The Mig-31M is a two seater. That is definately not the M

Not that this thread hasn’t gone on long enough. But I would like to add that the presence of Wing Fences does not mean it does not have FBW.

Example: Mig-31M (Both Wing Fences and FBW)

Originally posted by aerospacetech
“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. The researchers note: the material cannot be allowed to constrict airflow or impede the operation of anti-icing systems and must withstand high-speed airflows and temperatures up to 200ºC. The ITAE team has developed and tested coating materials that meet these standards. A layer of RAM between 0.7mm and 1.4mm thick is applied to the ducts and a 0.5mm coating is applied to the front stages of the low-pressure compressor, using a robotic spray system. The result is a 10-15dB reduction in the RCS contribution from the inlets.

Why would that make a “Stealthy” Aircraft? If a radar signal was programmed to go out to 150km and the signal stops at 100, wouldn’t you know something was going on? In order to classify an aircraft as stealthy, the radar signatures would have to go through the aircraft. RAM does not solve this problem only reshaping the structure would. That’s how the F-117, B2 and F22 works. Its shape reflects radar signals so as to appear to go through the aircraft.

The modified Su-35 also has a treated cockpit canopy which reflects radar waves, concealing the high RCS contribution from metal components in the cockpit. ITAE has developed a plasma-deposition process to deposit alternating layers of metallic and polymer materials, creating a coating that blocks radio-frequency waves, is resistant to cracking and crazing and does not trap solar heat in the cockpit. The plasma-coating process is then carried out robotically in a 22m3 vacuum chamber.

ITAE and its partners have also developed plasma-type technology for applying ceramic coatings to the exhaust and afterburner. The conference video also showed the use of hand-held sprays to apply RAM to R-27 air-to-air missiles.

Plasma coating to the exhuast and afterburner… Well at least we will know the Nato designation for the Su-35 will be. The Kaboom!

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 treating or shrouding other components. One of these is to design a radome that can be switched from RF-transparent to RF-reflective. The interior of the radome would be coated with a cadmium sulphide or cadmium selenide thin-film semiconductor material which changes conductivity when illuminated with visible or ultra-violet light.

However, the problem of making such a film has not been solved.

A second technique that is also described in Western literature is to place a frequency selective surface screen in front of the antenna. This is a foil-like metal screen etched with small apertures which allow RF energy to pass within a narrow waveband, corresponding to the radar’s own operating frequency. This reduces RCS, according to ITAE, but at the expense of radar performance.

However, ITAE has flight-tested a more exotic technology: the use of a low-temperature plasma screen in front of the radar antenna. The screen hardware is mounted in front of the antenna and is transparent to the radar when switched off.

When activated, the screen absorbs some incoming radar energy and reflects the rest in safe directions over all RF bands lower than the frequency of the plasma cloud. It switches on and off in tens of microseconds, according to ITAE.

In principle, this is the same as the ‘plasma stealth system that was reportedly developed by the Keldysh Scientific Research Center (also part of the Academy) in 1999.

Of the 3, the CDS and CDSe coated Radome seems to be the most workable idea. low temperature plasma screen…that’s an oxymoron if I’ve heard of one.

Originally posted by SOC
At any rate, explain to me how this statement:

“Type 091 is China’s first nuclear powered submarine (SSN). The nuclear powered submarine programme can trace its origin back to the late 1950s, but the first boat (pennant 401) was not completed until 1974. It is believed that the development of the Type 091 later benefited from the assistance by the French. With these improvements the Type 091 SSN finally began to take part in active duties in the mid-1980s.”

…and this statement:

“And which nuclear sub China made first? It was the Han class. Tell me how the hell the Han class could have been developed with the help of the French in 1967—-at the peak of the Communist phobia?”

Therefore, what’s the problem with the information presented on both accounts? Other than the fact that the first part came from Vympel or myself, that is :rolleyes:

But where are these statement from. An English language site no doubt? Where was this info obtain from? Did you and Vymple just use it becaus it was in English?

Lets argue about the French help. Lets skip all the info about the Han being started in the 1950’s, 60’s-70’s. All that. Supposedly, the French helped the Chinese developed the Han during the 1980s. The only successful experience the French would have at nuclear sub to draw on was the L’Inflexible.

Now seriously, can you actually tell me the French with experience from this:

Helped developed this?

Are they even close to being the same?

BTW, I’ve never accused you of being anti-Chinese. That’s someone else.

Originally posted by SOC
Where’d that come from? And what makes it more accurate than what he posted from http://www.sinodefence.com?

**Sigh** So this is what it has come down to. Sinodefence while nicely organized, is put together by a British Chinese. All the info on his website are copy and pasted from Jane’s. Of all the oversea’s Chinese website. Hui Tong has always been the best. SOC I would really recommend not using an oversea Chinese website to argue about Chinese military aviation. Why not take the time out to learn Chinese if you’re so interested in Chinese military?

SOC and Vymple’s arguments seem to all be based on info from FAS and other English language website. Aside from Hui Tong, can anyone here actually read what’s on the Chinese language sites? I know I can’t that’s why I don’t go around trying to point facts which I know very little about.