Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WVR Or BVR???

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    on a technology that doesn't exist, indeed, w/e they've already tested the screen

    your problem is that you're overly negative on Russia equipment

    yes, America has taken a different approach that costs tons more just to add to an aircraft, and a lot more to maintain, yes, very efficient
    for MOTHER MOLDOVA

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Dima
      on a technology that doesn't exist, indeed, w/e they've already tested the screen
      Chill, Dima, I was referring to this comment: "think about the future if Plasma stealth is used, aircraft will practically become insivisble to radars"

      Now, considering all you have posted in the past about plasma stealth as a "cloud" surrounding the AC, and your comment here, I assumed you were talking about something more than the internal screen (that has some serious operational drawbacks). The "cloud" concept has been discredited, even by Russia, for reasons stated over and over. How long it takes you to accept that (if ever) is yet to be determined, but I assure you that repeating it every two weeks will not make it any more real. And since you have no background in physics, or apparently even a basic understanding of plasmas, attempting to discussing the topic with you is somewhat less than rewarding.
      Originally posted by Dima
      your problem is that you're overly negative on Russia equipment
      Not at all. I just get sick of hearing claims that have no basis in the real world. I don't care if it's "atmospheric mach 50 flight, anti-gravity engines, or plasma stealth". It's all nonsense. The laws of physics apply equally to all.

      Now, if you have a question, go ahead and ask. I don't expect you to be an expert in the subject- but you should understand that I have spent many years in aerospace, and I do take it seriously. I'm not an expert in every subject, but I'm smart enough to understand my limitations.
      Originally posted by Dima
      yes, America has taken a different approach that costs tons more just to add to an aircraft, and a lot more to maintain, yes, very efficient
      How do you know this, when you don't know what I am referring to? Pretty bold statement for a 15 year old kid with no background on the subject...
      "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

      Comment


      • #18
        do i all of a sudden need a background to express my opinion, okay, i'll chill

        so, what were you referring to then? huh

        yea, just don't tyr to explain, i'm talking talking about a plasma cloud, as i already know that creating a plasma cloud is impossible with current technologies, because in a fast aircraft, you wouldn't generate enough plasma to cover the aircraft because the because the air.............well, kind of hard to find a word to describe this, ummmmmmmmm...i don't know, but it....shoot, i guess you can say like "peels" it off?kind of, not really the word i'm looking for

        i'm referring solely to them creating a plasma screen, not a plasma cloud

        well, Russia has something clsoe to an anti-gravitation, except it uses an air cushion, it's called the EKIP, the Americans purchased it
        yea, well, the laws of phsyics can be changed, it has been proven every century, new laws are created, as well as new theories etc.

        well, i'm glad that you can maintain a smooth and patient composure, hopefully, i'll be able to do that someday, thank you
        for MOTHER MOLDOVA

        Comment


        • #19
          They really need to replace the AA-10 Alamo. That thing is still SAHR like the AIM-7 Sparrow.
          "The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Dima
            do i all of a sudden need a background to express my opinion, okay, i'll chill
            No Dima, you don't need a background to express an opinion. But it would help if you expressed it as opinion, and not fact, unless you have something to back it up.
            Originally posted by Dima
            so, what were you referring to then? huh
            The US has developed screens that shield the antenna without affecting the radar's operation. They are differentially permeable to certain frequencies, so they do not need to be turned off and on. Also, with AESA's LPI modes, the power output on any given frequency is so low that detection is very difficult anyway. Remember, the name of the game is to prevent the return of the other guy's signal, and prevent detection of your own emitter. Screens can scatter the incoming signals (no return), and LPI modes can prevent detection. If I can see you and you can't see me, I have a huge tactical advantage, right?
            Originally posted by Dima
            yea, just don't tyr to explain, i'm talking talking about a plasma cloud, as i already know that creating a plasma cloud is impossible with current technologies, because in a fast aircraft, you wouldn't generate enough plasma to cover the aircraft because the because the air.............well, kind of hard to find a word to describe this, ummmmmmmmm...i don't know, but it....shoot, i guess you can say like "peels" it off?kind of, not really the word i'm looking for
            The plasma layer would be sheared off in the airstream, unless you were flying very slow and straight. Also, it would take a lot of power to generate, and throw off a huge IR signature. Some things just aren't practical, and plasma clouds are one of them. There are much easier ways to deal with RCS issues.
            Originally posted by Dima
            i'm referring solely to them creating a plasma screen, not a plasma cloud
            Well, we know about the plasma screen, this is what we were discussing. Like I said, the main drawback is that when it is turned on, it blocks signals from both sides, so the SU-35 can't use it's own radar unless it powers off the screen. This makes it operationally marginal for obvious reasons- the SU-35 is flying blind when it is in use. This is kind of like a kid that covers his eyes with his hands and thinks you can't see him because he can't see you. Would you want to have a radar that you knew if you used it, you would be detected by your enemy? Kind of a Hobson's choice there...you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.
            Originally posted by Dima
            well, Russia has something clsoe to an anti-gravitation, except it uses an air cushion, it's called the EKIP, the Americans purchased it
            yea, well, the laws of phsyics can be changed, it has been proven every century, new laws are created, as well as new theories etc.
            A helicopter can be considered anti-gravitation, but that's not what I was referring to- I meant actually weakening or eliminating the gravitational force. The EKIP uses normal technology- turbofan engines and a lifting body. I don't know about the US purchasing it, certainly it hasn't been developed commercially.

            Some laws of physics can't be changed, Dima, but our understanding of them does get better over time.
            Originally posted by Dima
            well, i'm glad that you can maintain a smooth and patient composure, hopefully, i'll be able to do that someday, thank you
            No problem, Dima. You're slowly learning to get over your stubborness, we'll give you some more time. ;)
            "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

            Comment


            • #21
              theres the word i'm looking for, shear

              nice tech, never heard of anything like that before, screens that shield the antenna, when will it be operable? and on what aircraft?

              no, it hasn't been developed commercially, but, when tested it has proven to be 90% safer than standard commercial aircraft, cheaper to maintain and has a significantly better fuel economy, i love it
              for MOTHER MOLDOVA

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Dima
                nice tech, never heard of anything like that before, screens that shield the antenna, when will it be operable? and on what aircraft?
                That's not public information.
                Originally posted by Dima
                no, it hasn't been developed commercially, but, when tested it has proven to be 90% safer than standard commercial aircraft, cheaper to maintain and has a significantly better fuel economy, i love it
                90% is a pretty bold claim considering the safety record of modern commercial aircraft. Making any kind safety claims about a design that is not developed is pretty dumb, I think I'd take that with a grain of salt.
                "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

                Comment


                • #23
                  yea, the 90% figure is drawn from the fact that 90% of commercial accidents are casued by the landing gear of the aircraft, of which the EKIP has none
                  for MOTHER MOLDOVA

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Dima
                    yea, the 90% figure is drawn from the fact that 90% of commercial accidents are casued by the landing gear of the aircraft, of which the EKIP has none
                    Well, that's EKIP's claim, incidentally, the figure they give is 70%, not 90%. Maybe SW55 can comment on this, since he is a commercial pilot. I'm just a private pilot, but I don't believe that number at all. Accidents happen for lots of reasons, and no two are the same. Mechanical failure, weather, pilot error, hostile acts, etc.

                    In fact, I can't think of a single incident involving a landing gear failure on a commercial passenger airline caused by mechanical defect. I seem to recall a case of a nose gear collapse, but I think that was caused by overshooting the threshold and running off the end of the runway, so you can't blame that on the landing gear. Every pilot has made hard landings, so if you collapse the nosegear that way, it's pilot error, not gear failure. There have been tire blowouts, but they usually don't do any damage. In smaller civilian AC, you see belly landings all the time, but again, they are almost always caused by pilot error, usually a pilot transitioning to complex AC who forgets to lower the gear.
                    Last edited by highsea; 11 Apr 05,, 03:37.
                    "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      70%? where di you get that statement from? i always thoguht it was 90%, i read an article on the EKIP once, and they commented on how it's safety record would be incredible

                      well, i don't believe they said that it was solely the landing gear, but, the landing gear collapsed, because of the pilots "idiocy" or it was ane emergency situation, nonetheless, not having any landing gears is typically safer

                      yea, you're right, about running off the field, they mentioned it in the article, but the thing that failed was the pilot, the landing gear just failed becaue of the pilot error it's hard to word, the only reason why the landing gear failed was because of the pilot, but it failed nonetheless, i don't mean to depreciate the usefulness of landing gear though, landing without any landing gear would definitely scare me, lol
                      for MOTHER MOLDOVA

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Dima
                        70%? where di you get that statement from? i always thoguht it was 90%, i read an article on the EKIP once, and they commented on how it's safety record would be incredible

                        well, i don't believe they said that it was solely the landing gear ...
                        Check again...
                        The power units and the auxiliary engines operate under all flight conditions, the flying vehicles "EKIP" have no unnecessary complicated elements like the wheel landing gear, the failure whereof is currently the cause of 70 % of accidents.

                        http://www.ekip-aviation-concern.com/eng-b/1.shtml
                        EKIP.



                        Looks real safe...Tell you what, you can fly in this, I will stick to 747's.
                        "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Hmmm. If you could create a radar screening technology that is frequency agile, then you could change the window randomly along with the freq of your own radar, producing an ever-changing window. So you reduce reflection whilst maintaining emittivity of your radar.

                          How does this US 'screen' work? Principles?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            thanks for the correction highsea, lol, that's just the prototype, a commericla version would look differently, it practically be a total different aircraft, don't worry about it
                            for MOTHER MOLDOVA

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              No worries here, Dima. I make it a habit to fly on planes with wings and wheels/floats. I will leave the flying potato bugs to braver souls then me. :)

                              Unipidity- From what I have seen, it is not frequency agile- it is designed to deny certain bands without blocking the bands that the AC needs. For example, it could block L-band search and track, and still permit X-band for targeting. It is designed to allow a specific range of frequencies, so it can still block out part of the X-band as well- in other words, it will permit only the range that the AC uses, and block everything else. Of course, we are only talking about the antenna, unless the same technology was applied to the entire AC, other areas would still offer returns.
                              "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X