Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

higurashihougi wrote:

victor1985 wrote:Did someone tinked to make harrier like aircrafts for russia? And what is the advantage of using long wavelenght radars? The shorters are accurate? Point is you could mount them on a helicopter but that means low speed after launch wich makes planes fly until helicopters reach target. Until then own radar could be use. Point is also that the aircrafts on a carrier are different from those of land launch. Because of the carrier that itself reduce the distance the autonomy of aircrafts is limited leaving place for others things inside them than fuel.

The advantage of longwavelength radar wave is that it neutralize the stealthy cloak.

Structure of a stealthy cloak paint is similar to a teeth brush. In order to absorb the radar wave, the "hair" on that "teethbrush" have to be longer than the wavelength.

That means a very long wavelength aka very low frequency radar can neutralize the steath cloak.

However, problem of long wavelength is the low resolution. In a same radar, resolution decreases with the increases of wavelength.

But in the same wavelength, radar with larger diameter provide better resolution.

So in order to boost the resolution, you have to increase the diameter radar. That means in order to effectively use the long wavelength radar (L-band, VHF,...) you need a massive radar.

That's why the radar on aircraft like F-15 or F-22 cannot use L-band and only can use X-band... because the nose of the fighters is damn small and you cannot put a big radar on that.

thanks for explanations. I understanded quite well from you.

GarryB wrote:

Did someone tinked to make harrier like aircrafts for russia?

Tried it and quickly worked out conventional fighters work better.

And what is the advantage of using long wavelenght radars?

Better detection of stealth aircraft and weapons.

The shorters are accurate?

Modern digital long wave radars are much more accurate than they used to be.

instead a carrier subs can be sent. Equiped whit water-to-air missiles they would do great. Know..... Water-to-air is kinda weird...... but is a term i just invented.

The lock on after launch technology used in AAMs like Morfei suggest a range of sub launched anti aircraft missiles could be developed to deal with enemy aircraft...

somehow the big high altitude bombers like B-1 B-2 can be used as radars.

They will be busy being prepared for any strategic mission... they wont be able to fly around the world shadowing carrier groups as eye in the sky.

BTW at a billion dollars each the B-2 would not actually be that much cheaper than an actual carrier...

well a harrier like engine means no stealth and problems to aerodinamics and weapons carring. Point is the plane need speed to create lift when fly from carrier so must be faster at launch than normal planes. And we know from newton law that for every action is a reaction. That means a big action in the planes engine for a big speed. Maibe separate tank with separate fuel can be used for lift.
Well whit the missile launched from subs...... There is only one problem: in order to find from far away enemy planes the sub must carry a big radar (his activity would be fast recept by enemyes) or go periodicly to surface to speak whit own base. Which also means position would be discover. And pre launching missiles isnt a solution.......
Well whith b-2 like planes........ maibe in future...........

higurashihougi wrote:

victor1985 wrote:Did someone tinked to make harrier like aircrafts for russia? And what is the advantage of using long wavelenght radars? The shorters are accurate? Point is you could mount them on a helicopter but that means low speed after launch wich makes planes fly until helicopters reach target. Until then own radar could be use. Point is also that the aircrafts on a carrier are different from those of land launch. Because of the carrier that itself reduce the distance the autonomy of aircrafts is limited leaving place for others things inside them than fuel.

The advantage of longwavelength radar wave is that it neutralize the stealthy cloak.

Structure of a stealthy cloak paint is similar to a teeth brush. In order to absorb the radar wave, the "hair" on that "teethbrush" have to be longer than the wavelength.

That means a very long wavelength aka very low frequency radar can neutralize the steath cloak.

However, problem of long wavelength is the low resolution. In a same radar, resolution decreases with the increases of wavelength.

But in the same wavelength, radar with larger diameter provide better resolution.

So in order to boost the resolution, you have to increase the diameter radar. That means in order to effectively use the long wavelength radar (L-band, VHF,...) you need a massive radar.

That's why the radar on aircraft like F-15 or F-22 cannot use L-band and only can use X-band... because the nose of the fighters is damn small and you cannot put a big radar on that.

now i got why they use special angles to f22 and f35.....point is the wavelenght hit the metal on his width not high..... so can hit more longer "theet". In so can be made a tooth even of 1 metter long. A cross like between longitudinal and latitudinal thooth can be use. Une short and another long. In this a part would be more stealthier.

That means a very long wavelength aka very low frequency radar can neutralize the steath cloak.

Very short wavelength radars are generally used to detect and track targets so most stealth aircraft are designed to absorb or deflect the high frequency radar waves to evade detection.

With much longer wavelengths however the shape of the target becomes irrelevant and the whole aircraft returns the signal... so while in the X band or Ku band a stealth plane becomes a reflection the size of a marble and therefore only able to be detected from close range by radars sending out enormous amounts of energy, Those same aircraft when viewed by radar with L band or VHF band radar waves can be detected as normal at near normal ranges without problems.

Previously the problem was the poor positional accuracy meant instead of locating the precise location of the target the old long wave radars returned a box of airspace where the target was that could be 20km by 20km by 20km, which is not really accurate enough to direct an aircraft or missile to intercept.

Modern digital 3D AESA VHF however are much more accurate and with computer processing can be used to get an X band seeker on a missile close enough to get a lock.

i have a question: can be used small diameter multiple radars and the final resolution to be made from the sum of all radars resolutions? Or this doesnt improve image at all?

Longer wave radar requires larger radar emission elements.

this is a VHF AESA radar:



The system is called NEBO... the antenna on the far right is the VHF AESA...

In theory it could be located with an S-400 system and provide enough information to guide an S-400 missile to get a hit on any stealth aircraft.

well a harrier like engine means no stealth and problems to aerodinamics and weapons carring.

VSTOL creates more problems than it solves and is pretty much a dead end. It is better to spend a little more and build slightly larger carriers with fixed wing conventional take off but arrested landing fighters.

Point is the plane need speed to create lift when fly from carrier so must be faster at launch than normal planes.

The Russians have already decided that it makes more sense to go for modern 4th and 5th gen fighters that already have thrust to weight ratios of 1 or more than to waste time on a vertical take off aircraft that would allow slightly smaller and cheaper ships.

In other words it makes rather more sense to spend a little more on slightly bigger ships and get more capable and simpler fighter aircraft that are similar to land based versions.

Well whit the missile launched from subs...... There is only one problem: in order to find from far away enemy planes the sub must carry a big radar (his activity would be fast recept by enemyes) or go periodicly to surface to speak whit own base. Which also means position would be discover. And pre launching missiles isnt a solution.......
Well whith b-2 like planes........ maibe in future...........

So perhaps the idea of aircraft carriers is not so silly?

AWACS aircraft can be operated from carriers and fixed wing models can operate hundreds of kms from the carrier so it wont necessarily give its position away, but it can use its radar to detect enemy threats... ship, missiles, aircraft etc... and then launch fighters to deal with them... with surface ship support.

In so can be made a tooth even of 1 metter long.

The idea behind the sawtooth edges is to direct radar reflections to other angles and not back to where they came from.

Think of it in terms of a canopy on a helicopter.

A smooth curved canopy on a Hughes 500 is pretty much a bubble so when the sun is shining from almost any angle you see the little ball of light that is the sun reflecting directly at you from almost any angle you might see it.

With an aircraft with flat panes like an Mi-28N you wont see a small reflection of the sun from almost any angle... but at very specific angles you will see a much larger reflection of the sun reflected by the entire pane... the thing is that with you moving and the helo turning you wont see that enormous reflection for very long... certainly not long enough to target the helo.

Stealth is the same... instead of re-radiating radar waves in all directions it deflects them so they don't return from the direction they came from. This means the radar scanning for the target gets much less energy to detect and process and means it can only be detected reliably at much closer ranges where the energy is higher.

GarryB wrote:

That means a very long wavelength aka very low frequency radar can neutralize the steath cloak.

Very short wavelength radars are generally used to detect and track targets so most stealth aircraft are designed to absorb or deflect the high frequency radar waves to evade detection.

With much longer wavelengths however the shape of the target becomes irrelevant and the whole aircraft returns the signal... so while in the X band or Ku band a stealth plane becomes a reflection the size of a marble and therefore only able to be detected from close range by radars sending out enormous amounts of energy, Those same aircraft when viewed by radar with L band or VHF band radar waves can be detected as normal at near normal ranges without problems.

Previously the problem was the poor positional accuracy meant instead of locating the precise location of the target the old long wave radars returned a box of airspace where the target was that could be 20km by 20km by 20km, which is not really accurate enough to direct an aircraft or missile to intercept.

Modern digital 3D AESA VHF however are much more accurate and with computer processing can be used to get an X band seeker on a missile close enough to get a lock.

i have a question: can be used small diameter multiple radars and the final resolution to be made from the sum of all radars resolutions? Or this doesnt improve image at all?

Longer wave radar requires larger radar emission elements.

this is a VHF AESA radar:



The system is called NEBO... the antenna on the far right is the VHF AESA...

In theory it could be located with an S-400 system and provide enough information to guide an S-400 missile to get a hit on any stealth aircraft.

well a harrier like engine means no stealth and problems to aerodinamics and weapons carring.

VSTOL creates more problems than it solves and is pretty much a dead end. It is better to spend a little more and build slightly larger carriers with fixed wing conventional take off but arrested landing fighters.

Point is the plane need speed to create lift when fly from carrier so must be faster at launch than normal planes.

The Russians have already decided that it makes more sense to go for modern 4th and 5th gen fighters that already have thrust to weight ratios of 1 or more than to waste time on a vertical take off aircraft that would allow slightly smaller and cheaper ships.

In other words it makes rather more sense to spend a little more on slightly bigger ships and get more capable and simpler fighter aircraft that are similar to land based versions.

Well whit the missile launched from subs...... There is only one problem: in order to find from far away enemy planes the sub must carry a big radar (his activity would be fast recept by enemyes) or go periodicly to surface to speak whit own base. Which also means position would be discover. And pre launching missiles isnt a solution.......
Well whith b-2 like planes........ maibe in future...........

So perhaps the idea of aircraft carriers is not so silly?

AWACS aircraft can be operated from carriers and fixed wing models can operate hundreds of kms from the carrier so it wont necessarily give its position away, but it can use its radar to detect enemy threats... ship, missiles, aircraft etc... and then launch fighters to deal with them... with surface ship support.

In so can be made a tooth even of 1 metter long.

The idea behind the sawtooth edges is to direct radar reflections to other angles and not back to where they came from.

Think of it in terms of a canopy on a helicopter.

A smooth curved canopy on a Hughes 500 is pretty much a bubble so when the sun is shining from almost any angle you see the little ball of light that is the sun reflecting directly at you from almost any angle you might see it.

With an aircraft with flat panes like an Mi-28N you wont see a small reflection of the sun from almost any angle... but at very specific angles you will see a much larger reflection of the sun reflected by the entire pane... the thing is that with you moving and the helo turning you wont see that enormous reflection for very long... certainly not long enough to target the helo.

Stealth is the same... instead of re-radiating radar waves in all directions it deflects them so they don't return from the direction they came from. This means the radar scanning for the target gets much less energy to detect and process and means it can only be detected reliably at much closer ranges where the energy is higher.

from what i read from higurashi's post the long wavelenght radar must be big because of resolution not because producing the long wavelenght.

I also have a question : visible light is a wave right? So then just simply detect waves instead of use cameras would give a visible image too? Or this is just the way human eye and cameras work:they se the wavelenght of visible light?

victor1985 wrote:I also have a question : visible light is a wave right? So then just simply detect waves instead of use cameras would give a visible image too? Or this is just the way human eye and cameras work:they se the wavelenght of visible light?

Don't think that is possible... Waves of light are far different than waves of basically anything else, and, more important, cameras work by collecting them already....

from what i read from higurashi's post the long wavelenght radar must be big because of resolution not because producing the long wavelenght.

Making a conventional radar antenna big maximises its precision and therefore its resolution.

think of a parabolic radar with a big dish focusing the signal to the sensor...

the bigger the dish the more angles the energy can come from.

think of a group of planes flying close together... with a very small dish you have fewer angles you can send radio waves to so a large group of planes might appear to be one large plane. With a much larger antenna you can send a narrower beam and detect the empty space between the radio wave returns and work out that it is not one plane but several flying together.

I also have a question : visible light is a wave right? So then just simply detect waves instead of use cameras would give a visible image too? Or this is just the way human eye and cameras work:they se the wavelenght of visible light?

They are all waves... the difference is that radio waves don't occur naturally so a radar has to generate and listen for the return of its own waves. During the day there are plenty of light waves bouncing around so you don't need a light source of your own.

The Shkval EO system used in the Ka-50 and Su-25TM have auto detection and tracking systems based on video images. the main difference to radar is that like IR systems it is passive so there is no easy way to measure distance. With radar you can time how long a wave takes to go to the target and return and get accurate range to the target.

About the IR sensor: position and speed can be calculated by the ratio between distance and shine and speed by the speed in wich the shine glows more during the object approach you? I mean we can know that a x size flame from a plane can be seen from a y distance and get closer whith a speed of z km/h (measured by candels per second in growt). Hope you get the picture of what i said.

GarryB wrote:

from what i read from higurashi's post the long wavelenght radar must be big because of resolution not because producing the long wavelenght.

Making a conventional radar antenna big maximises its precision and therefore its resolution.

think of a parabolic radar with a big dish focusing the signal to the sensor...

the bigger the dish the more angles the energy can come from.

think of a group of planes flying close together... with a very small dish you have fewer angles you can send radio waves to so a large group of planes might appear to be one large plane. With a much larger antenna you can send a narrower beam and detect the empty space between the radio wave returns and work out that it is not one plane but several flying together.

I also have a question : visible light is a wave right? So then just simply detect waves instead of use cameras would give a visible image too? Or this is just the way human eye and cameras work:they se the wavelenght of visible light?

They are all waves... the difference is that radio waves don't occur naturally so a radar has to generate and listen for the return of its own waves. During the day there are plenty of light waves bouncing around so you don't need a light source of your own.

The Shkval EO system used in the Ka-50 and Su-25TM have auto detection and tracking systems based on video images. the main difference to radar is that like IR systems it is passive so there is no easy way to measure distance. With radar you can time how long a wave takes to go to the target and return and get accurate range to the target.

so in this you can measure the natural light reflected by objects? Its like having a wave generator for free for you remaining just catch them. I thinked they can be seen by a machine because basically they are electromagnetic waves composed by a succesive alternative of electric and magnetic wave. Practically between radio waves and visible light is no difference except the wavelenght and frecvency. Which are opositte. I think as a bulb of light can generate visible light the opositte machine can absorb visible light and convert them into images.

About the IR sensor: position and speed can be calculated by the ratio between distance and shine and speed by the speed in wich the shine glows more during the object approach you?

If you mean you can tell distance by how hot the target appears... the closer it is the hotter it seems does not work... a target that is 40 degrees C is 40 degrees C whether it is 10m from a thermal imager or 1,000m from the thermal sight.

Radars use the dopplar shift to determine if an object is getting closer or further away... with light that would be red shift... where a receding target appears to have more red light or more blue light when it is getting closer or getting further away... AFAIK that only applies to enormous speeds like stars and galaxies and is not detectable at airspeeds or land speeds on earth.

All waves are effected by that dopplar shift including sound waves BTW.

I mean we can know that a x size flame from a plane can be seen from a y distance and get closer whith a speed of z km/h (measured by candels per second in growt). Hope you get the picture of what i said.

I do understand and think rather than temperature that angular measurement could be used for a rough measurement of distance... the actual dimensions of most targets are known and could be used together with the magnification of the image and angular size of the image to estimate distance, but it would not be accurate enough for precise distance measuring for guidance.

For close targets many systems add laser range finders... the MiG-29M used a 10km range LRF for aerial and ground targets while the MiG-35 reportedly uses a laser able to range find to 30km and to mark targets on the ground.

so in this you can measure the natural light reflected by objects?

The human eye can already measure and create a very detailed representation of natural and artificial light reflected by objects. After processing by the human brain into an image it can do all sorts of things... just like a small computer can perform all sorts of processing too and find edges, or detect movement... of just clean up the image and make it sharper and clearer.

Its like having a wave generator for free for you remaining just catch them.

Yes... it makes the system totally passive and more difficult to spot its use or to fool.

I thinked they can be seen by a machine because basically they are electromagnetic waves composed by a succesive alternative of electric and magnetic wave.

With radar there are transmitters and receivers with the latter sensitive to the frequencies being emitted by the emitter. There are lots of light sensitive materials from simple ones that just detect the presence or absence of light, right through to more sophisticated arrays of sensors that can see colours and movement.

Practically between radio waves and visible light is no difference except the wavelenght and frecvency.

Pretty much.

I think as a bulb of light can generate visible light the opositte machine can absorb visible light and convert them into images.

Creating light is relatively straight forward... basically heating a material in a vacuum so that it glows but does not actually burn (if it burned it would not last as long). A machine to detect light or process light is rather more complex and is not really the opposite of creating light.

Black paint is the opposite of creating light as it absorbs all frequencies of visible light.

Inside a modern digital camera there is a CCD chip which is a matrix of light sensitive material that generates electrical signals based on the frequency of light that is focussed upon it by the camera lens. different frequencies are different colours and go beyond the visible.

Take a digital camera and look at the view finder screen and point the camera at your TV remote control and press a button on your remote and you will see a flashing light behind the black plastic on the remote... IR light you can't see with your eyes normally because the natural lens in your eye blocks IR light. It also blocks lots of other frequencies that are not good for the sensors in the back of your eye too.

Well i thinked to the fact that the flame is heating the air and closer gets by better is seen cause is not anymore so much air that mask the flame and surrounding. I think also a change is happening but is insesizable whit actual tehnology.
That angular calculation can tell much: lets say we know the speed, the shape, angle and speed in wich make a turn and others;well whit all this we can aproximatelly know the hidden caracteristics of plane (type of engine, materials in which in made etc). Also from what i know when the light stay on a material its frecvency changes by different materials. In this studying the light over a plane or tank you can know the materials which is made on surface. More than this every plane has a unique thermal sognature. And more : if you study a hitted tank you can say whats inside his armour according to frecvency of light.
Also i have a question : knowing that a radar cant pass throught water isnt the simple way to make a plane or missile invisible by adding a tiny lair of liquid?
Yes a moving laser can even draw the enemys shape by knowing depth in wich go and forming relief shape.

I have a question: does visible light waves or radar waves affect each other? I mean visible light from far affect ones from closer to closer? Cause in this the effect can be calculated and the waves from far away are just a gap that can be filled whit the right numbers.

Also i think not detecting the radar waves means another known angles are used.

Well i thinked to the fact that the flame is heating the air and closer gets by better is seen cause is not anymore so much air that mask the flame and surrounding. I think also a change is happening but is insesizable whit actual tehnology.

Only primitive old thermal IR sensors could only see the heat from the engines.

Modern FLIR and thermal sights see the IR radiation emitted by all matter above absolute zero... a 40 degree object stands out when the background is a very different temperature.

For instance in warmer climates like India or Australia thermal sights can have problems in the heat of the day because the ground is hotter than human body temperature. Most modern thermal imagers are designed to detect humans or animals at about 36-38 degrees C.When you see police videos with white hot people running away from police with dark backgrounds at night... in hotter climates during mid day everything will appear white and humans would be very hard to detect and track. the thermal camera is not magic and doesn't show humans as white and everything else as being dark... it is just set to show things in the 35 and hotter degrees temperature range as being white and everything colder being a darker shade until it shows black. This means that humans and animals stand out because they are warmer than their backgrounds but as I said in hot climates where the ground can get above 35 degrees everything appears white and the thermal imager is useless to detect humans... wait till night time and everything cools down.

An IR system on a modern Russian fighter looking for F-22s supercruising should have no problem spotting such targets from long range because to super cruise an F-22 has to fly high... well clear of the weather and clouds, and when it flys fast friction on the front of the aircraft is heated up... so it is a hot object well away from clouds to hide it or moisture to effect the view.

Also from what i know when the light stay on a material its frecvency changes by different materials. In this studying the light over a plane or tank you can know the materials which is made on surface.

Not really. With light from distant galaxies or light reflected off the surface of a moon or planet we can look at what colours are absorbed and determine what materials are in the light source and the chemical composition of the atmosphere of the moon or planet, but on earth you really are not going to get that sort of detailed look at enemy aircraft... and to be honest all you are really worried about is first... detection, and second correct identification, and third the opportunity to shoot it down if needed. the first two are critical though.

More than this every plane has a unique thermal sognature. And more :

The 3D IR signature of an aircraft is unique for the type... it is not likely precise enough to determine a specific aircraft, but then all you need to know is what aircraft type it is.

if you study a hitted tank you can say whats inside his armour according to frecvency of light.

Light does not pass through the outer structure of solid materials that are not transparent... no frequency of visible light will penetrate any part of an aircraft except the canopy...

Also i have a question : knowing that a radar cant pass throught water isnt the simple way to make a plane or missile invisible by adding a tiny lair of liquid?

Radar can pass through water... otherwise it would not work when it rains... and it does.

A thermal sight does not work through glass or water and its performance is degraded in heavy rain.

Yes a moving laser can even draw the enemys shape by knowing depth in wich go and forming relief shape.

Why would you use a laser to make a 3D relief shape of a target?

Would make more sense to use the IR or EO sensor to detect the target and a laser to determine range, which can be used to track the target and launch a missile to its general location with the purpose of shooting it down.

I have a question: does visible light waves or radar waves affect each other? I mean visible light from far affect ones from closer to closer? Cause in this the effect can be calculated and the waves from far away are just a gap that can be filled whit the right numbers.

As far as I know... no. A light of the same colour that is closer can effect your ability to see one further away... ie you don't look at the stars from inside with the lights on... you go outside somewhere where it is dark. For radar there are no naturally occurring radar waves that will likely interfere with your viewing signals you sent out.

Also i think not detecting the radar waves means another known angles are used.

With an integrated air defence network using bistatic radar might be another solution to stealth threats... most stealthy objects deflect radar waves in a way that they don't return to their origin... if you think in terms of a torch a non stealthy target is like a flat mirror that is angled so your torch light does not return to your torch. Bistatic radar uses one emitter and a receiver or lots of recievers that just listen, so it is like having lots of people in a dark room looking for light while you scan your torch around searching for a man with a full length mirror. If the mirror is facing directly at the torch then the person with the torch will find the man with the mirror quickly because they will see the light from the torch reflected right back at them. If the man with the mirror is intelligent however he will hold the mirror at an angle so the light from the torch goes off at a 45 degree angle so the man with the torch wont see the light directly though they might see a reflection on the wall of their torch.

Having a room full of people able to see the torch reflection and able to give their location and the direction they can see the reflected torch light and with two or three sets of results you can quickly calculate the location of the man with the mirror.

In an integrated air defence network replace the man with the torch with an S-400 SAM battery... and the other people in the room can be a dozen other SAM batteries with the same radar and systems. When the first SAM battery scans with their VHF radar they will get a target result but with their X band radars they will only get a very weak return... all the other batteries radars can just listen for radar signals and returns and pass their data back to a processing centre which should be able to work out target locations based on the information each radar collects.

As far as i know radar work harder trought water. And lets think that in rain is still space between drops to works. But what about detecting a submarine whit a radar on surface of water? As far as i know it cant. Well the plane would have a continuously lair of water another liquid that mai disturb more radar waves.
But modern FLIR can see even half or less of celsius degree? Like 32,2 40,1 and so on? Cause in this for sure can obtain a shape..... also let say the thermal binoculars replace electronically the colous so even close degrees to be distinguish.
Well i talked about spectroscophy because would be a good method for spy. This can find out secrets like from what material a abrams tank is made off or the invisible materials of f22.
The thing about f22 seen in no clouds conditions give a more importance to permanently high altitude drones that can see far away. Think at a network of drones all oves country that stay 24/24 hours in air and can see hundreds of kilometers away.
You would get a laser to make a 3D from a target because is more stealthy that radar maibe? I guess i dont know. Also because cant be jammed. Also because can give exact shape of enemy so you know well who is it.
So a plane could emit colours like surrounding so in this cover to a video camera or FLIR.
I writted about visible light or radar waves that influnece themselfs because i thinked that making a same frecvency "noise" could confuse enemy. Is easy to send a noise generator ahead so that confuse the enemy.

As far as i know radar work harder trought water.

AFAIK it works to a certain depth... in fact weather radar actually detects water in the atmosphere.

Just like light penetrates to a certain depth of water...

But what about detecting a submarine whit a radar on surface of water? As far as i know it cant.

The navy and air force have plenty of radar equipment designed to detect snorkels and periscopes... a surfaced submarine is easy to detect with radar... it would be enormous.

Well the plane would have a continuously lair of water another liquid that mai disturb more radar waves.

Planes covered in water or ice are not stealthy.

a large mass of water in mid air would reflect radar just like a shower of rain appears on rain radar.

But modern FLIR can see even half or less of celsius degree? Like 32,2 40,1 and so on? Cause in this for sure can obtain a shape..... also let say the thermal binoculars replace electronically the colous so even close degrees to be distinguish.

There is a difference betwen FLIR, IRST, and an imaging IR like Thermal imagers etc.

Well i talked about spectroscophy because would be a good method for spy. This can find out secrets like from what material a abrams tank is made off or the invisible materials of f22.

The problem there is that an Abrams tank and an F-22 are painted so any information you might detect based on light reflected from their surfaces will indicate information about the paint being used rather than internal structure or materials used.

Think at a network of drones all oves country that stay 24/24 hours in air and can see hundreds of kilometers away.

Much cheaper to use 6,000km range radar to scan the skies for threats and targets than have tens of thousands of drones watching... drones that would need to be managed are maintained and rescued when they crash and refuelled every day or so...

You would get a laser to make a 3D from a target because is more stealthy that radar maibe?

A laser in a drone? So tens of thousands of lasers... when a single radar can cover 6,000km?

Also because cant be jammed.

Unless the laser is powerful enough to shoot down a plane why bother jamming it?

What is to stop all these drones getting shot down?

Also because can give exact shape of enemy so you know well who is it.

Assuming they have made no effort to disguise the shape, detection and identification are only the first steps and you have already blown the budget with 10,000 drones with lasers on their heads...

So a plane could emit colours like surrounding so in this cover to a video camera or FLIR.

Planes don't emit light... except navigation lights.., planes reflect light which would not effect IR sensors that see heat and not light, and it wont effect radar either as they can't detect colour either.

I writted about visible light or radar waves that influnece themselfs because i thinked that making a same frecvency "noise" could confuse enemy. Is easy to send a noise generator ahead so that confuse the enemy.

Planes that emit radar waves to fool defences already exist and can be targeted by capable enemies.

Planes that can fool IR sensors don't exist. DIRCMS are the next best thing as they target and try to dazzle or damage IR sensors.

The thing whit laser is separated by the thing whit drones.

I think when a tank is cover whit paint the paint gets a specific colour cause is influence by the material under the paint. More if the lair of paint is not big this can easily happen. And you can make spectroscophy even from videos.

ITAR TASS wrote:Russian Navy to receive new aircraft carrier — Navy Commander

MOSCOW, March 2. /TASS/. Russia’s Navy will receive a new promising aircraft carrier, Navy Commander Viktor Chirkov told reporters on Monday.
Presently, the Russian Navy has only one aircraft carrier - the Admiral Kuznetsov - since 1991.
"The Navy will have an aircraft carrier. The research companies are working on it, and strictly in compliance with the requirements from the Chief Commander," he said during a trip to the Kolomensky Zavod plant near Moscow (a supplier of diesel engines for the Russian Navy).

No further details.

higurashihougi wrote:@mutantsushi:

Russia does not intend to use the aircraft carriers in the same way as the U.S.

For the U.S., the aircraft carrier is the ace of naval combat and ship-versus-ship battle, and the signature of Naval Power at the global scale.

That mindset was formed by the devastating defeat at Pearl Harbor, and by further experiences in the war, the U.S. Navy develop the doctrine of using aircraft carrier as the core element of naval power.

But that U.S. doctrine was soon outdated due to the rise of cruise missiles and electronics guidance systems. Russia recognized the advantages of guided cruise missiles, and spearhead in the developing of long range, high accuracy anti-ship missiles to be used as the core element of ship-versus-ship combat. Thanks to that, Russia does not need aircraft carriers to deal with the enemy's fleets.

In other words, U.S. use the aircraft carriers as the core of naval power, both in air/sea dominance and in anti-ship naval combat. Meanwhile Russia develpop missile cruisers, fighter-bombers and bombers which can launch a devastating barrage of cruise missiles into the US fleets.

And the Russian way is much more effective, because current Russian cruise missiles have very very long range, excellent accuracy, and very cunning trajectory. Russian Slava, Kirov or Tu-xx can open fire at a very safe range where current F-18 can never reach.

========================
========================
========================

For Russia, an aircraft carrier is just a floating airfield at the sea, to increase the reach of air forces toward the big oceans. Just it.

A sustainable airfield at the middle of the sea can provide quite a number of good things. For example enhance the dominance and control at a certain sea area. Not neccessary a global control in a far far away sea region, Russia can design an use the carriers for adjacent sea areas.

Russian aircraft carriers will provide more places for helicopters like Alligator or Helix, which are suitable for both combat roles and AWACS roles. Of course fixed wingers like Su-27/30/33/34/35 or MiG-29/35 can use these sea airfields without any problems.

And unlike the U.S. carriers which have very little self-defense, Russian carriers have great level of armour and strong defense, at the level of cruisers.

And the role of Russian carriers is also similar to a cruiser, that is increase and enhance the control and dominance at the sea regions. The role of anti-ship battles is appointed to the missile battleships like Slava or Kirov.

===================================

I would like to say sorry to my American friends in this forum. I sincerely want to apologize. But I believe the design of U.S. carriers is damn stupid. And the way to use it is stupid, too.

First, the U.S. carriers are over-dependent on ejectors. In other words, no naval aircraft can take off without the help of ejectors.

Each carriers have 2 ejector. So in each turn, the U.S. can only launch 2 aircrafts. And then wait. And then other 2. And then wait.

Meanwhile, Russian naval aircrafts like MiG-29 and Su-33 do not need ejectors. Therefore, in one turn, Russia can launch 10-12 aircraft into the battle immediately.

Second, U.S. carriers have little to no self-defense system. That means it need a big group of smaller ships to protect. Without escorts, Russian cruise missiles can kill the U.S. carriers with little effort.

Third, is the way how the U.S. uses the carriers. That way is outdated as I said above.

US carriers have 4 ejectors.

The construction of a flagship air carrier for the Russian Navy may be finalized before 2025, a Russian Navy spokesman said.
Russia will develop a highly precise automatic carrier landing system

Russia’s Naval Air Forces to Receive Brand New Landing System
Russia may finalize the construction of a flagship air carrier for the country's navy before the end of 2025, the Russian Navy's chief of naval aviation Major General Igor Kozhin said, according to Russian media outlets.
"It will take up to ten years to wrap up the construction of the flagship carrier, which will include a whole system of state tests," Kozhin said.

He added that the aircraft-related research work is now under way and that several projects related to the vessel's construction are already on the table.

Earlier, the Russian Navy's Deputy Commander on Armament Victor Bursuk said that the new aircraft carrier would be built after 2030.

A number of experts believe that the construction of a new ship of this class will begin after the completion of the ongoing reconstruction of the Sevmash shipyards.

Right now, Sevmash workers are dealing with the overhaul and modernization of a heavy nuclear missile cruiser, the Admiral Nakhimov, the cruiser Peter the Great and the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov.

http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150215/1018305548.html

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150215/1018305548.html#ixzz3U17bkmJj

Hey all

I was reading an article about the Russian Navy planning a new aircraft carrier which they want launched by 2025. My question is in doing so, wouldnt they be stepping up the Ukraine war for their ship yard, or will they use 2 builders, and assemble it in a basin. And what are your guys opinion on the dimentions, and armament of this planned monster.

These plans are so long term that talking about them right now is pointless IMHO.

TR1 wrote:These plans are so long term that talking about them right now is pointless IMHO.

But do you think that arming it with P-800's and making it an aircraft carrier/cruiser is worth it?