PAKFA and plasma stealth

[PhysicsMan]

No it doesn't. Plasma stealth requires a lot of heat. Plasma by definition is very hot. Heat stands out to IR sensors like a sore thumb. Therefore, plasma stealth doesn't work, because it doesn't help with reducing the aircraft's overall footprint across all sensors.

Why don't you read up on this subject a bit more before making statements like that. Plasma is NOT hot by definition, plasma does NOT necessarily require heat, and plasma does NOT necessarily have a big IR signature.

 

[LS1 Miata]

Why don't you read up on this subject a bit more before making statements like that. Plasma is NOT hot by definition, plasma does NOT necessarily require heat, and plasma does NOT necessarily have a big IR signature.

The energy requirements for surrounding an entire aircraft in an envelope of plasma is inevitably going to lead to overheating problems . Do you know that the F-35 has some overheating problems with it's avionics? Those problems are rather simple by comparison, and can be dealt with. The amount of energy required for plasma stealth, however, can't. Plasma stealth would also emit a lot of EM radiation - NOT very stealthy.

So while it may be effective at reducing an aircraft's overall radar cross section, the energy requirements would overheat the aircraft, all the while producing EM radiation. The whole point of a stealth aircraft is to reduce it's footprint across the entire spectrum - radar, IR, electronic emissions, optics (camouflage), etc, etc...

So with that, plasma stealth does not work, as it only reduces the aircraft RCS, while increasing it's footprint in other areas. It is probably far too expensive, and doesn't yield the desired results needed to survive on today's battlefield.

 

[PhysicsMan]

The energy requirements for surrounding an entire aircraft in an envelope of plasma is inevitably going to lead to overheating problems . Do you know that the F-35 has some overheating problems with it's avionics? Those problems are rather simple by comparison, and can be dealt with. The amount of energy required for plasma stealth, however, can't. Plasma stealth would also emit a lot of EM radiation - NOT very stealthy.

So while it may be effective at reducing an aircraft's overall radar cross section, the energy requirements would overheat the aircraft, all the while producing EM radiation. The whole point of a stealth aircraft is to reduce it's footprint across the entire spectrum - radar, IR, electronic emissions, optics (camouflage), etc, etc...

So with that, plasma stealth does not work, as it only reduces the aircraft RCS, while increasing it's footprint in other areas. It is probably far too expensive, and doesn't yield the desired results needed to survive on today's battlefield.

Nonsense. The power source for the plasma can be very compact and isolated, and the radiation from plasma can be controlled and manipulated (=minimized).

In any case, It has already been shown to significantly reduce radar exposure in experiments - it's not a question of whether it works or not, it does, but of how to effectively integrate it into an aircraft. While at this point it may not be readily achievable to envelope the whole aircraft with plasma, they can definitely use it to reduce RCS of certain noisy areas, like the prototype built at Sukhoi to shield the forward radar.

 

[LS1 Miata]

Nonsense. The power source for the plasma can be very compact and isolated, and the radiation from plasma can be controlled and manipulated (=minimized).

Not when we're covering the entire aircraft in it. Good luck covering up that kind of radiation.

In any case, It has already been shown to significantly reduce radar exposure in experiments - it's not a question of whether it works or not, it does, but of how to effectively integrate it into an aircraft. While at this point it may not be readily achievable to envelope the whole aircraft with plasma, they can definitely use it to reduce RCS of certain noisy areas, like the prototype built at Sukhoi to shield the forward radar.

Controlled experiments do not equate to the battlefield, where things rarely ever go as planned. Conventional methods of stealth technology (LO airframe, LPI radar, IR suppression, etc...) are still the preferred choice for a country that wants to build a stealth aircraft. There's a reason why the Su-35BM has conventional stealth technology incorporated into it. It works. It's combat proven. It's relatively cheaper. I could go on. The Russians realize that the exotic plasma stealth just isn't going to work in the real world, so even they have to move to more conventional methods for their -35BM and PAK-FA models.

 

[Feanor]

One important qualifier. It doesn't work... today. But the technology may very well have a future.

 

[SpudmanWP]

The likely first use of "plasma stealth" will be inside the nose radar section in order to block the flat radar face from being a big RCS reflector.

 

[dragonfire]

The likely first use of "plasma stealth" will be inside the nose radar section in order to block the flat radar face from being a big RCS reflector.

Isnt the radar encased in the 'nose cone' of the a/c and therefore not 'flat', which enables deflection of radar to a certain degree. But the usage could very well be in the area for radiation masking

 

[SpudmanWP]

The radar dish itself and the bulkhead behind it are flat.

 

[Marc 1]

Isnt the radar encased in the 'nose cone' of the a/c and therefore not 'flat', which enables deflection of radar to a certain degree. But the usage could very well be in the area for radiation masking

Dragonfire, the nose cone as you put it must be transparent to radar, otherwise the radar it contains wouldn't work. Ergo, it does not shield the front of the aircraft.