[QUOTE=rsetiawan;1149469][QUOTE=GarryB;1149434]Depends how you define stealth. A sniper covered in shrubery with his ghillie suit on hiding in places where he doesn’t move for hours is stealth. The SR-71 is a grunt with a camouflaged uniform on. You can see him no problem. The only issue is that that grunt gets into a Bradley when he goes to war and the bad guys have only had small arms and couldn’t reach him. Of course he never went into certain places where they have RPG-7s…

Alas russian elite stop the Tupolev T-4 project, otherwise russian have such ‘stealth’ (which is not) since 1970s:D

C’mon – you forgot the Foxbat – that was pure stealth 😀

Losharik revealed?

One of the most (if not the most) secret Russian subs may have surfaced on… yes, Google earth.

lat=64.5743872512, lon=39.795846504 (wrongly labelled “Kilo” by the community).

Just in front of the 42nd factory section, where it was built. Nakhimov is moored sternside. Outer hull seems to be pretty cylindric, probably monohull.

Short fact list courtesy of myself (I’m not providing any link to globalsecurity and the like because 90% of what they say about this sub is utter BS, including its “spherical shape” and alleged American funding bids).

“Losharik” (nickname):
special purpose submarine, operated by the Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) of the Russian General Staff. Launched in 2003. The real name and designator is unknown, the nickname (Losharik is a cute horse-like Russian cartoon and fairy tale figure) being derived from the shape of its pressure hull, allegedly consisting of several high pressure resistant spheres. Outer hull shape unknown (well, till now – if the picture is relevant). Max. diving depth: 6000 m. Armament (if any): unknown. Alleged chief designer: Prof. Pikul (Far Eastern Technical University).
Designators: 210 aka 01210 (factory serial number, NOT project number!). Often mistaken for project 10831 (AS-12 aka NORSUB-5 aka Paltus, launched 1995, diving depth around 1000 m).

[ATTACH]155981[/ATTACH]

YEEEEEEEE-HAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!:cool:

My first guess is that Paralay’s Photoshop starter edition has crashed and he had to resort to pencil and pen…:D

BTW I think it would be fair, to say the least, if dear comrade “paralay” would put a sticker warning on all the products of his derang..sorry, gifted mind and imagination, like “smoking [illegal product name] kills” and the like. :diablo:

But wait, it gets better:

“Hadley told reporters later that Putin appeared to be talking about the use of radar data from a Soviet-era system. The data would be made available in “real time,” meaning as it occurred, to the West to help defend against the threat of an Iranian attack.”

http://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/index/Putinproposesnewsiteformissiledefenseplan.html

Putin said the same thing standing next to Bush in front of all the world cameras. That’s the journalists’ problem if they missed the word “Gabala” or were unwilling to Google it. It’s a DARIAL radar built in 1985, which makes it the most modern in the EW system with the exception of the Baranovitchi and Voronezh-DM sites, built by Russia after the fall of the SU.

Officially, the radar is “propriety of Azerbaijan” (a US ally in the region BTW sferrin) but its sole operator is the Russian Space Command and Russia leases it for an informal sum of USD a year. The radar is fully operational as of 2006.

“relatively easy” Unlike the X-43 which in no way was suitable for a weapon or even remotely convertable the whole point of the X-51 is to test a vehicle and propulsion system representative of a real missile.

Thank you. So it’s not a missile.

Now if the arguement is would they convert the existing design or start with a clean sheet then I’d say under the skin yeah, but the OML would have MINIMAL change.

I agree, but the change would not be “minimal”. And I slowly get the impression you don’t know a thing about the X-51. It is not suited for VLS integration, for starters. As for the off-the-shelf booster, do you really think an operational missile would use such a device???

Besides it’s easy to pluck an example out of the air to suit ones arguement.

This is the ultima ratio of those who got none.

On a scale with the hydrogen powered, Pegasus-for-a-booster, scramjet-operates for a few seconds, X-43 at one end and a deployable missile on the other the X-51 is far closer to the latter than the former.

I absolutely agree. Closer is the key word here.

According to the dictionary between five and ten qualifies as “several”. I take it English isn’t your primary language?

I don’t know what earthly language qualifies as your primary one, but you seem to have serious problems with both English grammar and logic. I wrote “if you think…”. Not “if I think”. Re-read the post and ponder. Your point only proves that you did the one sensible thing and opened and dictionary, herafter confirming that we both define “several” in the same way. Great.

And BTW, do you really know the autonomous flight time of the X-51? Seems you don’t.

The X-43 was only under scramjet power for roughly ten seconds.

Very roughly.

It might not be an operational weapon system but it most certainly IS a missile.

Ok, then you should write, regarding all your posts:
“I sferrin hereby solemnly declare that the X-51, whose purpose in my own words is to “test a vehicle and propulsion system representative of a real missile” and which has no guidance system and no warhead and is not intended to strike any target, which is flying autonomously for a time actually unknown to myself but certainly for “several minutes”, is certainly a missile. Signed and confirmed by me, sferrin”.

Do or dare, as they say.

Well not quite. It’s size and configuration is intended to be relatively easy to transition to an operational vehicle if so desired.

You’re battling on a very sticky wicket here. Except in the case you think that fitting the testbed with a warhead, a guidance system, a new engine (capable of enduring longer flights), new electronics, launcher-missile interface etc. is “relatively easy”. Hell, if you don’t get what I’m hinting at, look at the differences between the nuke-armed and conventional versions of the Tomahawk (we’re speaking here of the same missile, basically, not even a “transition” between an engine testbed and an operational missile) in terms of range, equipment, conversation duration, system integration etc etc. And then say if you think it’s “relatively easy”.
I’m not saying it’s impossible to achieve, only that the X-51 is not a missile.

Again you seem to be lacking on the details. It’s suppose to fly for several minutes. Unlike a few seconds for the X-43.

Well, no, if you don’t think that between 5 and 10 is “several”. And the X-43 was more than “a few seconds” BTW. And I still don’t see anything here that contradicts my argument.
Again, it’s primarily an engine testbed vehicle. Which is great and I personally wish all the engineers and testers well, because I still think it would be a great breakthrough, generally. But it’s not a missile.

Is the world in for a new cold age?

MOSCOW. (Yury Zaitsev for RIA Novosti)

(…)
Many factors make it impossible to consider the U.S.-declared global ABM system as an effective protection against a massive first strike. But its deployment will create an illusion that it is possible to repel a weakened retaliatory strike. The illusory advantage of the first strike is one of the main dangers inherent in a global ABM system. Any crisis will increase the impetus for a pre-emptive strike and simultaneous measures to neutralize enemy anti-missile defenses.
(…)
The planned location of the American radar in the Czech Republic is very convenient – it will allow the United States to detect all Russian ICBMs within 60-75 seconds after launch and will immediately produce a mathematical model close to the missiles’ flight paths, thereby facilitating their interception.

That’s exactly the way of thinking I was describing before. ABM does not change everything, but it changes enough in order to introduce a factor of unstability.

Hello!

Some 3D images of the “supposed” Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA used for studies of RCS. This model is very similar to the plane published by NPO Saturn…

😉

I’m not disclosing anything more than I’ve already written before, but the shape that is the closest to the final layout of the PAK FA is to be seen in the first picture from the left. Vertical fins are different. And, yes, it does have a (very large) internal bay, AFAIK. But some Flanker features are of course present as well.