has already been asked, but here it goes:

    On the Sukhoi website, they state that the RCS of the F-22 is 0.3sqm. An Indian General (I believe) said that the PAK FA had an RCS of 0.5sqm.

    The 0.3sqm for the F-22 contrasts sharply what America has said the rcs of the f-22 really is (they said something like 0.0001sqm). Why is this? Is it because Russia calculates rcs differently?

    If that's the case, then what would the PAK FA's rcs be if it was calculated using the Western method?

    Thanks for any answers!
    You are asking a very loaded question. There is no such thing as a 'Western' or 'non-Western' method of calculating the radar cross section (RCS) of a complex body. The RCS question/value rests on how many tools you have and how effectively do you use them.

    For starter...



    In radar detection, the simplest body is the sphere. On this body, there are only four possible behaviors:

    - Specular
    - Surface wave
    - Leaky wave
    - Creeping wave

    You can guess the matches from the illustration above. The fourth behavior -- creeping wave -- is conditional. There is a rule call the 'ten lambda' rule. Lambda is the Greek symbol for wavelength -- ANY wavelength. The 'ten lambda' rule states that if the diameter of the sphere (or cylinder) is greater than 'ten lambda' then the creeping wave effect will not occur. This is because of the leaky wave effect. The surface is called the 'electrical path' and the longer this path the greater the leaky wave loss mechanism, hence the creeping wave effect may or may not occur.

    In contrast, an aircraft is a much more complex body than a sphere...



    It is well known that Physical Optics (PO) is good only for specular reflections but not for anything else. Even the Iranians know this...



    For cavities such as engine inlet/exhaust tunnels, more sophisticated tools have been developed, such as Iterative Physical Optics (IPO)...

    http://www.jpier.org/PIER/pier.php?paper=07110803
    Abstract:
    It is always a challenge to predict Radar Cross Section (RCS) of a full scale military platform with a good accuracy. Most of the time antennas and cavities are the main contributors of aircrafts RCS. Several methods have been developed to compute the RCS of cavities such as analytical methods (modal methods) and asymptotic methods (geometrical optics (GO) methods and physical optics (PO) methods). This article presents the Iterative Physical Optics (IPO) method which consists in an iterative resolution of the Magnetic Field Integral Equation (MFIE) to compute the currents on the inner walls of the cavity. This method allows computing arbitrarily shaped cavity with a good accuracy even for cavity with a depth inferior to the wavelength. Comparisons of IPO results with Rays and Finite element methods show a better accuracy of IPO than Rays especially for cross polarization. But computation time represents one of the main limitations of the IPO method. We present here a new formulation of the Segmented IPO method which coupled with the generalized reciprocity theorem decreases significantly the complexity of the method and consequently the computation time. The S-IPO method has been validated by comparisons with Modal method and measurements. We have observed that the repartition of the electric currents density on the inner walls of the cavity is quite the same with IPO and S-IPO computations. Lastly we propose an evolution of the IPO method we have developed to compute the RCSof cavities under radome. This method has been validated by comparison with finite element results.

    Ufimtsev developed the edge diffraction method that gave US the F-117. Edge diffraction calculations is another tool.

    So your loaded question rests upon the tester's knowledge of how many behaviors are there on a complex body, how they interact with each other, how many tools available, and how good is the tester's usage of them. If there are deficiencies in any of those knowledge, and the problem here is that those deficiencies may not be known to the tester, in other words, he does not know he is wrong, the entire enterprise is compromised and a 'non-true' RCS will result. The next problem is that once as complex a body like an aircraft is considered 'complete' a project, meaning ready for volume production, you may not be able to make changes and/or corrections to that complex body without the possibility of creating negative aerodynamic compromises.

    So here is a possibility: You designed a 'stealth' aircraft using only Physical Optics (PO) as your measurement tool. You did not know about edge diffraction or surface wave behaviors. You shaped your aircraft in ways to deflect specular reflections away from the seeking radar's position. Then you publish the RCS value and call the design ready for production. On the other hand, your potential adversary spent a lot of money and much more time than you developing his 'stealth' aircraft with as many available tools, known and unknown to you, as he can. It is inevitable that he will create a superior 'stealth' aircraft than yours. His may not be as fast or may not carry as much ordnance as yours but because he can bypass radar networks with greater ease his 'stealth' aircraft can greater affect the war than yours can.

    Other considerations are the hardware used in running these tools. The more powerful the computers, the greater your knowledge on the interactions between these behaviors because these reflections and diffracted signals have to come off the individual bodies such as antennas or flight control surfaces some time. In a complex body, those signals will impact other surfaces at different angles and that may create a different behavior. Powerful computers can help you observe and record these complex interactions in a larger time span compared to breaking down the complex body into discrete segments and try to patch these smaller bodies together later.

    This is why it is not as easy in making and/or measuring a 'stealth' aircraft as many have come to falsely believe. The US have no problem with anyone making any claims about our 'stealth' aircrafts regarding their RCS values. The critics can make those values as high or as low as they wish.

    ricky123
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 223
    Points : 327
    Join date : 2012-08-20

    Russian stealth technology

    Post  ricky123 on Mon Oct 22, 2012 10:38 pm

    plz watch this documentary very intresting how the usa got stealth tech from russia



    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Stealth Technology

    Post  GarryB on Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:47 am

    More accurately the US was working on stealth, but their work was very slow and very hit and miss.

    They would build a model and then test it, and then redesign the model and test it again. They understood the basics of RCS and there were obvious things they could do, but mostly it was just largely guesswork.

    What the Russians did, or one particular Russian did was create a mathematical model that explains RCS, what creates it and how to minimise it.

    This mathematical model meant that the US engineers could design based on proper calculations, so with the use of computers they could test hundreds or even thousands of shapes and designs without having to go through the process of building a model and testing it in a radar range.

    The advent of super computers further helped so instead of simple faceted models like the F-117, they could develop much more complex shapes that included curves yet still remained stealthy.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    ricky123
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 223
    Points : 327
    Join date : 2012-08-20

    Re: Russian Stealth Technology

    Post  ricky123 on Tue Oct 23, 2012 1:29 pm

    i wish russia could have taken advantage of this .the world would have been a better place Rolling Eyes

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Stealth Technology

    Post  TR1 on Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:18 pm

    ricky123 wrote:i wish russia could have taken advantage of this .the world would have been a better place Rolling Eyes

    The USSR was no good cookie either.

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Russian Stealth Technology

    Post  SOC on Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:32 pm

    ricky123 wrote:i wish russia could have taken advantage of this .the world would have been a better place Rolling Eyes

    There are precisely zero examples of cases where airborne VLO technology has enabled the US to do something it couldn't or wouldn't have done otherwise. It's been used to make some things easier, but they'd have been done anyway.

    Unless Russia and the US are going to war with each other directly, Russia's use or non-use of airborne VLO technology has no bearing on anything. And if they are going to war, it won't really matter anyway as that will be an nuclear exchange.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Stealth Technology

    Post  GarryB on Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:38 am

    There are precisely zero examples of cases where airborne VLO technology has enabled the US to do something it couldn't or wouldn't have done otherwise. It's been used to make some things easier, but they'd have been done anyway.

    Unless Russia and the US are going to war with each other directly, Russia's use or non-use of airborne VLO technology has no bearing on anything. And if they are going to war, it won't really matter anyway as that will be an nuclear exchange.

    X2

    And with the added factor that stealth is expensive... to design, to build, to operate, and to keep secret.

    It is also a bit of a pandoras box because although stealth is useful to the US... it would also be very very useful to the enemies of the US that can afford it.

    Without the F-22 and F-35 there likely would be little need for the PAK FA.

    Because of the F-22 and F-35 there will be a PAK FA which means the west has created a situation where Russia and India will have aircraft superior to most of their existing fleets of non stealthy legasy aircraft.

    Without the F-22 and F-35 both the US and Europe could have given their existing aircraft upgrades and relied on the fact that they have a full, well equipped and trained force with all the little force multipliers that make them even more capable and could have continued for a couple of decades with superior capability to anyone they are likely to come up against in real combat (where the result will not be determined by nukes).

    Instead they have a few F-22s and lots of plans for thousands of F-35s which may or may not be realised, but the potential for who knows how many PAK FA and FFGA aircraft.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Stealth Technology

    Post  TR1 on Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:56 am

    Well as things stand right now, I find it exceedingly hard to believe PAK-FA and derivative numbers will come anywhere close to the numbers the US and allied nations will operate.
    Just a simple game of budgets and numbers.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Stealth Technology

    Post  GarryB on Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:20 am

    I agree completely, but the problem now for the US and her allies is that previously they could probably have just kept F-117s and perhaps B-2s and a limited number of F-22s for homeland defence and I rather think India and Russia would have found it hard to justify having hundreds of PAK FA/FFGA type aircraft themselves.

    F-35s in mass production however will likely require a force of at least 250 PAK FAs into the mid to late 2020s, and will require a level of quality that will likely give them a significant edge because a large majority of USAF aircraft will be level one standard but those sold to US allies will not be so well equipped and not so capable.

    There are no current plans for 1,000 PAK FAs and I rather doubt there ever will be, but as their aircraft age they will need replacement, so I suspect a smaller cheaper mass production 5th gen fighter would be on the cards.

    To put it in terms of computers in the 1980s there was the Amiga 500 computer that was a pretty good games machine for the time. It had an old Motorolla 68000 CPU but had custom graphics chips for graphics performance that was way ahead of IBM clones and indeed Macs of the day.

    The point is that the Amiga could do pretty much anything you needed it to do, though today it would be slow and obsolete. Rebuilding an Amiga now with modern components you could probably create a super Amiga the size of a palm computer for a fraction of the original cost. The original Amiga had a floppy disk and you could attach a side mounted SCSI hard drive with a capacity of maybe 10MB. The entire operating system was on 2 x 880K floppy disks and RAM was 512K as standard, but if you added the hard drive there was extra space for about 8MB or so.

    The important feature however is focus.

    Making a new Amiga now could lead to simply trying to change it into a standard android driven palmtop.

    This relates to aircraft because in the future when the Russian AF decides it wants to replace its non stealthy aircraft with stealthy aircraft if they try to make it a super plane like the US has with the F-35 it will end up over weight and expensive... which is the total opposite of what it was supposed to be.

    Of course rather than trying to recreate an old Amiga it makes rather more sense to simply buy a playstation portable or equivalent.

    The key to any new PAK FA jnr is to keep it small and light... it doesn't need to be able to carry enormous weapon loads thousands of kms... a good engine, reasonable level of stealth, good sensors, and sophisticated effective weapons is all that is needed.

    Right now the situation is that the F-22 spends most of the time on the ground and they don't seem actually very keen to use it. The F-35 is bogged down with weight issues and cost issues and will likely be delayed, but because of its existence necessary upgrades and improvements to existing aircraft are not being implemented.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Russian Stealth Technology

    Post  SOC on Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:16 pm

    GarryB wrote:F-35s in mass production however will likely require a force of at least 250 PAK FAs into the mid to late 2020s

    With 100 Nebo-M kits and expanding numbers of S-400s entering service, the only reason for 250 PAK FAs is because you want to be able to say you can counter an airplane with an airplane.

    ricky123
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 223
    Points : 327
    Join date : 2012-08-20

    Re: Russian Stealth Technology

    Post  ricky123 on Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:13 pm

    what i really meant was if usa dint get that tech .most prob usa wouldnt have been the only super power it wouldnt have the kind of influence it has now ....

    also i agree with most of the things gary said .


    india and russia willmake 1000 pakfa 600 of them will be divided between india and russia while 400 are for export. also india has its own AMCA project .if india is able to build a good fighter .i dont see any reason why wont russia buy that as well ..

    and we should not forget brazil they would be intrested in this too. i think they already want the pakfa

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Russian Stealth Technology

    Post  SOC on Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:19 pm

    ricky123 wrote:what i really meant was if usa dint get that tech .most prob usa wouldnt have been the only super power it wouldnt have the kind of influence it has now ....

    And my point is that yes, it would still have turned out this way. Stealth is a fun toy to play with and very useful in the right environment, but I've never heard of a military operation being cancelled because they couldn't use stealth, or more to the point we haven't done anything that has been so reliant on stealth that its absence would equate to failure. In fact, the 1986 Libya bombing originally considered the F-117, but they decided to use the F-111Fs and carrier-based jets for security. Take stealth out of the 1991 Iraq war, and you'd have seen more TLAM firings the first night. Take it out of Yugoslavia, and all that you have is one less shootdown. Take it out of Afghanistan or Iraq II, and all you end up with is greater reliance on B-52s and B-1Bs initially as long-range bomb trucks.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Stealth Technology

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 4:52 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 04, 2016 4:52 am