Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    General Questions Thread:

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16414
    Points : 17025
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Sun Nov 07, 2010 1:52 am

    Inlets and intakes are different.

    An intake is the normal way air enters the engine.

    Sometimes however the engine needs more air so the inlets are released and they get sucked open and let more air in. Or sometimes there is too much air coming in and they let air leak out before it gets to the engine.



    In the above picture you can see the inlets are closed because there is enough air getting to the engines through the normal air intakes for the takeoff.



    In this picture the inlets are open because the engines are in a low thrust setting and are probably not using all the air coming in the intakes so air leaks out the inlets to reduce the air pressure in the intake.

    At high altitude at low speed they will likely open to increase pressure.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun Nov 07, 2010 2:19 am

    GarryB wrote:
    It's written by an American.

    My point was that it really doesn't give use any useful information except that the Georgians are crapping themselves and want to be rearmed so they can have another go so I really don't see the point of posting it.

    I will never get the minutes it took to read it back.

    In comparison the other articles were interesting and useful and more on topic.


    So it wasn't propaganda after all.

    Great! russia

    havok

    Posts : 73
    Points : 70
    Join date : 2010-09-20

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  havok on Sun Nov 07, 2010 7:49 am

    Folks,

    Here is the proverbial straight dope on this 'plasma stealth' tale...

    http://www.science20.com/news_account/stealth_antenna_made_of_gas_impervious_to_jamming
    Plasma antennas behave much like solid metal antennas because electrons flow freely in the hot gas, just as they do in metal conductors.
    Plasma antenna technology is nothing new. It has been around for decades. But in order to understand how a plasma antenna works, and naturally in concept how 'plasma stealth' works, one must understand something more basic, more mundane...

    http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/earth/atmosphere.html
    The structure of the ionosphere is strongly influenced by the charged particle wind from the Sun (solar wind), which is in turn governed by the level of Solar activity. One measure of the structure of the ionosphere is the free electron density, which is an indicator of the degree of ionization.
    The Earth's atmosphere is composed of layers of ionized gases and ionized gas is -- plasma. Depending on frequency, a layer may reflect EM waves or pass through. The result of this effect is atmospheric deflections of radio signals that can travels over the horizon...

    Above the stratosphere is the mesosphere and above that is the ionosphere (or thermosphere), where many atoms are ionized (have gained or lost electrons so they have a net electrical charge). The ionosphere is very thin, but it is where aurora take place, and is also responsible for absorbing the most energetic photons from the Sun, and for reflecting radio waves, thereby making long-distance radio communication possible.
    The layers that pass through EM waves could be construed as 'absorbers', as in radar absorbers, because what are radar signals but EM waves, nyet?

    A plasma antenna does exactly that -- absorb certain freqs. The container that holds the ionized gas does nothing else except what it is designed to do. Electronic countermeasure (ECM) tactics works because there is a conductor. But if there is no antenna then there is no conductor. Switch power off to the gas and there is no plasma antenna, hence the point of the article.

    So what 'plasma stealth' does, in concept anyway, is to array around a body a chain of plasma antenna that will absorb known radar freqs, just like physical absorbers do, except the plasma antenna has greater bandwidth. It is not about creating a free plasma cloud around the body that could be stripped away by the environment -- moving air. To make this concept works, these plasma antenna should be as close to the surface as possible lest the aircraft's skin reflects the impinging radar signals, thereby defeating the purpose of the plasma antennas. But just as the Earth's atmosphere layers reflects certain freqs and pass through, or absorb, certain freqs, so will these plasma antennas in this array. Another issue is the power requirement. Power can be switched off on the side that is not being impacted by seeking radar signals. But what about when the aircraft is in an electronic dense combat environment? The best solution is a hybrid of body shaping and plasma antennas at certain locations on the aircraft's body that is known to be highly radar reflective and this technique can be applied to existing 'non-stealth' aircrafts as well.

    The US have studied this method of radar reflectivity avoidance and found it inferior to body shaping. The technology is promising but as far as military aviation goes, it is still too much in the infancy stage to be effective in deployment.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16414
    Points : 17025
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:27 am

    So it wasn't propaganda after all.

    It claims that Russia was planning Georgias attack on South Ossetia for months in advance... and that the pilots they captured were drunk...

    Clearly propaganda... of course we hear little else from Georgia it would be a bit of a shock if it actually told the truth for a change.

    The Earth's atmosphere is composed of layers of ionized gases and ionized gas is -- plasma. Depending on frequency, a layer may reflect EM waves or pass through. The result of this effect is atmospheric deflections of radio signals that can travels over the horizon...

    It is also the reason that during reentry ground control lose contact with spacecraft. A period or window where they just have to wait to see if they are OK entering the Earths atmosphere.

    The US have studied this method of radar reflectivity avoidance and found it inferior to body shaping. The technology is promising but as far as military aviation goes, it is still too much in the infancy stage to be effective in deployment.

    Just because the Americans couldn't make it work doesn't mean no one else could. The Americans were amazed by the SHKVAL rocket propelled torpedo when it was revealed to the west, but the first operational Soviet rocket propelled torpedo entered service in the 1950s.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun Nov 07, 2010 6:24 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    So it wasn't propaganda after all.

    It claims that Russia was planning Georgias attack on South Ossetia for months in advance... and that the pilots they captured were drunk...

    Clearly propaganda... of course we hear little else from Georgia it would be a bit of a shock if it actually told the truth for a change.



    And Russia claimed the opposite, again, claims.

    It actually said that NATO/Georgian Intel Officers said that Russian pilots were drunk, not just captured ones. So, it was a Secondary source, not absolute confirmable, but nothing for you to fret about.

    havok

    Posts : 73
    Points : 70
    Join date : 2010-09-20

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  havok on Sun Nov 07, 2010 7:13 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    The US have studied this method of radar reflectivity avoidance and found it inferior to body shaping. The technology is promising but as far as military aviation goes, it is still too much in the infancy stage to be effective in deployment.

    Just because the Americans couldn't make it work doesn't mean no one else could. The Americans were amazed by the SHKVAL rocket propelled torpedo when it was revealed to the west, but the first operational Soviet rocket propelled torpedo entered service in the 1950s.
    What make you think that the US was unable to 'make it work'? The fact that you guys are debating that there is a plasma cloud or 'field' enveloping the aircraft tells me that no one knows what he is talking about as far as plasma goes, how it is generated and how it actually works. Installing a rocket into a torpedo is not a propulsion conceptual problem but an engineering one, and to date, no one has yet to envelope a slow moving car in a plasma field in a 2D environment, let alone an aircraft moving at several hundreds km/h in a 3D environment. If there is going to be an engineering effort to exploit plasma's characteristics, it is best to use the plasma antenna array path rather than excitation of surrounding gases and lose the plasma field in flight. You are confused between failure to engineer versus a comparative study between concepts. The latter often involves successful engineering efforts to support all arguments but in the end, a committee determines that there are no advantages of one idea over the other.
    avatar
    nightcrawler

    Posts : 535
    Points : 651
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  nightcrawler on Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:31 pm

    ^^
    The fact that you guys are debating that there is a plasma cloud or 'field' enveloping the aircraft tells me that no one knows what he is talking about as far as plasma goes, how it is generated and how it actually works.
    I didn't know but I know now!! Thnx\

    @ http://www.scribd.com/full/41216219?access_key=key-7231ezjke4wyynglaa0

    page.67


    I juat read from here that it was something chemical in nature
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16414
    Points : 17025
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Mon Nov 08, 2010 12:37 am

    It actually said that NATO/Georgian Intel Officers said that Russian pilots were drunk, not just captured ones. So, it was a Secondary source, not absolute confirmable, but nothing for you to fret about.

    I don't really care what they have to say.



    Not interested in hearing Osama Bin Ladens point of view either.

    The fact that you guys are debating that there is a plasma cloud or 'field' enveloping the aircraft tells me that no one knows what he is talking about as far as plasma goes, how it is generated and how it actually works.

    Where did anyone suggest such a thing?
    I described what Plasma was and then described a perfectly good internal use for it inside the radar invisible radome to hide the radar antenna in a strike aircraft.

    I juat read from here that it was something chemical in nature

    A cheap desktop plasma ball works best with rare earth gases which not only makes making a plasma easier but makes it look pretty in different colours too.

    Regarding the photo above the mention of a plasma port is speculation... it looks like a simple access panel to me or it could be an antenna for some sort of avionics item.

    I would suggest that by the time they get beyond the early prototype aircraft and get to a full standard aircraft the front and rear edges will have dogtooth shapes to reduce RCS.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16414
    Points : 17025
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Mon Nov 08, 2010 12:40 am

    The US have studied this method of radar reflectivity avoidance and found it inferior to body shaping. The technology is promising but as far as military aviation goes, it is still too much in the infancy stage to be effective in deployment.

    So would that make the combination of body shaping, materials, RAM coating AND plasma stealth for certain areas invalid?

    havok

    Posts : 73
    Points : 70
    Join date : 2010-09-20

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  havok on Tue Nov 09, 2010 1:20 am

    GarryB wrote:
    The fact that you guys are debating that there is a plasma cloud or 'field' enveloping the aircraft tells me that no one knows what he is talking about as far as plasma goes, how it is generated and how it actually works.

    Where did anyone suggest such a thing?
    I described what Plasma was and then described a perfectly good internal use for it inside the radar invisible radome to hide the radar antenna in a strike aircraft.
    Radomes are frequently opened for maintenance reasons. Not a good idea.

    GarryB wrote:
    The US have studied this method of radar reflectivity avoidance and found it inferior to body shaping. The technology is promising but as far as military aviation goes, it is still too much in the infancy stage to be effective in deployment.

    So would that make the combination of body shaping, materials, RAM coating AND plasma stealth for certain areas invalid?
    Look at it this way...You can have all body shaping, all RAM, or all 'plasma stealth'. Each 'all' will require considerable investments in research and development. Each will have strengths and weaknesses over the other options. If you cannot have 'all', and no one can, then we must, and usually do, resort to incorporation. We use the other options' strengths to make up for the other's weaknesses. A body's shaping that is inferior to another's shape can -- to some degrees -- compensate via RAM or 'plasma stealth'. But what if the plasma control system failed? The problem with incorporation is increased system complexity. Some are unavoidable, some are. The trick is how to achieve the 'are'.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16414
    Points : 17025
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 09, 2010 2:38 am

    Radomes are frequently opened for maintenance reasons. Not a good idea.

    An AESA radar will not need maintainence for years, or so its proponents claim as modules fail the performance of the radar deteriorates but only by a very little amount performance wise so a cost saving is made by not bothering with maintanence and after a time period (measured in years) the faulty modules are replaced, rather than regular scheduled maintainence.
    Another factor is that these rare gases could be incorporated as part of a transpiration cooling system so that the radome is a sealed module that can be looked at when the scheduled replacement of modules is due.
    Or conversely the plasma gas could be contained in the hollow radom in front of the radar in a sealed unit that folds open to give access to the radar antenna.

    Look at it this way...You can have all body shaping, all RAM, or all 'plasma stealth'.

    Look at it this way, any technique at a measure results in an equivelent countermeasure... if yo put all your eggs in the shaping basket what happens with improved long wave AESA radars that are not effected by shape? Or electronic techniques that might render RAM ineffective? Or indeed methods that might make plasma stealth counter productive? Developing and using as many types of stealth as you can and applying them to their strengths and to counter the weaknesses of other methods simply makes sense.

    A good example is the western use of towed decoys. That is great because chaff slows down too fast and is rejected because it travels too slow. Another solution however is a 30mm or 23mm cannon shell where the shell has an external surface covered in corner reflectors so instead of having a tiny RCS its RCS is actually rather large and its aerodynamic shape and weight means it retains speed well, though its ballistic dive could be a problem unless the aircraft firing the shell dives too.
    Same problem, different solution... it is the superiority complex of the west that thinks its way is right.
    For IR guided missiles there is a flare shell and in the case of the Tu-22M3 the gun firing the shells can "deploy" 50 flares a second mixed with "chaff" shells. Simple to reload and maintain.

    havok

    Posts : 73
    Points : 70
    Join date : 2010-09-20

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  havok on Tue Nov 09, 2010 4:24 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Radomes are frequently opened for maintenance reasons. Not a good idea.

    An AESA radar will not need maintainence for years, or so its proponents claim as modules fail the performance of the radar deteriorates but only by a very little amount performance wise so a cost saving is made by not bothering with maintanence and after a time period (measured in years) the faulty modules are replaced, rather than regular scheduled maintainence.
    Another factor is that these rare gases could be incorporated as part of a transpiration cooling system so that the radome is a sealed module that can be looked at when the scheduled replacement of modules is due.
    Or conversely the plasma gas could be contained in the hollow radom in front of the radar in a sealed unit that folds open to give access to the radar antenna.
    Wrong...This is clearly spoken from a position of ignorance, particularly aviation maintenance. On any radar, peripheral components are usually the cause of maintenance issues before the antenna array itself.

    For example...

    http://www.chomerics.com/products/waveguide_gaskets.htm
    For effective EMI shielding and pressure sealing for choke, cover and contact flanges, Chomerics' waveguide gaskets ensure low insertion, low flange leakage, maximum heat transfer and minimum outgassing. Chomerics provides conductive elastomer waveguide gaskets to fit standard UG, CPR, and CMR flanges. They can also be custom designed to meet special requirements.

    http://events.nace.org/library/corrosion/cases/antenna.asp
    Condensed moisture from humid air ingress was responsible for inducing corrosion within the aft radar antenna from an RAAF P-3C Orion maritime surveillance aircraft. Porosity in the silver-plating of a flexible brass waveguide allowed moisture to penetrate to the brass substrate and cause dezincification. The moisture also induced corrosion of some of the AA-6061 aluminum alloy waveguides. An investigation determined that moisture ingress occurred at a waveguide flange, possibly from the failure of a seal.
    Waveguides are standard means of power transmission in radar systems and the seals between connections are quite often the cause of performance degradation. These and other peripherals must have periodic maintenance (PM) done to prevent the system from reaching that failure. The list is considerable. In peacetime, we have stricter maintenance requirements for obvious reason: war. In other words, should there be a time for war, we want to deploy with the best possible weapons systems and there is no other time to prepare for that potential than in peace. This is also applicable to flight controls, engines, environmental, structures, and electrical. In war, we do not have the luxury of preventative maintenance in all of those systems. In the USAF, we have gradations of aircraft status that we allow flight. Code One is when an aircraft is considered problems free. Code Two is when a system degradation does not impair overall aircraft flight capability. Code Three is when a problem is serious enough to cause loss of human life or asset destruction. In peacetime, we do not fly if there is a particular system degradation that will cause an aircraft to have Code Two status. But in war time, we will make that allowance. Code Three is obvious enough but most maintenance justifications from post flight debrief will be of Code Two category and sufficient to ground the aircraft from tomorrow's flight schedule.

    I know you are desperate to salvage your argument but you are defying known practices and decades of experiences worldwide. Russia is not immune from 'the real world'.

    GarryB wrote:
    Look at it this way...You can have all body shaping, all RAM, or all 'plasma stealth'.

    Look at it this way, any technique at a measure results in an equivelent countermeasure... if yo put all your eggs in the shaping basket what happens with improved long wave AESA radars that are not effected by shape?
    Wrong...ALL freqs are affected by target body shapes and dimensions. The issue is the degree of target resolutions.

    GarryB wrote:Or electronic techniques that might render RAM ineffective? Or indeed methods that might make plasma stealth counter productive?
    Do you even know basic radar detection principles to make these statements? I doubt it.

    GarryB wrote:Developing and using as many types of stealth as you can and applying them to their strengths and to counter the weaknesses of other methods simply makes sense.
    In principle...Yes. But in reality, complex systems have greater system failures, not just in frequency but also in severity. An aircraft that is capable of deploying complex countermeasures against radar detection but require financially excessive manhours and manpower to maintain is just as bad as having nothing at all.

    GarryB wrote:A good example is the western use of towed decoys. That is great because chaff slows down too fast and is rejected because it travels too slow. Another solution however is a 30mm or 23mm cannon shell where the shell has an external surface covered in corner reflectors so instead of having a tiny RCS its RCS is actually rather large and its aerodynamic shape and weight means it retains speed well, though its ballistic dive could be a problem unless the aircraft firing the shell dives too.
    Same problem, different solution... it is the superiority complex of the west that thinks its way is right.
    For IR guided missiles there is a flare shell and in the case of the Tu-22M3 the gun firing the shells can "deploy" 50 flares a second mixed with "chaff" shells. Simple to reload and maintain.
    You have a gross misunderstanding of chaff and how it works. If the radar view is overwhelmed with chaff, it does not matter the chaff bloom's velocity. The West cannot alter the laws of physics. It is too bad for the rest that we know how to exploit those laws better than others can.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16414
    Points : 17025
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:29 am

    Wrong...This is clearly spoken from a position of ignorance, particularly aviation maintenance. On any radar, peripheral components are usually the cause of maintenance issues before the antenna array itself.

    So what? Why would you open the Radome if you were working on radar electronics? You open the Radome to expose the antenna... and as I said there is no reason why a seal pocket in the radome could not be filled with the required gasses.

    Regarding accessing the antenna:
    As a benchmark, typical conventional fighter radars have Mean Times Between Failure (MTBF) of around 60 to 300 hours - AESA radars push the MTBF into the 1,000 hours or better class. Rather than several repairs annually to the radar, the AESA will see the radar needing repair only once every several years of operation. If we assume an annual flying rate of around 200 hours, on average the AESA needs to be repaired once every five years! From a support costs perspective, this means much reduced cost of ownership for fighter fleet operators who transition to the technology.

    http://www.ausairpower.net/aesa-intro.html

    I know you are desperate to salvage your argument but you are defying known practices and decades of experiences worldwide. Russia is not immune from 'the real world'.

    I am glad you are not making this personal...

    Wrong...ALL freqs are affected by target body shapes and dimensions. The issue is the degree of target resolutions.

    In practical terms long wave radar waves are not redirected away from the emitter by shaping.

    Do you even know basic radar detection principles to make these statements? I doubt it.

    You are an expert on Russian development clearly because you know all about plasma stealth. Just like my great great great great great grandfather was an expert on flying because he knew people would never be able to fly from country to country in aeroplanes... if you move faster than 30 miles an hour... well you couldn't breath at that speed!

    An aircraft that is capable of deploying complex countermeasures against radar detection but require financially excessive manhours and manpower to maintain is just as bad as having nothing at all.

    Sounds like a good argument against the 2 billion dollar a piece B-2s...

    It is too bad for the rest that we know how to exploit those laws better than others can.

    Yes, the super west... truth, justice, and oil wasn't it?
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Nov 09, 2010 4:32 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    Yes, the super west... truth, justice, and oil wasn't it?

    Nice Ad Hominems Garry, but you aren't really defending your point.

    Anyways, because you don't really care what they said then I think the first thing Russia needs to do is take away that alcohol from their pilots! censored
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16414
    Points : 17025
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 10, 2010 2:48 am

    Anyways, because you don't really care what they said then I think the first thing Russia needs to do is take away that alcohol from their pilots!

    I am interested in facts about the Russian AF, not the whinings of the team that came second.

    There were a lot of problems highlighted for the Russian air force to deal with in that little police action with Georgia but no real issues were even mentioned in that article.

    Real problems were communication and recon.

    In other areas they excelled. I mean lets face it... how hard should it have been for the Georgians to shell a city while at the same time send a force to the Roki tunnel with enough demolition equipment to bring down half a kilometre of it?
    It is forgotten that there were actually two conflicts taking place here... first the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia which triggered the Abkhazian invasion of Georgia to take back land Georgia occupied. The Abkhazian attack on Georgia was not supported by the Russians the Abkhazians pushed the Georgians back all by themselves. Lets face it, the Russians weren't there to protect the Abkhazians from the Georgians... it was the other way around... they were there to protect the Georgians from the Abkhazians. : I love you
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  IronsightSniper on Wed Nov 10, 2010 3:54 am

    Well, maybe you should read it again, if Russian pilots were drunk and off course or using ineffective altitudes, that's some serious problems! Considering that RUAF losses were done mostly by Russian export equipment, they should work on their Counter-Counter warfare tactics! It is not whining you must understand, but facts (sources were NATO/Georgian Intel Officers).
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16414
    Points : 17025
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:48 am

    It is not whining you must understand, but facts (sources were NATO/Georgian Intel Officers).

    How would they know if Russian pilots were off course?

    There are plenty of areas the Russians have identified as problems and they are working on them.

    Do you think the 11/9 attacks should be used to evaluate US air defences?

    This was a surprise attack by a cowardly enemy, would you like me to post some Al Aquada "Expert" evaluation of US air defence efficiency and performance?

    What if they said the average age of the firemen that were killed when the buildings collapsed was older than average so perhaps it was the US government that was behind it. This wasn't the first attack on the building afterall.
    Maybe some of the firemen might have been at a bar having a drink when the first plane hit but were close enough to do something about it so they turned up for duty anyway. Is their boss going to say... "Hey you have been drinking... there are up to 30,000 people in those buildings that need our help but you have had a beer so you can't help... go home."
    Remember there is no independant confirmation of this... just the word from Al Quada... and BTW they fear the US military might respond so please send weapons so that when they do attack that AQ can give them a bloody nose.

    I will say again... I don't believe Georgian propaganda and I give no weight to anything coming from them or their government.

    Of course as a westerner I am used to this BS... for most of the post WWII period it was believed the Soviets didn't have a decent fighter aircraft and that the Polikarpovs and lend lease aircraft were all they had. Even then the west believed the Polikarpov I-16 was called the Rat or the Fly... which was the name their Spanish enemies named them.
    For most of the early cold war period we got the west german view of the eastern front conflict and surprise surprise... it seems we thought the Soviets won because of numbers and the winter and Hitlers mistakes. It is strange that numbers really didn't help the Chinese against the Japanese during the same period.

    You say I should listen to all sources, well in theory that has merit but considering the source I will politely decline.

    (Hope I didn't cause offence at the 11/9 reference above, but I think it puts things in perspective... nobody likes unprovoked attacks.)
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  IronsightSniper on Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:25 am

    It hasn't become that obvious has it? unshaven

    America is the World Police, most of the world either don't have an Airforce or are operating second hand equipment, usually from the Cold War era and probably of MiG design. It's no secret that we plan on a shoot and scoot tactic and we don't plan to get into a knife fight as Carlo Kopp suggests, because we'd get damn slaughtered that close up. We depend on our Stealth to get close to the enemy, fire our long range AIM-120Ds, and just scoot away before the Ruskies can find us.

    Lets be honest here, the Su-35 is technically a reduced RCS fighter but it's RCS is still large enough for the F-35 to see it from a distance away, and not even necessarily at the Frontal aspect in which case the OLS-35 would spot the F-35. So with the ability of Stealth, it also gives the F-35 the initiative, allowing it when and where to attack. We'd probably have to fire more than 2 AIM-120Ds at a single Su-35 just because of their maneuverability, but with our surprise, we could always just scoot away.
    avatar
    nightcrawler

    Posts : 535
    Points : 651
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  nightcrawler on Wed Nov 17, 2010 9:44 pm

    IronsightSniper wrote:It hasn't become that obvious has it? unshaven

    America is the World Police, most of the world either don't have an Airforce or are operating second hand equipment, usually from the Cold War era and probably of MiG design. It's no secret that we plan on a shoot and scoot tactic and we don't plan to get into a knife fight as Carlo Kopp suggests, because we'd get damn slaughtered that close up. We depend on our Stealth to get close to the enemy, fire our long range AIM-120Ds, and just scoot away before the Ruskies can find us.

    Lets be honest here, the Su-35 is technically a reduced RCS fighter but it's RCS is still large enough for the F-35 to see it from a distance away, and not even necessarily at the Frontal aspect in which case the OLS-35 would spot the F-35. So with the ability of Stealth, it also gives the F-35 the initiative, allowing it when and where to attack. We'd probably have to fire more than 2 AIM-120Ds at a single Su-35 just because of their maneuverability, but with our surprise, we could always just scoot away.

    That I always feared from the very start of missilization era
    avatar
    nightcrawler

    Posts : 535
    Points : 651
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  nightcrawler on Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:23 am

    Any Russian Equivalent to this

    http://www.defencetalk.com/eye-in-the-sky-has-the-sniper-on-target-30080/

    The last 28th Bomb Wing B-1B Lancer received the necessary modifications to operate the Sniper advanced targeting pod Oct. 18.

    The advanced targeting pod acts as a long-range camera, which can pinpoint targets for precision strikes and close-air-support missions.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16414
    Points : 17025
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:20 am

    America is the World Police, most of the world either don't have an Airforce or are operating second hand equipment, usually from the Cold War era and probably of MiG design.

    World police?
    Not really... unless you are talking about a corrupt cop that is self appointed and that really only bothers getting involved when he has a personal interest in the case and is prepared to break international law to get the results that favour him the most.

    It's no secret that we plan on a shoot and scoot tactic and we don't plan to get into a knife fight as Carlo Kopp suggests, because we'd get damn slaughtered that close up.

    Real war is not a game. Only an idiot would fight "fair". It is the survivor that writes history so fighting fair is pointless anyway.

    I mean the west managed to make Dunkirk look like a victory.
    And as for the rest of WWII I saw a documentary on the western strategic bombing campaign in Europe and how it is now undesputedly what won WWII. It is funny that it even mentioned attempts to destroy ball bearing factories that would have ground the German economy to a halt in months but despite several attempts they failed and it was a well protected target and they lost many aircraft so they stopped bothering to try to bring the German economy to its knees within months and went back to fire bombing German cities. Killing women and children.

    The huge irony is the western claim to the moral high ground... yet if we look at the efforts... the Germans killed 27 million Soviets including well over 16 million civilians yet the Soviets killed mostly German soldiers and pilots. Sure there were rapes in occupied territories but I rather doubt the number of East German civilians actually killed by the Soviets was even comparable to the number the west killed in one fire bombing air raid over Dresden.

    But it was the strategic bombing that won the war if you ask any westerner. Amazing that Britain wasn't defeated by bombing yet the Germans were...
    More amazing was that the Soviets still managed to lose so many soldiers taking Berlin from a foe already defeated by years of strategic bombing.

    Sorry, now I am ranting. I do that occasionally... just smile and nod and agree and I will shut up.

    We depend on our Stealth to get close to the enemy, fire our long range AIM-120Ds, and just scoot away before the Ruskies can find us.

    I am sorry but do you actually believe this? Do you really think a conflict between Russia and the US will in any way be effected by AIM-120s of any model or type?

    Tactical nukes exploding on all NATO airfields within flight range of Russian targets will mean "scoot" is pointless. Might as well stay and use all your ammo because the airfield you came from an everyone on it will be radioactive dust before you get back. Soon followed by most of the northern continents.

    So with the ability of Stealth, it also gives the F-35 the initiative, allowing it when and where to attack.

    You are assuming the Su-35 is not using its long wave wing mounted radar antenna. You are also assuming the Su-35 will not have ground based long wave radar and SAM sites supporting it. The enormous area of Russian Airspace means that an attacking F-35 will probably try to infiltrate the airspace between major airfields and radar bases and SAM sites so the most likely acquisition of the target will be side on rather than head on.
    You also assume that the Su-35 will never get a high power AESA radar with similar LPI operating modes that allow it to search for the F-35 without giving away its position.
    Finally you are assuming a stagnant IRST setup. With Mig revealing its rather sophisticated optronic system created by a Russian company involved in Russias space industry, it is certain that Sukhoi will try to respond with an even better system for the larger aircraft.

    We'd probably have to fire more than 2 AIM-120Ds at a single Su-35 just because of their maneuverability, but with our surprise, we could always just scoot away.

    Scoot? How many missiles will a F-35 be able to carry on its strike missions? Compared to how many for the Su-35?
    Do you think the high tech wingtip mounted digital jamming pods on the Su-35 might effect the performance of AMRAAMs at all?
    Perhaps lower performance to the point where 5-6 missiles might be needed per target aircraft?



    That I always feared from the very start of missilization era

    Missiles are certainly becoming more and more like hittiles, but that goes for Russian missiles too.

    Any Russian Equivalent to this

    Many. Platan is the simple system built in to the Su-34, but has no thermal imager, but OK for general use. The SAPSAN was supposed to be an equivelent of SNIPER but needs more funding and a lot of improvement yet. The Russian AF has chosen the French Damocles targeting pod and is licence producing it. There is the obsolete Mercury pod for the Su-25TM but it was poor. There is a pod called Solluks that is mentioned with the Su-34 but for all we know it could be the name of the Damocles in Russian service or a new Russian pod. Little is known about it in public info it was mentioned by Piotr Butowski (Spelling) in an article he wrote about the Su-34 some time ago.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  IronsightSniper on Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:54 am

    [quote="GarryB"]
    America is the World Police, most of the world either don't have an Airforce or are operating second hand equipment, usually from the Cold War era and probably of MiG design.

    World police?
    Not really... unless you are talking about a corrupt cop that is self appointed and that really only bothers getting involved when he has a personal interest in the case and is prepared to break international law to get the results that favour him the most.

    Same job, different name.

    It's no secret that we plan on a shoot and scoot tactic and we don't plan to get into a knife fight as Carlo Kopp suggests, because we'd get damn slaughtered that close up.

    Real war is not a game. Only an idiot would fight "fair". It is the survivor that writes history so fighting fair is pointless anyway.

    I mean the west managed to make Dunkirk look like a victory.
    And as for the rest of WWII I saw a documentary on the western strategic bombing campaign in Europe and how it is now undesputedly what won WWII. It is funny that it even mentioned attempts to destroy ball bearing factories that would have ground the German economy to a halt in months but despite several attempts they failed and it was a well protected target and they lost many aircraft so they stopped bothering to try to bring the German economy to its knees within months and went back to fire bombing German cities. Killing women and children.

    The huge irony is the western claim to the moral high ground... yet if we look at the efforts... the Germans killed 27 million Soviets including well over 16 million civilians yet the Soviets killed mostly German soldiers and pilots. Sure there were rapes in occupied territories but I rather doubt the number of East German civilians actually killed by the Soviets was even comparable to the number the west killed in one fire bombing air raid over Dresden.

    But it was the strategic bombing that won the war if you ask any westerner. Amazing that Britain wasn't defeated by bombing yet the Germans were...
    More amazing was that the Soviets still managed to lose so many soldiers taking Berlin from a foe already defeated by years of strategic bombing.

    Sorry, now I am ranting. I do that occasionally... just smile and nod and agree and I will shut up.

    Smile

    We depend on our Stealth to get close to the enemy, fire our long range AIM-120Ds, and just scoot away before the Ruskies can find us.

    I am sorry but do you actually believe this? Do you really think a conflict between Russia and the US will in any way be effected by AIM-120s of any model or type?

    Tactical nukes exploding on all NATO airfields within flight range of Russian targets will mean "scoot" is pointless. Might as well stay and use all your ammo because the airfield you came from an everyone on it will be radioactive dust before you get back. Soon followed by most of the northern continents.

    Because no doubt Russian planes made for Russia is going to be the best of their class so if we plan for that we can defeat any export types? Please, argue the argument, and not just say, "We'll just nuke you!"

    So with the ability of Stealth, it also gives the F-35 the initiative, allowing it when and where to attack.

    You are assuming the Su-35 is not using its long wave wing mounted radar antenna. You are also assuming the Su-35 will not have ground based long wave radar and SAM sites supporting it. The enormous area of Russian Airspace means that an attacking F-35 will probably try to infiltrate the airspace between major airfields and radar bases and SAM sites so the most likely acquisition of the target will be side on rather than head on.
    You also assume that the Su-35 will never get a high power AESA radar with similar LPI operating modes that allow it to search for the F-35 without giving away its position.
    Finally you are assuming a stagnant IRST setup. With Mig revealing its rather sophisticated optronic system created by a Russian company involved in Russias space industry, it is certain that Sukhoi will try to respond with an even better system for the larger aircraft.

    1. If the location is Russia, then maybe the sides of the F-35 would be illuminated. Fly low, simple solutions.
    2. Because the Su-35 doesn't have AESA.
    3. Because Su-35 don't have QWIPs.


    We'd probably have to fire more than 2 AIM-120Ds at a single Su-35 just because of their maneuverability, but with our surprise, we could always just scoot away.

    Scoot? How many missiles will a F-35 be able to carry on its strike missions? Compared to how many for the Su-35?
    Do you think the high tech wingtip mounted digital jamming pods on the Su-35 might effect the performance of AMRAAMs at all?
    Perhaps lower performance to the point where 5-6 missiles might be needed per target aircraft?

    It would perhaps effect it, sure, 6 missiles no. The difference between the F-35 v.s. Su-35 is missile load, yes, but missile performance is a different topic. R-77 baselines have inferior range to the AIM-120C/D, so missile load for the Su-35 is of course irrelevant if you can't see your target. And perhaps not, perhaps the AIM-120D has sophisticated ECCM that won't degrade badly. 2-4 at best.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16414
    Points : 17025
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:46 am


    Same job, different name.

    Fundamentally different.

    A real world police force is bound by international law and has a duty to intervene in every case that is brought to their attention.

    What America does is much like a bully interfering when it suits them.

    The difference is that those who obey the rules have nothing to fear from a world police.

    Every country on the UNSC has a veto and is therefore above international law. Even when they make that law themselves.

    It was the US and other western powers that created the Universal Declaration of basic human rights. In other words rules set out for all humans that describe the rights they have. It doesn't give them rights, it describes they rights they have as humans.
    Ironically one of those rights is the right to privacy so the government for example can't simply listen in to them to see if they are doing anything wrong.
    The Echelon system... to which NZ is a part, directly violates that by monitoring all electronic communications.

    Funny thing is that it has been operating for years and was used by Boeing to win contracts for selling stuff, but didn't prevent 11/9 because it didn't operate in the US. Well not actually funny really.. but you know what I mean.

    Because no doubt Russian planes made for Russia is going to be the best of their class so if we plan for that we can defeat any export types? Please, argue the argument, and not just say, "We'll just nuke you!"

    The Russians have written in law that any attack on Russia that they perceive as a strategic threat will result in direct nuclear retaliation... even if the attack was conventional.

    It is the choice they will make if they are threatened... Just like the Israelis... the Russians and the Israelis know what real war is like... not some foreign adventure half way round the world, but right on their territory and I rather doubt they will choose to repeat it. They will use the nuclear weapons they have while they can under the assumption that any attack will be focussed on destroying their nuclear capacity to strike. They are therefore forced into the choice of use it or lose it... it is pretty clear they will use it.

    You might call it "Cheating to win the arguement", but I call it "the real consequences of doing something really stupid".

    Bush backed Saakashvili all the way remember.

    BTW up until the Su-35S enters service the best Russian fighters are in India. The Su-30MKI is a better fighter than the Su-34... simply because the Su-34 is a strike aircraft with some ability to defend itself. In fact it will likely operate like the F-35 in that any threat will likely be dealt with by firing a missile and leaving the area.

    1. If the location is Russia, then maybe the sides of the F-35 would be illuminated. Fly low, simple solutions.

    OTH-B radar is looking thousands of kms outwards from Russia looking for incoming targets. They can see high flying targets and low flying targets because their signal bounces off the upper atmosphere and round the curature of the earth. The addition of humint and satellites should mean that even if a first strike gets to a target area that the rest will have to penetrate defences on full alert... which is rather unlikely for the F-35.

    The result of the first explosions in Russia will be a tactical missile strike on the nearest airbase operating any aircraft that could have flown through the defences. If the Russian target hit was strategic in nature then the person responsible for the retaliation has the option of tactical nuclear weapons.

    A single strike on one thing however is rather unlikely because of the response it will initiate. A full scale attack is rather unlikely to be organised without Russian forces noticing.

    2. Because the Su-35 doesn't have AESA.

    WRONG. The wing mounted L and N band radar for the Su-35 is AESA. The longer radar wave means the elements are much larger.
    If they don't detect the F-35 directly they can detect datalink emissions and therefore determine the presence of an aircraft so other sensors can be used to find it.

    3. Because Su-35 don't have QWIPs.

    QWIPS are promising because they are relatively cheap and easier to make than staring focal arrays yet the resulting performance is similar in some ways and better in others.

    QWIP technology is now available in the US, EU and Russia

    http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-300309-1.html

    R-77 baselines have inferior range to the AIM-120C/D, so missile load for the Su-35 is of course irrelevant if you can't see your target.

    The original R-77s are only in service in very small numbers, the R-77 model being developed for the PAK-FA will have much longer range and performance. In the mean time the SD and MD versions of the R-77 and R-73 respectively are new digital models with significantly improved performance over the originals. These seem to be largely for export because all new short, medium, long and ultra long range missiles are being developed for the PAK-FA.
    There is no reason to believe these new missiles will not be used on the Mig-35s and Su-35s too.
    The short range IIR missile will also be used in a surface launched mode as a new SAM called Morfei.

    And perhaps not, perhaps the AIM-120D has sophisticated ECCM that won't degrade badly. 2-4 at best.

    Except the F-35 is not the F-22 and will lack the flight speed to increase missile range like a super cruising high altitude F-22 might.
    A low flying F-35 trying to evade radar will have serious problems engaging any fighters at long range.

    Low flying means totally subsonic.

    A high flying super cruising Su-35 should be able to catch up and attack from behind most of the time with a tail engagement enhanced by IRST tracking and engagement with long range R-27ET missiles fired from high speed and high altitude.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat Nov 20, 2010 5:48 pm


    Same job, different name.

    Fundamentally different.

    A real world police force is bound by international law and has a duty to intervene in every case that is brought to their attention.

    What America does is much like a bully interfering when it suits them.

    The difference is that those who obey the rules have nothing to fear from a world police.

    Every country on the UNSC has a veto and is therefore above international law. Even when they make that law themselves.

    It was the US and other western powers that created the Universal Declaration of basic human rights. In other words rules set out for all humans that describe the rights they have. It doesn't give them rights, it describes they rights they have as humans.
    Ironically one of those rights is the right to privacy so the government for example can't simply listen in to them to see if they are doing anything wrong.
    The Echelon system... to which NZ is a part, directly violates that by monitoring all electronic communications.

    Funny thing is that it has been operating for years and was used by Boeing to win contracts for selling stuff, but didn't prevent 11/9 because it didn't operate in the US. Well not actually funny really.. but you know what I mean.

    Sometimes the laws need bending to do what's right. We're not bullies, we're liberators.

    Because no doubt Russian planes made for Russia is going to be the best of their class so if we plan for that we can defeat any export types? Please, argue the argument, and not just say, "We'll just nuke you!"

    The Russians have written in law that any attack on Russia that they perceive as a strategic threat will result in direct nuclear retaliation... even if the attack was conventional.

    It is the choice they will make if they are threatened... Just like the Israelis... the Russians and the Israelis know what real war is like... not some foreign adventure half way round the world, but right on their territory and I rather doubt they will choose to repeat it. They will use the nuclear weapons they have while they can under the assumption that any attack will be focussed on destroying their nuclear capacity to strike. They are therefore forced into the choice of use it or lose it... it is pretty clear they will use it.

    You might call it "Cheating to win the arguement", but I call it "the real consequences of doing something really stupid".

    Bush backed Saakashvili all the way remember.

    BTW up until the Su-35S enters service the best Russian fighters are in India. The Su-30MKI is a better fighter than the Su-34... simply because the Su-34 is a strike aircraft with some ability to defend itself. In fact it will likely operate like the F-35 in that any threat will likely be dealt with by firing a missile and leaving the area.

    You're a funny man. I wonder why Georgia did not sink to the ground in 2008. Or maybe it was because Georgia were not the attackers? Huh. But remember, Russia and Israeli knows real wars. That's why they give their best planes to countries thousands of miles away.

    1. If the location is Russia, then maybe the sides of the F-35 would be illuminated. Fly low, simple solutions.

    OTH-B radar is looking thousands of kms outwards from Russia looking for incoming targets. They can see high flying targets and low flying targets because their signal bounces off the upper atmosphere and round the curature of the earth. The addition of humint and satellites should mean that even if a first strike gets to a target area that the rest will have to penetrate defences on full alert... which is rather unlikely for the F-35.

    The result of the first explosions in Russia will be a tactical missile strike on the nearest airbase operating any aircraft that could have flown through the defences. If the Russian target hit was strategic in nature then the person responsible for the retaliation has the option of tactical nuclear weapons.

    A single strike on one thing however is rather unlikely because of the response it will initiate. A full scale attack is rather unlikely to be organised without Russian forces noticing.

    Of course, assuming OTH radars are used to track low-RCS crafts. They're much too busy tracking civilian air travel or incoming ballistic missiles. Also assuming we don't Suder the Russians.

    2. Because the Su-35 doesn't have AESA.

    WRONG. The wing mounted L and N band radar for the Su-35 is AESA. The longer radar wave means the elements are much larger.
    If they don't detect the F-35 directly they can detect datalink emissions and therefore determine the presence of an aircraft so other sensors can be used to find it.

    Yeah right, not seeing any wing tip AESA here.

    It won't detect MADL.

    3. Because Su-35 don't have QWIPs.

    QWIPS are promising because they are relatively cheap and easier to make than staring focal arrays yet the resulting performance is similar in some ways and better in others.

    QWIP technology is now available in the US, EU and Russia

    http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-300309-1.html

    Yet, still, the Su-35 doesn't have QWIP.

    R-77 baselines have inferior range to the AIM-120C/D, so missile load for the Su-35 is of course irrelevant if you can't see your target.

    The original R-77s are only in service in very small numbers, the R-77 model being developed for the PAK-FA will have much longer range and performance. In the mean time the SD and MD versions of the R-77 and R-73 respectively are new digital models with significantly improved performance over the originals. These seem to be largely for export because all new short, medium, long and ultra long range missiles are being developed for the PAK-FA.
    There is no reason to believe these new missiles will not be used on the Mig-35s and Su-35s too.
    The short range IIR missile will also be used in a surface launched mode as a new SAM called Morfei.

    Yes, which doesn't handle my point; AIM-120C-7 on a F-35 can catch a Sukhoi/MiG farther than a R-77 fired from either of those, except when PAK-FA's come out, which isn't happening too soon.

    And perhaps not, perhaps the AIM-120D has sophisticated ECCM that won't degrade badly. 2-4 at best.

    Except the F-35 is not the F-22 and will lack the flight speed to increase missile range like a super cruising high altitude F-22 might.
    A low flying F-35 trying to evade radar will have serious problems engaging any fighters at long range.

    Low flying means totally subsonic.

    A high flying super cruising Su-35 should be able to catch up and attack from behind most of the time with a tail engagement enhanced by IRST tracking and engagement with long range R-27ET missiles fired from high speed and high altitude.

    If the F-35 is flying low and avoiding radar. If it's against something like Iran, we wouldn't even have to fly low with F-35s, fly high, launch long range missiles, go home. But again, the Su-35 won't detect a F-35 in the first place, so suggesting that a Su-35 would even do all that is ludicrous.
    avatar
    nightcrawler

    Posts : 535
    Points : 651
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  nightcrawler on Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:47 pm

    @IronSightSniper

    Sometimes the laws need bending to do what's right. We're not bullies, we're liberators.

    Ok; are you blind or am I?? Total bullocks; your statements represents 100% hypocrisy; mind if you watch this >>u liberators

    http://www.mediafire.com/?nxjm31aj4it

    Regarding AIM-120C & R-77 the latter has high speed & greater range; wouldn't it make R-77 a better missile

    Sponsored content

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Sep 26, 2017 2:53 pm