Is it necessary to bring the APG-63(v)2 into this? Did it even have any close combat modes programmed before 2004? What's wrong with APG-63(v)1?Originally Posted by jgetti
Of course the Zhuk-M is even farther from being operational. MiG-29SMT in 1998... Yeah right - the words "paper airplane" come to mind. Mikoyan and the Russian Air Force can't even agree what a MiG-29SMT is. Give me a working 9.13 that actually exists any day, thank you.
"Plasma stealth" is all hysteria over nothing. If you look behind the radiotransparent nosecones of Russian aircraft, you'll discover a lot of right angles that make great radar reflectors and contribute greatly to Russian aircraft RCS. Some theoreticians demonstrated that if you fill that nosecone with plasma, all those corners become "hidden" and the aircraft's gigantic RCS goes down to a more reasonable value. Of course, that also happens if you fill the nosecone with solid lead. Filling the nosecone with plasma prevents the radar from doing its job, making the practicality of this arrangement somewhat questionable to say the least.
A combination of "emphasize the good, don't mention the bad" on the part of Russian researchers who were looking to attach themselves to the latest stealth "craze" to attract western institutions to fund their work, western enthusiasts and mil-ind-complex "scaremongers" then took this pedestrian concept and rode with it, inventing all these stories about plasma "clouds" that magically float around Russian fighters in flight, making them into an invisible army overnight. The plasma "cloud" is a myth. The plasma was only ever intended to fill an enclosed, air-tight, almost evacuated dielectric antenna housing. All these stories about shrouding airplane surfaces in lightning are pure flights of fancy.
Now, after years of effort, they can finally reduce the RCS of a flat plate, which already has the lowest RCS known to man from any angle but broadside, with a plasma-containing "screen," instead of filling the entire nosecone. So, while this radar is painting a locked target with radar energy thousands of times a second and tripping the RWR alarms off like a Christmas tree, it's "stealthy." What will they do now about turbine blades, another great contributor to RCS?
Just shape the planes and their radar antennas for stealth from the original design in the first place, like B-1B, F-117 and F/A-22, it'll work much better and cost a lot less.
-SK
He quoted tracking ranges for the APG-63 equipped F-15's and continued to suggest that the PESA-type BARS radars of the MiG-29 could defeat any AESA equipped F-15. Nothing is wrong with the APG-63v1, it just not does not have an AESA array,,, therefore "any AESA equipped F-15" would be one equipped with an APG-63v2. That's why I brought it up,,, and the fact that I doubt the credibility of publicly released figures on any AESA radar.
The Mig-29 is a piece of junk that has performed horribly in real combat with numerous nations.
I get so sick of reading about all these 'great' Russian weapons systems that pretty much all become instant death traps to their users when they face off against 'inferior' Western systems.
Give me a break...
My bad, I didn't notice that part of his commentary. I was more thinking of a comment from another discussion,
While I'd agree all indications point to Cope India being a politically staged event, I don't think "lack of AESA" counts as an explanation for anything - yet it seems to keep coming up as an issue, as if one should expect to suddenly start losing engagements without it.
M21Sniper, I don't mind when people discuss MiG-29s vs Western equipment... The Fulcrum did scare the USAF Aardvark fleet into early retirement after all...My specific peeve is any analysis based on what Russia has "under development" - not one such hyped object I can think of since 1991 has ever amounted to anything but a desperate plea for cash. It's like anything else - if the manufacturer needs to advertise its capabilities on the internet, instead of having satisfied customers do it for them...
-SK
Last edited by SwingKid; 03 Feb 05, at 00:17.
It makes a huge difference in a simulation that considers the first BVR missile fired on a locked target as a kill shot. Most of the 'kills' made by IAF in COPE India were BVR shots which assumes that any missile fired on a locked target is a hit. Therefore, in said 'simulation', whoever gets off the first shot is the winner, regardless of evasive maneuvering or countermeasures. They were able to see us at the same time we were able to see them. Since we agreed not to use our AMRAAM missiles, however, we didn't have a 'simulated' missile that could reach as far as them, and so we had to close in further to get off a shot.
Many things played into the losses of that simulation that were unrealistic,,, you're right, AESA was just one of them.
"My specific peeve is any analysis based on what Russia has "under development" - not one such hyped object I can think of since 1991 has ever amounted to anything but a desperate plea for cash. It's like anything else - if the manufacturer needs to advertise its capabilities on the internet, instead of having satisfied customers do it for them..."
"I get so sick of reading about all these 'great' Russian weapons systems that pretty much all become instant death traps to their users when they face off against 'inferior' Western systems."
You have never been one to mince words...
But yeah I'm sick of hearing abou the latest Russian internet super fighter and how it is so much more lethal then Western planes...
I've heard directly contradicting claims about this (not from you) and am not sure I believe it... The more detailed and believeable-sounding one said that AMRAAMs were indeed used. Are you sure about this part?
Even if true, the USAF didn't have AMRAAMs in Desert Storm either... Neither AESA, nor AMRAAM, nor JHMCS, nor any other development since 1991 should make any difference to the outcome of Eagle combat today IMHO... How to improve on 100%? fUSSR and its clients have been struggling to play catch-up, not "get-ahead." Sparrow-armed F-15Cs from 1991 should have won Cope India hands down... The R-77 rumoredly doesn't even loft like a Sparrow. What did the Su-30MKI introduce to win, the slotted-array antenna? That the F-14A carried in 1972?
The "numerical superiority" of the opposing team was also reported to include "escorted" strikers that posed no threat to the Eagles...
I don't put much credence in any of the excuses. The Eagles lost because they wanted to.
-SK
Yeah the F/A-22A is in trouble and of course if the F-15C was reported to be more then capable to stand up to the potenial enemies there would be no point to the F/A-22A. If the F-15C had shown itself to bemore then capable that would have possibly become a nail in the F/A-22A's coffin.
Hell from what I read we should no expect anymore F-15s to get AESA until the F/A-22A starts really entering service in big numbers.
Nothing can be done to threaten the F/A-22A it seems.
you know what makes me sick, going to all these forums that state how superior western technology is to Russian, you guys are just too overly biased towards America, do you even admit that Russia has some good military hardware, if not, boy your living a sad life, there are a few russian pieces of equipment without any analogues in the west such as the Iskander and the Brahmos missile
take it easy on the insults M21 Sniper, i can just as easily say that about the "crappy" F-16, if they are so crappy, then why did they shoot down a total of 6 aircraft including a stealthy bomber
F-117 downed by MiG 29 on March 24
NATO aircraft downed by MiG 29 on March 24
F-16C downed by MiG 29 on March 26
F-15E downed by a MiG 29 on March 26
NATO aircraft downed by MiG 29 on May 21
NATO aircraft downed by MiG 29 on May 31
other NATO/USAF aircraft downed by enemy fighter pilots were:
F-15E downed by MiG 21 on March 26
F-15 downed by MiG 21 on April 6(after dogfight)
and NATO/USAF aircraft shot down by unknown aircraft and unknown missiles(which implies that a Yugoslavian aircraft shot it down, with an unknown missile)
NATO aircraft downed by AAM on March 24
F-16 downed by AAM on March 28
(4 F-16's) downed by AAM missiles on March 28
(2 NATO aircraft) downed by AAM missiles on May 5
(3 NATO aircraft) downed by AAM missiles on May 12
(5 NATO aircraft) downed by AAM missiles on May 12
(2 NATO aircraft) downed by AAM missiles on May 12
(5 NATO aircraft) downed by AAM missiles on May 20
(13 NATO aircraft) downed by AAM missiles on May 20
(2 NATO aircraft) downed by AAM missiles on May 20
therefore, Yugoslavian pilots who were outnumbered 5+:1, shot down a total of 46 NATO/USAF aircraft with with the possibility of anymore between 6-46 aircraft being shot down by Yugoslav MiG 29's that were outnumbered 5(minimum)+:1
(since, it is unlikely that a MiG 21 could destroy aircraft from ranges close to the MiG 29)
in total, another 165 downed aircraft by unknown causes
also, many MiG 29's were shot down, but no where near the number of NATO/USAF aircraft downed because Yugoslavia had a much smaller airforce, these following Yugoslav aircraft were downed
MiG 21FK downed by F/A-18 on March 26
MiG 21 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 21 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 21 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 21 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 23 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 23 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 23 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 29 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 29 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 29 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 21 downed by unknown causes on May 12
MiG 21 downed by F-15E on May 11
MiG 21 downed by F-15E on May 11
MiG 29 downed by unknown causes on March 24
MiG 29 downed by F-16 on March 26
MiG 29 downed by F-15E on March 26
J-22 Orao downed by unknown causes on April 18
G-4 Super Galeb downed by unknown causes on April 22
there was also one MiG 21 damaged by a SAM on April 18, but it was not destroyed
MiG 21-8 destroyed
MiG 23-3 destroyed
MiG 29-6 destroyed
J-22 Orao-1 destroyed
G-4 Super Galeb-1 destroyed
the MiG 29 downed 6 confirmed aircraft, and 6 MiG 29 aircraft were downed(1:1) ratio(MiG 21 downed 2 aircraft, and a total of 8 MiG 21 were downed, giving it a 4:1 ratio) (on March 28, NATO or the USAF launched a bombing raid on an air field or somethiing like that, almost all of those aircraft downed on March 28 were downed on the ground, it was not aeriel combat
if you take into account the other 38 aircraft that were downed by AAM missiles, since the MiG 29 was Yugoslavia's most advanced fighter, you can therfore acredit those kills, or most of those kills to the MiG 29, therefore, the MiG 29 kill ratio can be any where between 1:1-7.3:1
and this is by inferior pilots outnumbered and outgunned majorly in as M21 Sniper stated "a piece of junk that has performed horribly in real combat"
now, if you take into account all the NATO/USAF aircraft downed by unknown causes which totals 165 aircraft, the kill ratio of the MiG 29 significantly rasies, but the thing is that, these aircraft downed by unknown causes could have been and most likely were downed by SAM's and AAA guns, so, this would provide a slight increase in the kill ratio of the MiG 29
oh, for all those that are against plasma stealth technology, they ahve already tested it on an aircraft, i nkow that most of you biased people will disregard this as bs, and you've all heard of Russia having a third generation of plasma generators requiring only 100kW of energy and weighs less than 100 kg
but they have tested a plasma screen on an Su-33( sorry, i read the article about a year ago, and thus don't remember off the bat, it was either a Su-30, Su-32, Su-33, Su-35) yea one of those, anyways, they used a plasma screen to cover up the RW emissions that the radome which houses the radar would emmit(the radar accounts for a significant amount of the RCS of an aircraft) i forgot how much the RCS decreased, i think it was 60%, which is relatively moderate gains
um, dealing with the radar issue with plasma, many pilots when flying, don't have their radar turned on, its just too much of a liable asset, since it would increase your RCS significantly when you turn your radar on, the enmy might detect you, anyways, you can still use the IRST, which i've heard future models will have a 50 km range, in addition
wouldn't it be a reasonable trade to turn off your radar(which makes you almost unable to detect any enemy aircraft) to lower your RCS significantly, thus making YOU very hard to detect, you can get into short range(50km or lower) and fire your IR missiles in WVR which russian aircraft excel in
anyways, just some calculations, my source for the downings of NATO/USAF aircraft during the Yugoslav air war, the site doesn't wokr right now, its aeronautics.ru if any of you are familiar with it, i have an entire database on downed aircraft on Excel if anyone wishes to observe it, in addition, i found three interesting happenings
a B-2A Spirit of of Missouri was downed on May 2 by a SAM and was detected by long wave early warning radars, the seriel number of the aircraft was AV-8 88-0329, the aircraft was hit by a SAM and continued to fly, but crashed into the mountain because it was decreasing in alltitude, it crashed between Simanovci and Kupinovo in the Pecinci district
another B-2A Spirit of Washington was downed on June 1 by unknown casues, its seriel number was AV-11 88-0332
another B-2A was shot down on May 8 by unkown causes, since i haven't foudn its seriel number, i deem this an unconfirmed downing
let me try to find the lnik with the aircraft utilizing the plasma screen, i tried a month ago and couldn't find it.........................yes, found one link
http://home.iae.nl/users/wbergmns/stealth2.htm
so, effectively, putting one of these devices onboard an aircraft would make it seem stealthier than if you used ferr-magnetic radar absorbant materiel, and painted its surfaces with radar dissipating paint, doing this can reduce the RCS of an aircraft by 10-15dB, while using a plasma screen can effectively reduce the RCS of an aircraft by 20dB, which is 75%-100% more effective, plus wouldn't put any excessive airflow and weight restrictions on the aircraft
http://uploads.abovetopsecret.com/ats15684_sweetman.txt
also, another advantage to a better decreased RCS is that it is far easier to maintain than RAM and paint coatings, reducing the costs for maintenance, which playa a huge part in a tender Russia is also developing ceramic panels that would coat the engine ducts, but wouldn't impede the airflow, like the tiles used on the F-22
well, thats all i can find right now, bye
Dima,
Sorry, there were no NATO aircrafts downed as stated in your post.
It's very, very simple. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten airplanes take off. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten airplanes landed.
Never mind what the Serbs said, the Russians had more than enough eyes watching Aviano to confirm the Serb claims were bogus.
Chimo
Dima,
I don't know your age or background, but the very same page that you cite says:
also:ITAE has studied at least three techniques for reducing the RCS contribution of the radar antenna, in addition to the simplest method of deflecting the antenna upwards
and:"A problem of huge size" is how the researchers describe the Su-35 inlet, with a straight duct that provides direct visibility to the entire face of the engine compressor. The basic solution has been to apply ferro-magnetic radar absorbent material (RAM) to the compressor face and to the inlet duct walls, but this involves challenges.
I don't find anything here to contradict what I have written. The plasma stealth has nothing to do with the "problem of huge size" of the inlets. Instead, they ignore that problem, and hype up the problem they can do something about with plasmas - reducing the antenna RCS. A problem which they practically admit doesn't even need plasmas at all, since if you're willing to disable your radar during ingress, you can just "tilt it upwards."The antennas are modelled separately and then are added to the entire RCS picture.
In order to let their results look like anything at all, they have to separate the antenna from the rest of the RCS of the aircraft! Otherwise it would be too painfully obvious that plasma stealth does NOT solve the "entire RCS picture." Reducing the RCS of one part and ignoring the rest, and then advertising those results as if it is some kind of solution is simply "cheating."
These people are not liars. They are plasma scientists who have learned you don't get grants by advertising what you can't do, but you do get grants by hyping the latest trend and looking like you're a part of it, even if it's a ridiculously small and far-fetched part. It's like the radar people nowadays who are inventing radar that can "see through walls" to "spot terrorists". It's a ridiculous concept, but radar is all these people know how to do, and anything "anti-terrorist" is easier to sell - whether it's actually practical or not is the buyer's problem. And maybe, there's someone out there with money who doesn't know it's a ridiculous concept. That's why Windows beats Linux. That's how free markets work.
If you want a more honest assessment, talk to the customers, the people in the armed forces, not the people designing and selling the hardware. They're mostly all hucksters, both in Russia and the West. The Yugoslav MiG-29 pilots themselves have gone on the record to say they didn't succeed to fire any missiles at anything, and don't appreciate the lies being spread about them. Russia does have interesting weapons, but I think there are better sources to learn about them than the sources you're using.
Respect,
-SK
just to reply to this statement, the Indians outnumbered the F-15's usually 10-12 to 4, the Indians operated the MiG 27, MiG 21BIS, MiG 29, Mirage 2000 and Su-30K(NOT MKI) , the MiG 27 was a strike aircraft, and was being escorted by the MiG 21BIS and the other aircraft engaged the F-15, so in most instances, it wasn't really 10:4, it was usually 6-8:4, also, and they did not have any AESA radrs, but there was this competition with ELmendorf pilots at Elmendorf AFB, in which the aircraft were equipped with AESA radrs, and the longest range AAM's in USAF service, yet still lost tho the Flankers, let me see if i can find the link
http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/exercise...article02.html
in this article, in the last part of the second paragraph up from the last picture, it mentions that all missiles were limited, this is dealing with the DACT excercise know as COPE India at Gwailor
you know what, i can't find it now, thats all, later
why are you guys so anti-russian, its really pathetic
http://www.cdi.org/russia/313-9.cfm
well, here is another article that mentions a few excercises between Russian aircraft and Canadian and South African Aircraft, in which, the MiG 29 went up against the Mirage 2000 in South Africe, the MiG 29 came out on top, wait, i'm still looking...........
You will find that many old dinosaurs here have a healthy respects for the Russians but they are no longer the monster juggernaut that they used to be (and neither are we).
There is a stong sense of misunderstanding in the internet crowd these days, namely very few have an actual idea on how we and the Russians were supposed to fight. Those who criticized the Russians expect them to fight like us. Those East Bloc crowd who criticized us expect us to fight like them. Hence, both are dead wrong in these issues and both are dead right.
We are a manouver centric force. The Russians are a fire centric force. And that's where all the misunderstanding starts to take place. We rely on fire just as much as the Russians and they rely on manouver just as much as we do. However, wheras they manouver to bring their fire online, we fire to protect our manouver.
Clear as mud.
Chimo
yo Swing Kid, much respect for you, really, a lot of respect, you mind giving me your email? just want to talk, because i'm neither a pro-russian or pro-american, or i try not to be, but, i always go into the defense of an aircraft, always, even if i know i'm going to lose, anyways
Officer of Engineers, when that site gets back up, i'll give you many links regarding the downing of NATO aircraft
and you are wrong as well, badly wrong, sorry man, but America did admit to losing an F-117 to an SA-3/SA-6 on March 27
and they also admitted the loss of an F-16CG-40-CF by an SA-3 on May 2, so even NATO and the USAF addmitted losses, i'm afraid that your source is incorrect, i'm waiting for that site to get up again, without it, i don't have much support for these arguments
um, with due respect SwingKid, what do your first three quotes, what are they responding to?
you said that the Yugoslav pilots didn't succeed to fire any misiles at all? where did you hear this from?
oh yes, i am aware that the plasma screen cannot solve the entire RCS problem, but neither can the RAM, RAS, and radar dissipating paint technique either
i was just merely stating that they've developed pieces of the technology required to make it fully capable and that the screen effectively reduced the RCS of the aircraft considerably, thats all my point was, and that it was more efficient than putting on RAM etc.
well thats all, have a nice day
SwingKid, how old are you by the way, and whats your background?
My formal training is in antennas and electrical engineering.
The quotes I selected were to indicate that by reading carefully, anyone not already blinded by enthusiasm can see the limitations of plasma stealth alluded to in some detail by the very same people who invented it.
One thing to consider between Yugoslav vs. NATO claims is that to a SAM operator, manned fighters, UAVs, cruise missiles, decoys and maybe even drop tanks that appear on radar as they fall may all technically be counted as "downed aircraft" without lying, whereas NATO forces are really only interested in lost pilots. How often have the Yugoslavs claimed shooting down a UAV? How many pilots did they parade in front of TV cameras?
Thanks for the invitation, but I need my e-mail for a lot of work and would not have time for a private conversation. Sharing information in a public forum prevents having to repeat the same information later.
If you feel I'm anti-Russian, well, that's your call...
-SK
P.S. Conventional stealth is about 95% reflective shaping and 5% absorbing materials.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: