Stealth, Radars and Discussions on 5th Generation Technology

[gambit]

all that is fine , i know what your are talking about

I doubt that.

when you said While it is true that the top and underside of an aircraft provides the greatest radar return, it is actually a very low probability that such a situation could occur that would result in such a large return you are underestimating combat situation ,raptor may have to gain altitude and pull up the nose hence showing the belly to Su 35 radar ,so there you go ,u have large radar return
plus if we go laws of reflection for any electromagnetic rays .angle of incidence =angle of reflection . hence if the radar rays is incident at 30degrees it will reflect by 30degrees. therefore your statement Else if the planar surface is off even slightly, the signal will deflect away from the transmitter's direction is not true .

Even wiki proved you wrong.

File:Corner-reflector.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice the angles for incidence and deflections.

As the incidence angle approaches perpendicular, then the angle of reflection will be closer to incidence, but that does not prove what I said is untrue.

also remember the MIG 31 with 1 ton PSEA radar . why do u think america retired its SR 71 fleet because new soviet interceptor was in place .the radar output power for MIG 31 was so high that it could have burned through SR 71 ECM equipment .plus MIG 31 radar case the desgin philosophy was very simple yet affective ,il try to explain .consider that i have a footalll and a wall in front of me,the wall is highly paded and shock absorbing springs are attached to hit .i kick the football with 20% of my energy ,the chances of football comming back to me after hitting the wall is quite low but if i hit with 110% of my energy the chnaces of the ball comming back to me are pretty high .take that example and fit it in the case of radar ,more powerfull radar waves the more chances of stealth being defeated

The SR-71 was retired due to other reasons, not because of Soviet junks. I have listened to SR-71 mission tapes where Soviet interceptors failed to even achieve the minimum altitude where their missiles can have a chance at hitting the SR. The official altitude of 80,000 ft is a meaningless figure.

also about the case in which serbs managed to shoot down F-117 was not luck or anything else ,it just proved the fact that no stealth is fail proof and even 1960 vintage radar can shoot down F-117

Numbers do not lie. NATO flew about 20,000 sorties over Yugoslavia, of which about 4,500 were Suppression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD) and that mean low altitude to entice missileers. The US also flew about 60 B-2 missions from continental US, Whiteman AFB, and back. But only two aircrafts, an F-16 and an F-117, got shot down? It was luck. It was 'spray and pray'. Nothing more.

 

[gambit]

plus after the fall of soviet union many scientist who were working for the stealth project ,immigrated to america.

So what? Does that mean they were responsible for every scientific discoveries the US had after their arrival?

Plus the very reason america started its ATA ( advance technology aircraft ) was becaise they had found that the Mig 29 and Su 27 series was better than their F-15 ,F-16 ,F-18

Utter BS. The -29 and the -27 were introduced at roughly the same time as the F-15 and F-16. They were about five or less years apart, which is roughly the development time for any independent project. That mean even though the Soviets may have been aware of the F-15 and the F-16, the designs for the -29 and the -27 were already on the books. At best, they were comparable to each other.

Constant Peg

For more than a decade, until just before the November 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall, a secret Air Force aggressor unit flew Soviet MiGs in more than 15,000 sorties against US Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps pilots.

We know about the -29 and the -27 more than the Soviets know about our aircrafts. May be you do not know about Viktor Belenko's defection to the West (Japan) with his MIG-25 back in 1976.

Viktor Belenko - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Viktor Ivanovich Belenko (Виктор Иванович Беленко) (born February 15, 1947) is an American aerospace engineer and lecturer of Russian origin. Belenko was a pilot with the 513th Fighter Regiment, 11th Air Army, Soviet Air Defence Forces based in Chuguyevka, Primorsky Krai. His name became known worldwide on September 6, 1976, when he successfully defected to the West, flying his Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25 "Foxbat" jet fighter to Hakodate, Japan. This was the first time that Western experts were able to get a close look at the aircraft, and it revealed many secrets and surprises.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, former Soviet satellites were in possession of missiles, tanks, ships and aircrafts. They were also hard up for cash to support their freedoms. They called US and asked if we wanted to go shopping. So we did go shopping. I worked on Soviet era avionics at Nellis AFB in Nevada in trying to keep Constant Peg's aircrafts flying. The ATA program had NOTHING to do with the -29 or -27.

 

[SATISH]

Gambit Sir,
You answered all the questions that I had in my mind. But the -27 and the -29 are better than all American aircrafts. You have to agree with it. It led to the ATA program. The Congress wouldnt have allowed it if the 27 or 29 were comparable. The American doctrine is based on 'hit the enemy before he even realises what hit him'. That is why the ATA projects came into existence. The 29 being better is shown when America pounced on the Moldovian offer to sell their MiG 29s. Now latest news reports suggests the same has been done to the Su 27s.

The Russians are far better than the Americans when it comes to aerodynamics. But Americans beat them hands down in Engine tech and Electronics. The stealth is an old concept for Americans in experience and Russians are new to it. So comparing PAKFA to F 22 is not feasible. The PakFA might have stealth comparable to F 35. None of the official sources of India or Russians have claimed anything about the aircraft and its charecteristics. Whatever you get is from Keypub Aviation Forum. But you cant take them lightly as in page 6/7 the monocrystalline blade stress displacement pictures have been posted. So I would never call the PAKFA to be a total dud or a super-performer till 2015.

I have seen the AL 41 testbed as late as 2002 in Saturn. So it is a high possibility that the engine might be ready by 2015.

 

[gambit]

Gambit Sir,
You answered all the questions that I had in my mind. But the -27 and the -29 are better than all American aircrafts. You have to agree with it. It led to the ATA program. The Congress wouldnt have allowed it if the 27 or 29 were comparable.

Comparable mean one has advantages the other does not. It does not mean one is overall superior. All you have to do is check, even on wiki, on their first flight. You will see that the American aircrafts and the Soviet ones were quite within five years of each other. Then check to see how long does it take to develop a new design, from concept to a flying demonstrator. I know that people are desperate to downplay anything American, it is the fad, the 'in' thing to do nowadays. But please try to remain within the realm of logic and common sense.

The American doctrine is based on 'hit the enemy before he even realises what hit him'.

Who is not?

That is why the ATA projects came into existence. The 29 being better is shown when America pounced on the Moldovian offer to sell their MiG 29s. Now latest news reports suggests the same has been done to the Su 27s.

You have no evidence for this. And sorry...But opinions are not evidence. Saying this is like saying the F-16 was created because the Mitsubishi Zero was superior to the Curtis P-40. The ATA program was not out of fear of Soviet equipments but out of the realization that eventually Soviet equipments will be at par or even superior to the aircrafts of the day, which is the F-15 and F-16. The F-22's superiority to the -27 and -29 is incidental, not intentional. No one regresses. No one design to the inferior, always strive to surpass the current.

The Russians are far better than the Americans when it comes to aerodynamics.

Based upon what evidence? Aerodynamic principles are not state secrets. But what are state secrets are how aerodynamics are incorporated into a flying machine that has many functions.

But Americans beat them hands down in Engine tech and Electronics.

You got that right.

The stealth is an old concept for Americans in experience and Russians are new to it. So comparing PAKFA to F 22 is not feasible. The PakFA might have stealth comparable to F 35. None of the official sources of India or Russians have claimed anything about the aircraft and its charecteristics. Whatever you get is from Keypub Aviation Forum. But you cant take them lightly as in page 6/7 the monocrystalline blade stress displacement pictures have been posted. So I would never call the PAKFA to be a total dud or a super-performer till 2015.

I have seen the AL 41 testbed as late as 2002 in Saturn. So it is a high possibility that the engine might be ready by 2015.

What am I seeing here is a lot of speculations and no hard evidences at all, even for the speculations that supposedly make the PAK-FA comparable to the F-35 and not the F-22. And in trying to downplay the US, those speculations are taken as facts.

 

[AJSINGH]

what russians are good at is aerodynamics ,weapons sysmtems ,avioinics ( the 1998 incident in which YF 22 protototype crashed was due the faliure of fly by wire system,su 27 latest variant developmet had sovled that 8 years before by introducing qudrabloe redundant solution ,that shows that russian avionics industry was far better than USA,also russia was able to develop fully automatic sapce shuttle BURAN with much less resources than america ,can u explain how is that possible ,BURAN took off automatic ,did two orbital missions around the earth and landed with 40degreecross winds .)

 

[gambit]

what russians are good at is aerodynamics ,weapons sysmtems ,avioinics ( the 1998 incident in which YF 22 protototype crashed was due the faliure of fly by wire system,su 27 latest variant developmet had sovled that 8 years before by introducing qudrabloe redundant solution ,that shows that russian avionics industry was far better than USA,also russia was able to develop fully automatic sapce shuttle BURAN with much less resources than america ,can u explain how is that possible ,BURAN took off automatic ,did two orbital missions around the earth and landed with 40degreecross winds .)

Please...Stop embarrassing yourself. The F-16 introduced quadruple redundant fly-by-wire back in the mid 1970s and the system was analog at that. I have four years experience on the F-16, all models, not all blocks as no one could have that kind of experience. Now you are attempting to change history by telling us that it was Russia that introduced fly-by-wire.

 

[dineshchaturvedi]

Waoo I am enjoying this discussion between two of you. Carry on, lot of thing to learn for a civilian.

 

[AJSINGH]

Please...Stop embarrassing yourself. The F-16 introduced quadruple redundant fly-by-wire back in the mid 1970s and the system was analog at that. I have four years experience on the F-16, all models, not all blocks as no one could have that kind of experience. Now you are attempting to change history by telling us that it was Russia that introduced fly-by-wire.

oh really . when Mig 29 was introduced in 1980 it had IRST ball as well as fly b wire .none of the F-16 had that technology . do u really want to contest that fact .plus i never really said that Russia intrduced fly by wire , was saying that they imporved upon its flaws
you still did not explain why russian were able to develop Buran ,plus in terms if agility ,manouverbility ,nothing can outperform Mig 35 ( due to superior airframe desgin .advance 3D TVC engines ect ,plus later model will feature FLY BY OPTICS ) you dont want F-35 in WVR combat ,it will be easy meat ,unless F-35 happens to feature very advance ECM .
and Yankees dont know much about SU 30 and later aircraft anyway ,if they did ,IAF would have alllwoed to use the onboard radar on MKI during red flag excercise 2008 . America only imporved exsisting F-18 F-16 F-15 after studying SU AND MIG , Russians did not want american fighters because they were developing better upgraded on their own

plus look at the cost of F-22 ,do u thing it is worth the money .America itself cut down the production of F-22 from 800 aircraft to 187 aircraft


Russian Weapons
The R-27EP is dangerous because it out-ranges AMRAAM, and you probably won't know it's coming before it's too late. Fortunately, only the Russians (and maybe the Ukrainians) currently have this missile.

The R-27AE is dangerous for the same reasons as the R-27EP plus it won't stop homing if you shut down your radar.
The R-77 is nasty. It is superior to the AMRAAM in range and maneuverability (especially sustained maneuverability). The US currently doesn't have a countermeasure fielded against eh R-77,The R-77 is _better_ than the AMRAAM . It has more kinetic energy and less drag due to its short, low drag, wings and its "trellis" tail surfaces which provide better manuverability than conventional fins. This means that the R-77 is more manueverable (and has more energy over its envelope) than the AMRAAM. This, barring suceptability to ECM, probably makes it better in head-on attacks than the AMRAAM. The R-77 is slated for export (as the RVV-AE). Though Vympel has completed the development of the R-77, Russian defense cuts have (so far) stalled production.

And if that wasn't bad enough there's the R-73, which really has no match in the West, suprpassing AAMs like the AIM-9 in all respects. (The AIM-9X, however, will close the gap somwehat on its introduction- after the year 2000.) The R-73, coupled with the HMD targeting system used on the Su-27 and MiG-29 is a very worrying (and potent) visual range weapons system.
Speaking only of "smarts" the R-77 is probably roughly comparable to the AMRAAM. Both will have no problem with ground clutter in most situations. Both will have the same vulnerability to chaff. The R-77's maneuverability will give it an edge against a jinking target, especially if it was a long range shot. The AMRAAM probably has a slight advantage in ECCM, but both missiles are most effectively countered by the same basic techniques (ECM and expendables). The R-77 on the other hand, has a clear advantage in range.
and Novator k-100 with range of 400km and 300km ..known awacs killer..nothing like that exsist in NATO weaponry

It was recently revealed that Russia is testing a new gliding guided bomb, as well as a new laser-guided bomb.



Russia is currently testing a new laser-guided bomb, the KAB-250L (seen here in the foreground), which is similar in appearance and in characteristics to the US GBU-12 Paveway II LGB.
Photo by Miroslav Gyurosi

The UPAB-1500KR ("izdyelye K-070" or "product K-070") is the first Russian gliding bomb. It was based on the KAB-1500KR guided bomb, with folded wings added to achieve a gliding capability. According to Russian sources, the range of UPAB-1500KR is 50-70 km, when dropped from high altitude and at high speed. The target picture is transmitted from a datalink on the bomb and received by the Raduga (Moscow, Russia) APK-8 datalink pod attached to the fuselage of the host aircraft. When the bomb nears its target, the aircrew marks the target, and the bomb is then attacking it independently, at which point it is locked onto the target.
The other new bomb being tested is the KAB-250L ("izdyelye K-045" or "product K-045") laser-guided bomb (LGB), similar in appearance and in characteristics to the US GBU-12 Paveway II LGB. Although there is not much information available on the KAB-250L, the bomb was recently developed by the FGUP State"s Scientific-Production Entity "Region." It has the same seeker as the KAB-500L/KAB-1500L though in a modernized form. The bomb is controlled by front all-moving surfaces, while the tails are fixed. It is designed for export, as well as for domestic use. Testing of these bombs is being conducted by the 929th State's Aviation Test Center in Akhtubinsk, Russia.
speaking about A2G i agree russia has not much to offer but they are developing SDB..with the help of india...there is a reason why we are investing in russian a2a and a2g weapons ...

 

[AJSINGH]

plus we have to understand the desgin doctrine behind yankee weapons and russian weapons
Yankees dont want WVR combat ( in vietna war the phantom did not even have onboard cannnon as well as the missile lock tok 8 seconds ) hence phanton were lost to Mig 21 and Mig 17 ,Russian on the other hand believe in WVR combat ( therefore you can Su amd Mig being the very best in agility ) however Russian are developing BVR weapons too like the formidable R-77 digital archer .
also Brahmos happens to the best air ,land and sea fired cruise missile ( even better than the latest Tomahawk )
their ground based SAM system like SA 21 can even shoot down stealth and has range of 350km ( if IRAQ did have SA21 during operation enduring freedom ,american non stealth fighter would not even dare to fly over those same sites ,USAF would be complled to call B-2 bombers which fly from USA to bomb those sites )

 

[gambit]

oh really . when Mig 29 was introduced in 1980 it had IRST ball as well as fly b wire .none of the F-16 had that technology . do u really want to contest that fact .plus i never really said that Russia intrduced fly by wire , was saying that they imporved upon its flaws

This is what you said...

introducing qudrabloe redundant solution

Buddy...You cannot even explain to me the reasoning as to why there is a need to have the system quadruple redundant, let alone telling me the Soviets 'improved' upon it.

you still did not explain why russian were able to develop Buran ,

Why do I need to? What does that prove? That the Russians are behind US in reusable space vehicles?

plus in terms if agility ,manouverbility ,nothing can outperform Mig 35 ( due to superior airframe desgin .advance 3D TVC engines ect ,plus later model will feature FLY BY OPTICS ) you dont want F-35 in WVR combat ,it will be easy meat ,unless F-35 happens to feature very advance ECM .
and Yankees dont know much about SU 30 and later aircraft anyway ,if they did ,IAF would have alllwoed to use the onboard radar on MKI during red flag excercise 2008 . America only imporved exsisting F-18 F-16 F-15 after studying SU AND MIG , Russians did not want american fighters because they were developing better upgraded on their own

plus look at the cost of F-22 ,do u thing it is worth the money .America itself cut down the production of F-22 from 800 aircraft to 187 aircraft

Combat records. You can spout anything you want but in the end, numbers do not lie and so far, Soviet-Russian fighters do not have the combat records comparable to US fighters.

I see no need to continue this discussion further with you unless you can give me something with a little bit more technically credible argument.

 

[AJSINGH]

This is what you said...Buddy...You cannot even explain to me the reasoning as to why there is a need to have the system quadruple redundant, let alone telling me the Soviets 'improved' upon it.

Why do I need to? What does that prove? That the Russians are behind US in reusable space vehicles?

Combat records. You can spout anything you want but in the end, numbers do not lie and so far, Soviet-Russian fighters do not have the combat records comparable to US fighters.

I see no need to continue this discussion further with you unless you can give me something with a little bit more technically credible argument.

comat records huh , really tell the last time america has fought with a country with crediable air force ( taliban airforce or IRAQ airforce dont count ) do tell the combat in which F-15 have shot down Mig 25 of Iraq airforce or mig 29 of serbs ( mig 25 is not for close combat or in the case of Mig 29 ,those serbs pilts were undertrained and aircraft was early 1980s variant whereas F-15 was the lastest with ASEA radar )

America has to boost about combat records with inferior aircraft ( most of them of previous generation )
the only time USAF had some cometition was in vitenam war where number of their sabers ,phantoms were shot down by Mig 17 ,15,21 HENCE TOPGUN shool was strated to teach USAF pilots what they thought was outdated... WVR COMBAT

 

[AJSINGH]

This is what you said...Buddy...You cannot even explain to me the reasoning as to why there is a need to have the system quadruple redundant, let alone telling me the Soviets 'improved' upon it.

Why do I need to? What does that prove? That the Russians are behind US in reusable space vehicles?

Combat records. You can spout anything you want but in the end, numbers do not lie and so far, Soviet-Russian fighters do not have the combat records comparable to US fighters.

I see no need to continue this discussion further with you unless you can give me something with a little bit more technically credible argument.

i have proved that Russian are better in avionics ( not much in RADAR technology though but gap is closing fast ) their weapons systems like a2a missile are better than the yankees

 

[ptldM3]

This is what you said...Buddy...You cannot even explain to me the reasoning as to why there is a need to have the system quadruple redundant, let alone telling me the Soviets 'improved' upon it.

Why do I need to? What does that prove? That the Russians are behind US in reusable space vehicles?

Combat records. You can spout anything you want but in the end, numbers do not lie and so far, Soviet-Russian fighters do not have the combat records comparable to US fighters.

I see no need to continue this discussion further with you unless you can give me something with a little bit more technically credible argument.

The combat record is impressive. However, one must take a closer look.

USAF/Navy pilots are highly trained and backed with awacs and modern aircraft. Moreover, the US has good command and control, and competent commanders. Iraq on the other hand had outdated/downgraded aircraft, no awacs?, poor command and control, incompetent comanders, and very poor pilots. I know of atleast two Iraqi pilots that crashed during dog fights. One misscalculated his altitude and the other crashed at night due to disorientation. Case in point, the Iraqi Air Force was a joke.

 

[A chauhan]

This is what you said...Buddy...You cannot even explain to me the reasoning as to why there is a need to have the system quadruple redundant, let alone telling me the Soviets 'improved' upon it.

Why do I need to? What does that prove? That the Russians are behind US in reusable space vehicles?

Combat records. You can spout anything you want but in the end, numbers do not lie and so far, Soviet-Russian fighters do not have the combat records comparable to US fighters.

I see no need to continue this discussion further with you unless you can give me something with a little bit more technically credible argument.

Combat records ??!! gambit whatever experience USAF has gained from last decade is Only a bombing record, not combat record. Combat is a different thing.

 

[A.V.]

Stealth,radars and discussions on 5TH generation technology

[mod]this thread is created to discuss stuff about 5th gen fighters the technology involved and weapon systems[/mod]

 

[p2prada]

@Gambit

From what I know about the F-35, BAE has built a "really" advanced RWR for the F-35. This is in the form of solid state arrays present just below the skin of the aircraft in parts of the fuselage and the leading edges of the wings and perhaps the tail too. Will this "smart skin" concept be the next new technology to beat AESA and increase situational awareness of the aircraft?

 

[AJSINGH]

@Gambit

From what I know about the F-35, BAE has built a "really" advanced RWR for the F-35. This is in the form of solid state arrays present just below the skin of the aircraft in parts of the fuselage and the leading edges of the wings and perhaps the tail too. Will this "smart skin" concept be the next new technology to beat AESA and increase situational awareness of the aircraft?

situational awarness is due to C41 system ,not because of smart skin , i dont thik F-35 needs anymore smart skin ,its sealthy enough . also remeber in close range combat stealth or no stealth would not matter. because if SU is equpied with IR missile , then there is no escape ( unless somehow F-35 pilots happens to earse all the heat signature from the engine )

 

[p2prada]

situational awarness is due to C41 system ,not because of smart skin , i dont thik F-35 needs anymore smart skin ,its sealthy enough

Can you read up a little more before posting. You don't make sense.

 

[gambit]

Can you read up a little more before posting. You don't make sense.

That is why I am going to ignore this child from now on. Unless he says something really really really stupid.

@Gambit

From what I know about the F-35, BAE has built a "really" advanced RWR for the F-35. This is in the form of solid state arrays present just below the skin of the aircraft in parts of the fuselage and the leading edges of the wings and perhaps the tail too. Will this "smart skin" concept be the next new technology to beat AESA and increase situational awareness of the aircraft?

The term 'smart skin' have been thrown around quite carelessly. No idea on how is it supposed to be 'smart'. No idea on which character of the radar pulse is this 'smart skin' supposed to act against. The more I read about it the more skeptical I become about it. It is not just about countering phase array systems, if I can successfully negate the capabilities of a phase array system, I can easily negate lesser capable radar systems out there.

 

[AJSINGH]

Can you read up a little more before posting. You don't make sense.

my bad it is C4ISR system on board F-35 which gives it battle field awarness