Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Russian Jet Maker Promises Stealthy Aircraft

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    I seriously doubt the stealth credibility of the F-22. The Raptor is a day time fighter and unlike the B-2 and F-117 which fly night missions and are perhaps the only real stealth planes, it can be detected by powerful radar and certain other devices used by the RAF. Even the Russians claim they can detect the F-22. Given the failure of its dependence on stealth technology, the F-22 will be at the level of the F15 and F16.

    IAF Jaguars, such as the one that evaded US detection in Alaska during Cope Thunder have been given a "stealth" upgrade, featuring anti-radar engine intake screens, that cuts their radar cross section by more than half and also stealth paint, something similar to the stealth qualities the SR 71 had decades ago. But these arent stealth qualities really.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Captain Drunk
      I seriously doubt the stealth credibility of the F-22. The Raptor is a day time fighter and unlike the B-2 and F-117 which fly night missions and are perhaps the only real stealth planes, it can be detected by powerful radar and certain other devices used by the RAF. Even the Russians claim they can detect the F-22. Given the failure of its dependence on stealth technology, the F-22 will be at the level of the F15 and F16.
      Lol, Captain Drunk, you should lay off the sauce.

      Considering that the Raptor has never flown outside of CONUS, how do you suppose that the RAF and Russians have determined their ability to detect the AC?
      "We will go through our federal budget page by page, line by line eliminating those programs we dont need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Injecteer
        LOL!
        Following the same logic I can tell, that:
        a) a fixed duze is better for stealh, than any nD TVC :)
        b) no engine at all is the best way to go! Let's convert all fighter-jets into gliders! They will by way more stealth than any existing jet.
        Uh, less complex usually equals less panels and other junk that moves which means less things that a radar wave will bounce off. Also of course that would be true, but than again the US wants also manueverability and an aircraft that flies, so no point in that much stealth (note the YF-23 had no TVC and was a bit more stealthy than the YF-22)

        K.I.S.S.
        It doens't matter what they had, the main reason is the price. The other reason is the technical risk. Even from the dummy's PoV, a 2D-something is simplier, than a 3D :).
        combined with the 'fact', that americans do NOT love taking a risk on such an expensive project, like the f22/JSF is, the selection of 2d tvc is no surprise for me.
        Exactly, which means that it won't come up on the screen as big.

        I agree with the fact that the russian electronics is inferior to US's one.
        but!
        the superiority in the electronics alone doesn't make the avionics better! the avionics first of all is a SYSTEM. If U improve one part of it (say, with a faster CPU) the performance gain of the whole system can be miserable.
        Also, keep in mind that the system needs specific elements to work together. Here, an old spesific chip can be better, when a hi-end general-purpose CPU.

        As an example, take a look at the counter-ICBM defence systems. The russians made them successfuly work in the 80's using mostly analog devices, while the US started conducting successful anti-rocket test launches only now.
        First off, if you've ever looked at the inside photo of a F-22's cockpit and than any other Russian design, exactly how do you come to the conclusion that the F-22's not better? I'll bet you $100 right now that the F-22's avionics are more advanced and better than any Russian aircraft to date or in the near future.

        nor you, neither me know the best way to make something 'stealthy'. Can you tell me, what is better for a stealthy design: the RAM, the reflective shape or the engines' heat screening?
        this is a tricky topic, here U can gain in one area, and loose in the other.
        Have you looked at the the MiG 1.44? Sure none of us are experts (I'm probably far from one), but we can make educated guesses on which one is probably stealthier. For one thing, it doesn't have cracks like the MiG-1.44 does nor does it have canards, which is known to increase the RCS of an aircaft, and it looks like it would deflect radar waves away from the body unlike the MiG-1.44.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Captain Drunk
          I seriously doubt the stealth credibility of the F-22. The Raptor is a day time fighter and unlike the B-2 and F-117 which fly night missions and are perhaps the only real stealth planes, it can be detected by powerful radar and certain other devices used by the RAF. Even the Russians claim they can detect the F-22. Given the failure of its dependence on stealth technology, the F-22 will be at the level of the F15 and F16.

          IAF Jaguars, such as the one that evaded US detection in Alaska during Cope Thunder have been given a "stealth" upgrade, featuring anti-radar engine intake screens, that cuts their radar cross section by more than half and also stealth paint, something similar to the stealth qualities the SR 71 had decades ago. But these arent stealth qualities really.
          highsea: Nah, I think he's on drugs. ;)

          First, how the hell can they even know that if the Raptor has never flown over their airspace? Exactly. Bluffing and ways to detriment the aircraft further and downplay its superiority, of course. Also even without stealth, its capability far surpasses the F-15 and F-16s by a large margin, performance wise and avionics. Also do you know that the F-22's RCS is smaller than even the B-2? How is it possible that the F-22 isn't a stealth fighter yet the F-117 is?

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Insomniac
            I highly disagree. The Mig-1.44 "Raptor Killer" has demonstrated the MiG corporation's ability to design and build a fighter worthy of taking on the F-22. It's got almost everything that the Raptor has in terms of TVC and an internally held payload. The Mig-1.44 has greater range, a greater payload, and greater manuverability than the F-22 because it does not have a stealth airframe, and thusly, the only two areas where the Raptor bests the Mig-1.44 is stealth and more advanced computer software...
            You are easily convinced. The only thing the 1.44 demonstrated is that MAPO can build a new AC that can perform one single 15-minute slow-speed flight with the gear down.

            Your "Raptor Killer" is a paper tiger.
            "We will go through our federal budget page by page, line by line eliminating those programs we dont need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Injecteer
              again, what are the 'quantitative' measures of each of those features and their combination? What's the percentage of each of them for a common goal? How does it changes with the radar's frequency and power?

              General words, like 'stealthy plane A has a RCS of a basketball', cannot be taken into consideration, can they?


              sorry, but I have NEVER stated or assumed anything like that!
              The answer is simple you can't get the exact figures cause you know as well as I do that specifics arn't available to the public. However a certain amount of common sense can still be used. Basiclly your end argument to everything I've seen you discuss on the forums is, unless you can show me the exact engineering specs and the precise RCS values it doesn't count.

              And pricise comparison in this case isen't nessessary anyway, one fighter is not a stealth fighter, the other is. Its *extremely* obvious.

              "What's the percentage of each of them for a common goal? How does it changes with the radar's frequency and power? "

              That is easy to answer, it doesn't matter in this case. Both aircraft use RAM material so on that level their even. The Raptor uses an airframe optimised to reflect radar which gives it an advantage given then Mig doesn't. The Raptor also encases its gun and engine nozzles in RAM material and the Mig doesn't. So again given that Raptor has more comprehensive radar protection then the Mig.

              The percentages don't matter because whatever the percentage of protection the RAM provides both aircraft have it. And whatever the percentage the additional protection the Raptors shape and additional nozzle and gun covering provide its obviously a plus value so it helps increase the Raptors radar protection.
              Last edited by canoe; 09 Jan 06,, 23:51.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Vaman
                Theres no reason to knock russian tech. Even american cos. dont. LM actually bought out the VTOL tech used in the JSF programme from the russians,
                The vertical lift fan driven by driveshaft off the engine was a concept developed my McDonnell Douglas.

                Once upon a time about 15 years ago, McDonnell had 3 concepts for a lightweight VTOL fighter capability: First was diverted airflow from the main engine used to spin a vertical fan, second was a driveshaft from the engine used to spin a vertical fan, and then there was the ol' tried and true direct lift of the Harrier.

                The government wanted to compete concepts and so each company was to develop an idea. McDonnell saw the diverted airflow as the most promising for performance and least risk idea and went on to develop that idea. Lockheed went on to develop the vertical fan/driveshaft concept, and Boeing (previous to merger with Mcdonnell) tried to develop a direct lift variant.

                At the same time, Pratt and GE were competing for the powerplant contract. McDonnell's diverted airflow concept was dependent upon the variable bypass F120 engine of GE. When the governement downselected the Pratt engine, McDonnell's concept wouldn't work, and so their only solution (since McDonnell's competitors were developing it's other ideas) was to add another engine for the vertical lift aircraft......

                ...... and the government continued it's love affair with Lockheed and they lived happily ever after.

                The End

                Highsea's right,, nowhere in that tale do Russian designs exist.
                Last edited by jgetti; 10 Jan 06,, 00:10.

                Comment


                • #53
                  The 2006-08 Russian defence program has a hole for $3bn in millitary R&D..... it is not clear if this would be spend on Aircraft..... or a Submarine...... or Carrier..... or naval IBCM..... it is not enough for all of that but it would be enough to complete one of the listed programs.

                  As I said.... Irkut Corporation has spend $350mln and 3 years to turn Su-27UBK into Su-30MKI..... (audited by PWC) of which $200mln was spend on engine upgrade (by Saturn/Ufa Motors)..... During this upgrade Irkut has changed computer, targeting system, radar, 60% of cockpit avionics, added fuel tanks, canards, changed engine and slightly changed frame weight, and many more.

                  Boeign has been awarded contract of $1.5bn for new mission computer for F-15C of which the R&D on upgrading of mission computer is estimated to $0.5bn while 1bn in actual replacement on part of the fleet. A profound upgrade like Su-27UBK => Su-30MKI would have cost many many billions to most western companies.

                  I admit that my estimations are very very rough but $3-4bn and 5-7 years might be sufficient to have next generation fighter. As I always shown to you with evidence Russian engineers had achieved high results spending less cash and less time than their conterparts. I believe it is not sustainable in long ran..... this advantage stems from the fact that most Russian top engineers have less anual salary than a taxi driver in your city. So with no new tallent attracted with these misery Russia will have its Aerospace industry collapsing in 10-15 years....... but today it yields advantage.

                  In general US and European defense spending is highly obscure and intransparent process with VERY limited competition (same in Russia). I remember reading an article about report of the senate siting that NO PROGRAM has met its initial budget within last decades.... and average overan was 20-30%..... and senate usually approves that.
                  Last edited by Garry; 10 Jan 06,, 14:41.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Hi garry,
                    Recently Indian def min visited moscow on official visit. There is constant rumour mill going that IAF has been dissatisfied with T50[PAKFA] by sukhoi corp & IAF liked the mig 5 gen single engine concept rather than 30+tons PAKFA, which is being supported by RuAF. This was conveyed to russians. Whats the odds would u give for mig concept vs the PAKFA then?
                    Hala Madrid!!

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by The_Burning_Kid
                      I really think your in a fantasy world, because right now it doesn't have any hot-shot MiGs.

                      Also that could be said about any aircraft.
                      Mig-31 Foxhound B rules the roost, Russia's mainstay fighter for the time being, with the worlds most powerful radar (1.4 metre square), top speed of Mach 2.8 and an advantage of long range missiles, it beats Su-30 MKI, F-15, Mig-29, F-16, etc by far.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Captain Drunk
                        Mig-31 Foxhound B rules the roost, Russia's mainstay fighter for the time being, with the worlds most powerful radar (1.4 metre square), top speed of Mach 2.8 and an advantage of long range missiles, it beats Su-30 MKI, F-15, Mig-29, F-16, etc by far.
                        Please compare things that actually can be compared. You do realise that the MiG-31 is a horrible dogfighter and is meant for intercepting of large bombers? Entirely different from the role of any of those aircrafts you just listed. Also I doubt its radar is more powerful than the F-22's AESA or the new F-15's AESA or the F-16E/F Block 60/62's AESA.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Theres no need for dogfighting for the Mig-31 when even the MiG-29 can destroy air targets at distances from 60 to 200 kilometers (30 to 110 NM) at all altitudes, on all profiles, in any weather, and under all ECM conditions. The Foxhound remains the most capable Russian air defense interceptor aircraft, with a multiple-target engagement capability. The key to the MiG-31's effectiveness is the SBI-16 Zaslon fixed phased array antenna radar, codenamed 'Flash Dance' by NATO, which is said to be the world's most powerful fighter radar, sources say it can detect Stealth too

                          Thats why Russia has over 400 Foxhounds while China seeks licence production for nearly 700. When working with air targets, the MiG-31BM is capable of intercepting up to 24 targets simultaneously

                          Unlike F-15s and F-16s from Israel and Pakistan that had to watch helplessly as Russian and IAF Recee Foxbats sped around high above in their airspace taking pics, Mig-31 Foxhounds could shoot down anything from F-15s to F-16s or F-14s, etc. that stray their way. They have the advantage of long range AAMs.
                          Last edited by Captain Drunk; 11 Jan 06,, 08:51.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            In other words....if you're a Foxhound Pilot, nothing can touch you

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Captain Drunk
                              Theres no need for dogfighting for the Mig-31 when even the MiG-29 can destroy air targets at distances from 60 to 200 kilometers (30 to 110 NM) at all altitudes, on all profiles, in any weather, and under all ECM conditions. The Foxhound remains the most capable Russian air defense interceptor aircraft, with a multiple-target engagement capability. The key to the MiG-31's effectiveness is the SBI-16 Zaslon fixed phased array antenna radar, codenamed 'Flash Dance' by NATO, which is said to be the world's most powerful fighter radar, sources say it can detect Stealth too

                              Thats why Russia has over 400 Foxhounds while China seeks licence production for nearly 700. When working with air targets, the MiG-31BM is capable of intercepting up to 24 targets simultaneously

                              Unlike F-15s and F-16s from Israel and Pakistan that had to watch helplessly as Russian and IAF Recee Foxbats sped around high above in their airspace taking pics, Mig-31 Foxhounds could shoot down anything from F-15s to F-16s or F-14s, etc. that stray their way. They have the advantage of long range AAMs.
                              Please don't make me laugh. I can already tell you that the F-22's radar is way more powerful than this one's. I doubt it could pick up any stealth. Also do you know that Russia is replacing its MiG-31's in favor of the Su-27 family? So much for that.

                              The MiG-31 could only shoot down a fighter if it got a couple of meters away, boy. Do you realise that its long-range armenant is too heavy to engage nible and agile fighters? Similar to the Pheonix missile that the F-14 had.

                              The MiG-31 won't be outrunning any AIM-120, I hope you know. A MiG-31 pilot is as dead as a corn stock.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Garry
                                ...Boeign has been awarded contract of $1.5bn for new mission computer for F-15C of which the R&D on upgrading of mission computer is estimated to $0.5bn while 1bn in actual replacement on part of the fleet.
                                Garry, which contract are you talking about here? This doesn't ring a bell with me the way you describe it. The MSIP prog. is done, and AFAIK, the ADCP upgrades are slated for the F-15E, F-18 E/F, and AV8-B as part of Bold Stroke.

                                IOW, not an F-15C upgrade, and the 1.5bn seems waaaay wrong to me. Boeing invested about $100Mn. on Bold Stroke in dev. costs.

                                Keep in mind, when talking about $1Bn in fleet upgrades, you are talking about only $2Mn per plane if you are talking about F-15's.
                                "We will go through our federal budget page by page, line by line eliminating those programs we dont need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X