Even the Indian keep secret of their Bars, doubt the even newer Irbis spec has any relevant.
New Russian Aircraft?
- Thread starter onslaught
- Start date
concerning plasma applications
I'd like to deeply discuss plasma application topic.
That was interesting for me from theoretical point of view - what kind of advantages could it give to fighter jet or other aircraft.
As I found in open sources- originally (in the middle of 70-s) plasma discharge and plasma- gas interactions researchers planned to use it not for "stealth" purposes but rather to reduce shock wave energy while supersonic aircraft movement thru gas media.
H t t p / / w w w .spacedaily.com/news/future-00o.html
- popular article with some interesting content.
Some scientific articles abstracts concerning plasma applications:
h t t p : / / w w w . ingentaconnect.com/search/article?title=Supersonic+Plasma&title_type=tka&year_from=1998&year_to=2007&database=1&pageSize=20&index=36 Microwave discharge on the surface of a dielectric antenna
h t t p : / / w w w .ingentaconnect.com/search/article?title=Supersonic+Plasma&title_type=tka&year_from=1998&year_to=2007&database=1&pageSize=20&index=56 Local effect of electric and magnetic fields on the position of an attached shock in a supersonic diffuser
h t t p : / / w w w . ingentaconnect.com/search/article?title=Supersonic+Plasma&title_type=tka&year_from=1998&year_to=2007&database=1&pageSize=20&index=124 Supersonic air-scoop flows of a weakly ionized gas in external electromagnetic field
there are articles in Russian as well. (Sorry I 'm not allowed to post URL-s)
This are just couple of huge number of open source articles concerning plasma air jets application. It seems to me that even if "stealth" applications of MW plasma is not observed well in open scientific issues some huge work was done and still going.
There are a lot of publications about interactions of MW plasma with UHF EM waves. - Different combination possible - "super absorption", plasmo-acoustic waves generation, resonant reflection. The main point that plasma properties are well managed. Shape included by EM fields mean.- Depends on what you want to get - low shock wave energy transition or some special interactions with radar waves.
If you'd try to search on this topic you found a lot of articles- and look an authors surnames.
I do not want to say that some certain type of devices already implemented. I just see that this type of system is not a "Science fiction".
I'd like to deeply discuss plasma application topic.
That was interesting for me from theoretical point of view - what kind of advantages could it give to fighter jet or other aircraft.
As I found in open sources- originally (in the middle of 70-s) plasma discharge and plasma- gas interactions researchers planned to use it not for "stealth" purposes but rather to reduce shock wave energy while supersonic aircraft movement thru gas media.
H t t p / / w w w .spacedaily.com/news/future-00o.html
- popular article with some interesting content.
Some scientific articles abstracts concerning plasma applications:
h t t p : / / w w w . ingentaconnect.com/search/article?title=Supersonic+Plasma&title_type=tka&year_from=1998&year_to=2007&database=1&pageSize=20&index=36 Microwave discharge on the surface of a dielectric antenna
h t t p : / / w w w .ingentaconnect.com/search/article?title=Supersonic+Plasma&title_type=tka&year_from=1998&year_to=2007&database=1&pageSize=20&index=56 Local effect of electric and magnetic fields on the position of an attached shock in a supersonic diffuser
h t t p : / / w w w . ingentaconnect.com/search/article?title=Supersonic+Plasma&title_type=tka&year_from=1998&year_to=2007&database=1&pageSize=20&index=124 Supersonic air-scoop flows of a weakly ionized gas in external electromagnetic field
there are articles in Russian as well. (Sorry I 'm not allowed to post URL-s)
This are just couple of huge number of open source articles concerning plasma air jets application. It seems to me that even if "stealth" applications of MW plasma is not observed well in open scientific issues some huge work was done and still going.
There are a lot of publications about interactions of MW plasma with UHF EM waves. - Different combination possible - "super absorption", plasmo-acoustic waves generation, resonant reflection. The main point that plasma properties are well managed. Shape included by EM fields mean.- Depends on what you want to get - low shock wave energy transition or some special interactions with radar waves.
If you'd try to search on this topic you found a lot of articles- and look an authors surnames.
I do not want to say that some certain type of devices already implemented. I just see that this type of system is not a "Science fiction".
I have no dispute about plasma management and I don't regard it as science fiction - I have a considerable number of doubts about plasma generation as a signature management tool in manned aircraft.
all of the plasma tech I'm familiar with is with respect to hypersonic weapons systems.
I have a fundamental disagreement with those who promote it as a technology currently applied to manned aircraft.
Hint - there is a vast technical difference between plasma management and electrostatic management.
of course, nothing is official. You can do a lot of estimation based on the already developed radar that are advertised in air shows and such.
They have claimed VLO/RCS reduction technology in other platforms, which are really irrelevant in terms of aircraft technology. Some things about the radar absorbent material coatings etc. etc. quotes are available even on online Google search.It's just that in the three decades plus the US have had VLO as a major design parameter it has been evident in several platforms. (They'll enter the fourth decade Dec. 1. this year, as applied tech. First flight of Have Blue.)
So if the Russians have been so latent on VLO the past decades, there must be some evidence of it being applied.
However nothing can deny the fact that in terms of VLO tech the us has a generation leap over every thing and every one out there.
Still I do not know what went into this, and the specs available online do not represent the efforts that must have gone into it, some generic terms like optimized radar signal scattering aerodynamic design (or something), internal carriage of weapons, RAM coatings etc. etc. are simply terms which do not show the work, money, men, and time gone into the development.
Especially as no one has developed these technologies to a prototype level before, if it was something like AAM/ASM/SAM/SSM missiles, balletic missiles, current combat aircrafts/engines/radars etc. etc. which have been around for sometime with many nations and informed analysis by people who have worked on-it/with-it is available.
Currently about VLO technology anything said/estimated will be pure opinion, anything above that is not available.
So yes the US has it and no one else, and they will more than likely continue investing in the edge.
question: Is there anything written about it any where, a book, an article, anything by someone who actually knows anything about it, its development etc. etc.?
The USA is ahead of anyone else, but that is not the same as the USA having it & no one else. Look up Lampyridae (1980s . . .), Replica, & the various W. European LO UAV & missile projects.
Again i have not seen them in a air force, which suggests:
- There was possibly a lack of interest in pursuing a technology which had such technological edge over every thing out there, wonder why that was.
- Now that the hard part was done people just thought a well deserved holiday was next.
Russians have claimed RCS reduction on their missiles and very respected Russian engineers/scientists talked about it, i have good faith that they achieved it, however i dont remember that it looked like a aircrafts aerodynamic design, so i/me/mua have no way to comment on that.
There are no actual analysis of these aircrafts, as opposed to something like the F15 -16 - 18 and Mig29, SU-27/30. People involved with the projects/working with the planes, have not said anything yet.
I have read a lot of articles online, all they do is throw some fancy term and thats it, on that ausairpower site (i respect the authors on many topics), there was a analysis of SU30 and F35, well darn i wish F 35 was flying with a air force right now.
The euro fighter website compared SU-35 with their aircraft, they didnot know any thing about the SU-35, it was still under development still some how they achived glorious victories in simulators.
And these are professional people.
Hope you understand my point of view, i have no way of knowing what some thing does or will do till it actually does it and some one based on "it" actually doing it, talks about it.
we consider something that challenges the established, it has to be there, otherwise how can there be a comparison.
I don't even know much about the F-22 as no one who has flown it or worked on it has anything to say, so again i can not say that this technology is so complex that it will be hard for anyone do come near the levels of RCS reduction that have been achieved by the US or even to better these results. All i hear is terms like internal weapon carriage, and design made to scatter radar emissions etc. etc. some thing that even i can obviously see with my eyes.
However the way i see it is there are aircrafts that employ this technology flying in a Air Force that is the USAF, and the US engineers and scientists (some of the most well paid in their class) will be actively working on refining this technology, that is all.
- There was possibly a lack of interest in pursuing a technology which had such technological edge over every thing out there, wonder why that was.
- Now that the hard part was done people just thought a well deserved holiday was next.
Russians have claimed RCS reduction on their missiles and very respected Russian engineers/scientists talked about it, i have good faith that they achieved it, however i dont remember that it looked like a aircrafts aerodynamic design, so i/me/mua have no way to comment on that.
There are no actual analysis of these aircrafts, as opposed to something like the F15 -16 - 18 and Mig29, SU-27/30. People involved with the projects/working with the planes, have not said anything yet.
I have read a lot of articles online, all they do is throw some fancy term and thats it, on that ausairpower site (i respect the authors on many topics), there was a analysis of SU30 and F35, well darn i wish F 35 was flying with a air force right now.
The euro fighter website compared SU-35 with their aircraft, they didnot know any thing about the SU-35, it was still under development still some how they achived glorious victories in simulators.
And these are professional people.
Hope you understand my point of view, i have no way of knowing what some thing does or will do till it actually does it and some one based on "it" actually doing it, talks about it.
we consider something that challenges the established, it has to be there, otherwise how can there be a comparison.
I don't even know much about the F-22 as no one who has flown it or worked on it has anything to say, so again i can not say that this technology is so complex that it will be hard for anyone do come near the levels of RCS reduction that have been achieved by the US or even to better these results. All i hear is terms like internal weapon carriage, and design made to scatter radar emissions etc. etc. some thing that even i can obviously see with my eyes.
However the way i see it is there are aircrafts that employ this technology flying in a Air Force that is the USAF, and the US engineers and scientists (some of the most well paid in their class) will be actively working on refining this technology, that is all.
Last edited:
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Wiki is so easy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Shadow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EADS_Barracuda
Plus what has been incorporated into the designs of the Rafale and the Typhoon. Buried engines, tolerances, materials.
All demonstrations of latency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Shadow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EADS_Barracuda
Plus what has been incorporated into the designs of the Rafale and the Typhoon. Buried engines, tolerances, materials.
All demonstrations of latency.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
If you assume this to be the basis of any evaluation, then nothing is known. Rubberband relativism. Applicable to everything and nothing.
"Not much is known about the Barracuda as it is still in development."
from wiki.
by the way edited my previous post.
The case in point is what must have been a expert panel hired by the eurofighter consortium, estimating what a SU-35 will be and achieving glorious victories on simulators(based on assumptions).
Well the SU-35 so far to my knowledge doesn't seem like the easy kill it was made to be.
from wiki.
by the way edited my previous post.
The case in point is what must have been a expert panel hired by the eurofighter consortium, estimating what a SU-35 will be and achieving glorious victories on simulators(based on assumptions).
Well the SU-35 so far to my knowledge doesn't seem like the easy kill it was made to be.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
I think that the examples provided from anaechoic testing of models in the eighties to actual application of technologies in production and prototype systems demonstrate latency in W Europe.
As I understand, spokespeople from these companies are also de jure accountable for what they release or say.
Noticed your edit.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
The DERA study has always been considered rubbish for public use as you need the actual report to know what was compared.
You cannot tie an argument up on it.
see i need the actual report, which i wont get.
Although this is childish on my part, looking for some loophole for an argument.
I apologize.
"If you assume this to be the basis of any evaluation, then nothing is known. Rubberband relativism. Applicable to everything and nothing."
I disagree a lot is known of well established available platform, for all its maneuverability and the archer+helmet mounted cueing system, the IAF clearly stated that MiG 29 gave out black farts and never showed a good degree of operational readiness (as in too many were grounded due to technical faults and late spare availability, which was also the fault of indian ministry of defense).
The engine of mirage was better than MiG23, MiG27, Jaguar at higher altitudes, again the IAF can say this through good experience.
I know that the one of the first ford cars made for indian markets (a ford Ikon) had a air conditioning that was poor in delhi and at the same point a local manufacturer Maruti made cars better suited for indian markets, This when all of my Mechanical engineer friends told me that Ford is a leader this leader that in automobile technology, however i cannot say how the next fiat car stated to
be released in india will preform"
well to stop typing too much a comparision between two established platforms i can fathom
Another example i think i read online about a aus pilot whosaid this about the F-22
even if you see the darn thing you can not put your sensors on it,
See that is a real example of a real person taking in real terms as opposed to people taking about t-50 from PAK-FA, or is it PAK-FA T-50, i dunno, or someone taking about how the F35 will stand up to SU 30, when everyone knows that by the time F35 comes out the SU 30's around the world might have better upgrade options (radars, engines, missile) available from Russia.
Although this is childish on my part, looking for some loophole for an argument.
I apologize.
"If you assume this to be the basis of any evaluation, then nothing is known. Rubberband relativism. Applicable to everything and nothing."
I disagree a lot is known of well established available platform, for all its maneuverability and the archer+helmet mounted cueing system, the IAF clearly stated that MiG 29 gave out black farts and never showed a good degree of operational readiness (as in too many were grounded due to technical faults and late spare availability, which was also the fault of indian ministry of defense).
The engine of mirage was better than MiG23, MiG27, Jaguar at higher altitudes, again the IAF can say this through good experience.
I know that the one of the first ford cars made for indian markets (a ford Ikon) had a air conditioning that was poor in delhi and at the same point a local manufacturer Maruti made cars better suited for indian markets, This when all of my Mechanical engineer friends told me that Ford is a leader this leader that in automobile technology, however i cannot say how the next fiat car stated to
be released in india will preform"
well to stop typing too much a comparision between two established platforms i can fathom
Another example i think i read online about a aus pilot whosaid this about the F-22
even if you see the darn thing you can not put your sensors on it,
See that is a real example of a real person taking in real terms as opposed to people taking about t-50 from PAK-FA, or is it PAK-FA T-50, i dunno, or someone taking about how the F35 will stand up to SU 30, when everyone knows that by the time F35 comes out the SU 30's around the world might have better upgrade options (radars, engines, missile) available from Russia.
Last edited:
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Perhaps I am being overly aggresive...
Anyhow, I am genuinely interested if anyone has something on Russian VLO. Considering how they are usually looking for outside funding, I wonder why there is so little known...
Anyhow, I am genuinely interested if anyone has something on Russian VLO. Considering how they are usually looking for outside funding, I wonder why there is so little known...
Again,
my knowledge, speaking from the point of being at an obvious disadvantage in actual military technology, The Russians have claimed figures (in terms of percentage) on the reduction of RCS through the application of radar absorbing material coatings, i will find the link which gives out the statement.
This is only applicable if one considers RAM coating as a part of VLO.
In terms of design they too have a engineering model (as i like to call them high tech mock ups) of a SCAT, which shows steps taken towards design changes required for scattering a radars emissions away from the receivers of that radar, again a claim, i can neither agree or deny on the degree of RCS reduction.
They have also claimed RCS reduction measures in the design of some of their missiles, i think the oinks/yakhnot series, again the degree of this is hard of me to deny or acknowledge. on top of this its a missile, i do not know how this will work in a aircraft as obvious aerodynamic differences exist.
Similarly even engineers of my nation have claimed a weirdly tremendous RCS reduction of 70% in the sepecat jaguar through some sort of engine tiles/shielding and RAM coating, which is again for me hard to acknowledge or deny. Although it does seem funny when i consider that the French and the British might have something to say about that.
And every one has seen the Chinese high tech mock ups with high tech mock up missiles.
The list goes from Japan to Korea, even Iraninans might make a high tech mock ups, they seem to be the in thing.
my knowledge, speaking from the point of being at an obvious disadvantage in actual military technology, The Russians have claimed figures (in terms of percentage) on the reduction of RCS through the application of radar absorbing material coatings, i will find the link which gives out the statement.
This is only applicable if one considers RAM coating as a part of VLO.
In terms of design they too have a engineering model (as i like to call them high tech mock ups) of a SCAT, which shows steps taken towards design changes required for scattering a radars emissions away from the receivers of that radar, again a claim, i can neither agree or deny on the degree of RCS reduction.
They have also claimed RCS reduction measures in the design of some of their missiles, i think the oinks/yakhnot series, again the degree of this is hard of me to deny or acknowledge. on top of this its a missile, i do not know how this will work in a aircraft as obvious aerodynamic differences exist.
Similarly even engineers of my nation have claimed a weirdly tremendous RCS reduction of 70% in the sepecat jaguar through some sort of engine tiles/shielding and RAM coating, which is again for me hard to acknowledge or deny. Although it does seem funny when i consider that the French and the British might have something to say about that.
And every one has seen the Chinese high tech mock ups with high tech mock up missiles.
The list goes from Japan to Korea, even Iraninans might make a high tech mock ups, they seem to be the in thing.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
A mock up tells you very little. It is just a manifestation of lines of thought and concepts. Not necessarily of design and technology maturity.
The Jaguar reductions may be genuine enough, though I have no clue of the figures. For example the RAF used RAM tiles on the inlets of Tornados working in the SEAD/DEAD role in the First Gulf War. Helps on the frontal RCS.
Low level supersonic cruise missiles are not stealthy. They can neutralise all radiation trying to detect them, they can shape them, make them completely out of RAM, but the ionisation trail and IR signature created from the interaction with the atmosohere is a huge give away.
They cannot be hidden.
The Jaguar reductions may be genuine enough, though I have no clue of the figures. For example the RAF used RAM tiles on the inlets of Tornados working in the SEAD/DEAD role in the First Gulf War. Helps on the frontal RCS.
Low level supersonic cruise missiles are not stealthy. They can neutralise all radiation trying to detect them, they can shape them, make them completely out of RAM, but the ionisation trail and IR signature created from the interaction with the atmosohere is a huge give away.
They cannot be hidden.
I'm ting to find some thing in that intrasting area. I tried to use only materials of researchcentres and some other trustworthy sources like scintific magasines and information bulletines.Perhaps I am being overly aggresive...
Anyhow, I am genuinely interested if anyone has something on Russian VLO. Considering how they are usually looking for outside funding, I wonder why there is so little known...
Concerning history of Stealth
First research was performed by German scintist as respond to British airborn radars. - They covered submarine hulls with graphite paint to reduce reflections.
Modern Stealth approach is based on work of professor Petr Ufimcev (Fundamentals of the Physical Theory of Diffraction). It was published in USSR in 1977 )
(I'll continue in next post to put some links a s I can do it only after 15 posts
:and continue:
the links:
http://care.eng.uci.edu/ufimtsev.htm - About Ufimcev- "godthather of stealth"- like he was named in discovery (as I remember) channel.
- look at the end of description - >
"In 1995-2000 he was a Principal Engineer at Northrop Grumman Corporation, California.
" .... what was the time of F22 development ? -hm.. may be just coincidence
http://www.scitechpub.com/ufimtsev.htm reference to mentioned book
http://www.harpoonhq.com/waypoint/articles/Article_021.pdf - very nice article about different aspects of Stealth
http://vivovoco.rsl.ru/VV/JOURNAL/VRAN/03_10/STELLS.HTM (in Russian but most interesting) Russian Academy of scince - review of different problems and approches to Stealth. (I'll put some quotation in next posts)
http://www.cplire.ru/joined/alt/bull2.html - bulletin of different publications (not open sources included) -in russain as well - sorry do not remember online translator.
http://www.analysiscenter.northropgrumman.com/files/analogues_stealth.pdf Some history of Stealth and facts
the links:
http://care.eng.uci.edu/ufimtsev.htm - About Ufimcev- "godthather of stealth"- like he was named in discovery (as I remember) channel.
- look at the end of description - >
"In 1995-2000 he was a Principal Engineer at Northrop Grumman Corporation, California.
" .... what was the time of F22 development ? -hm.. may be just coincidence
http://www.scitechpub.com/ufimtsev.htm reference to mentioned book
http://www.harpoonhq.com/waypoint/articles/Article_021.pdf - very nice article about different aspects of Stealth
http://vivovoco.rsl.ru/VV/JOURNAL/VRAN/03_10/STELLS.HTM (in Russian but most interesting) Russian Academy of scince - review of different problems and approches to Stealth. (I'll put some quotation in next posts)
http://www.cplire.ru/joined/alt/bull2.html - bulletin of different publications (not open sources included) -in russain as well - sorry do not remember online translator.
http://www.analysiscenter.northropgrumman.com/files/analogues_stealth.pdf Some history of Stealth and facts
Um that doesn't make much sense, its pretty hard to skip generations in any manufacturing process even when it comes to stealth platforms. Unless you know exactly how certain shaping, structures, density of materials react in a real world environment you can't accurately tell how something would react to say a radar emission.
For instance you could tell nowadays that the F-117 had oblique angles to deflect radar emissions away from the original source of emissions, great, fairly obvious that...but now trying to figure out the optimum angle of each panel for both that deflection PLUS trying to get a geometry that allows for a flyable shape requires some major computational power. As far as I am aware very few of the major powers out there have that capability (how many Russian and Chinese supercomputers can you name off the top of your head?).
What this all means is that even first gen stealth is very difficult to duplicate, otherwise we would have seen this and potentially second generation stealth platforms from pretty much everyone who had that military capability to field it (i.e Russians, Chinese, French, British, Germans, Indians, etc). It is probably easier to field a stealthy missile than a stealthy aircraft in this sense.
What I'd like to know to anyone who keeps bringing up plasma sheathing as a way of sig management is how the heck the platform that uses said plasma manages to see OUTSIDE of the plasma? This doesn't bring up the whole "Hey look at this big ol bright spot brighter than sun" issue that comes if you have any sort of semi-decent IR spotting system.