Hmm.. So the objective is not to ionize the air in front of the aircraft but rather to “sublimate” a solid, otherwise radio-transparent material coating, with the help of electric power… I don’t know how feasible that is but at least it’s worth a look.

The indoor photo is definitely of a Russian-style anechoic chamber, I’ve seen one like it. Western ones seem to use exclusively pyramidal cones.

Very interesting and helpful, thanks!

-SK

How would a nuclear powered bomber work? Can you build a propulsion system small enough to put in a plane and still have a decent bomb load?

Good question. I haven’t researched it thoroughly, but on schematics it seems they were actually intending to transfer heat directly from the cooling lines into a jet engine, instead of trying to generate electricity first. 😮 I have no idea how that could work (maybe it was just a hybrid jet engine with atomic boost?), but the US apparently built at least three reactors, each one smaller than the previous.

-SK

For what does anyone need an air force if there’s no oil over which to fight? 😀

Somewhere between the extreme possibilities of the end of the world and neverending peace – both US and USSR experimented with nuclear-powered bombers in the 50s. Some people say they were never built because of radiation poisoning the crew, too much shielding weight or environmental worries if the planes were shot down, but a real historian will tell you nobody cared about that in the 50s. They were rejected because ICBMs were more cost-effective. Maybe they will be resurrected.

-SK

Interesting stuff – thanks, I think, but…

the material is manufactured using plasma deposition methods in a vacuum, and can therefore be applied in just about any depth needed.

Wha-? We’re talking about a plasma on the flying aircraft, some other kind of RAM deposted by plasma during fabrication, or a plasma deposited by a plasma? :confused:

a very very thin layer is all that is required to be effective, and generates the required plasma cloud.

“very very thin layer” of what? The plasma deposits a RAM that generates another plasma? Or a plasma itself generates more plasma? :confused: :confused: :confused:

Are you sure it wasn’t GarryB giving this talk?

The electrical draw is also none too large. The system can be switched on and off at will. It can be applied to ANY surface, so long as you can use plasma deposition (for what we saw anyway).

Plasma deposition in a vacuum? What aircraft surfaces are normally surrounded by a vacuum? If you’re talking about evacuating a dielectric nosecone, that’s a volume, why the interest in surfaces? Or if you mean a factory-level manufacturing process, hook it up to a power plant, why the interest in electrical draw? :confused:

Some graphs showing effectiveness seemed to confirm the advantage numerically. One is attached below(note its not symmetrical about 0 degrees? ).

Well that gives a bit of a clue… At least they seem to be talking about hiding antennas like I mentioned earlier, injecting some dose of reality. You’re sure this is a surface treatment, and not to fill the volumes of dielectric enclosures?

The words “screen” and “shielding” are reminiscent of technology used with the F/A-22 radar antenna (which has nothing to do with plasmas AFAIK), but admittedly translated from Russian those words can mean anything, from televisions to condoms…

BTW where I come from, we call that “symmetry.” 😉 Very nice.

Unfortunately the electronic copy of the talk didnt have the video’s included, a major bummer! There are pictures and diagrams of indoor and outdoor test ranges large enough for Su-27’s…paint based work is being followed up aswell, with video of a clear solution being sprayed onto missiles by hand…..also computer controlled painting of RAM on to intakes. allsorts…the most interesting talk from the whole 2 days…

Hmm, sounds like it. I’ll keep looking.

I am sure you’ll get the gist of the graphs, in airborne tests it reduced detection range to 50% and it has been applied to whole aircraft, although they seemed to have some difficulty.

what.. where.. Whole aircraft? You mean, a Su-27 on a pedestal? Whole aircraft like all the dielectric antenna housings on the aircraft, or the actual skin of the aircraft? Like, the plasma vacuum deposition technique that “can be applied to ANY surface, so long as you use plasma deposition” – what does that mean if they “seem to be having difficulty”?

Who..?

More confused than before,

-SK

Found a similar picture on the net, but it’s not nearly as clear as the one from the mag. Infact, now that I’ve looked at the latter again I’m 99% sure that it has bays.

I’m corrected, thanks.

Ahhh, so you haven’t seen them so they don’t exist? Of course Mig-29s can carry ESM and ECM pods. They can also carry nuclear bombs in Russian service, but you won’t have seen those pictures either so they don’t exist too?

The controls for using the nuke can be found in the MiG-29 cockpit. The controls for using an ECM pod cannot.

So the fact that the Su-35 is fully multirole with a full range of guided air to ground weapons, while both the basic Mig-29 and the basic Su-27 are able to use only dumb air to ground munitions means nothing?

The air to ground features of Su-35 are not innovations. The Russian Air Force can use Su-27 + Su-24M to accomplish everything the Su-35 has to offer, with the exception of the R-77.

A shooting war against whom? Flankers and T-80s would blitz any opponent in a straight fight except for against the US. Any war with the US will be between Peacekeepers and Satans, not fighters and tanks.

Well, this is a philosophical study for the political scientist. Nuclear weapons ensure self-preservation, but are good for nothing else. Conventional arms can additionally project power, but to do this they need to be a credible threat. It is not necessary to actually enter a shooting conventional war against the US, but buying new weapons that consititute a threat to the US will pay dividends in US concessions (e.g., not expanding NATO or bombing Yugoslavia or invading Iraq), buying new weapons that do not constitute a threat, just for the sake of buying new weapons, gets you nothing.

I had the privelidge of being there to hear the talk on plasma stealth, and see the video’s of it in operation,

Sounds interesting. Can you describe it? Was it mounted on an aircraft? Who gave the talk?

-SK

SK: what’s you opinion on the ‘stealthiness’ of the Su-47? Save for the parts that were obviously borrowed from Su-27 series aircraft it looks like reasonably competent attempt (not that I’d know what I’m talking about). The fuselage in particular looks very similar to American stealth designs in cross-section, intakes (s-shaped, no moving parts) and of course internal weapons-carriage.

Are FSWs really detrimental to RCS reduction?

Agreed, Su-47 is probably near as stealthy as Russian aircraft can get without a dedicated RCS facility. No visible corner reflectors or compressor faces, and the radome looks like it’s meant to house an electronically scanned array. This is what the 1.44 should have been – a planform demonstrator that could benefit from materials technology like RAM and cockpit glass treatments. Its RCS is probably like MiG-21 or F-16 – primarily dependent on external weapons (I’m not sure Su-47 really has space for internal carriage). A forward swept wing may be a little worse for RCS than a backwards-swept wing but not significantly so – i.e. the leading-edge flaps and IRST are more of an issue.

It’s interesting that Sukhoi undertook this venture on their own initiative, IIRC. I wonder if someone there saw what Mikoyan was working on and thought, “there’s going to be a market for something better…” :dev2:

As SK mentioned (hi pal!), Su-27K’s N-001K has a DOUBLE-ENGANGEMENT mode with R-27s…

Just to clarify, I heard that Su-33 has dual-target-track, I’m not sure that it can engage both simultaneously. If it can, then there may be some special limitation involved, like, the missiles used must be advanced R-27EM and the targets must be non-maneuvering cruise missiles. Nevertheless even DTT is a strange and wonderful mystery.

Did you know that applying the wrong material (raw one) on a wrong angle (or well, a good angle for stealth) could be very bad?

Yes, but not as bad as a corner reflector.

And I hope you know that certain materials absorb radiation, but send it out at a different wavelength. Of course slightly changing in temperature. WOuldn’t that render the “super-stealthy Angle” useless… Or in other words, a normal aircraft with this type of material probably won’t need such angle-modifications.

I don’t think fluorescence is really relevant for a radar discussion. Doppler radars detect changes of wavelength all the time.

A few comments regarding “super-stealthy angles” and fabrication technology. The way the media talks about fabrication tolerances is a little misleading. There is this impression out there that if one screw is not tightened enough, all of a sudden the stealth is destroyed or rendered useless and this aircraft will appear on radar from a greater distance, because the RCS of a loose screw is bigger than the rest of the airplane. This is not really true.

The problem is not that one screw might be too loose, but that if one screw managed to become loose undetected, then other screws might be loose as well. Enough loose screws, and panels start to warp, seams start to widen, etc. Even then, the problem is not that the stealthy aircraft suddenly becomes a shining corner reflector – it’s still stealthy, just not as stealthy as before. Many screws and panels might be loose with no discernible effect on RCS – until some critical seam opens up, and a “bump” appears on the pattern. The problem then is not to fix the bump – that’s easy, just tighten the screws. The problem is – which screws? There is no way to know. When dealing with very low RCS, the interactions between all possible shape imperfections is very difficult to simulate and predict. It’s easier to just make a “perfect” aircraft and keep it that way, by tightening all the screws all the time, so that we never have to worry about hunting down such invisible RCS defects.

This approach is especially important during the aircraft development. “Measure with micrometer, mark with chalk, cut with axe” as the engineering expression goes. The serial aircraft simply need to have the lowest RCS possible, to defeat the enemy radar. The prototypes need to have the most predictable RCS possible, so that the engineers can match their RCS simulations, validate their design techniques, and make changes to the design as desired. Even if the prototype RCS is significantly lower than predicted, that’s bad, because it means something in the design process was wrong. The requirement to have predictable RCS requires higher fabrication tolerances than to simply have low RCS, but is a critical factor of the engineering process.

-SK

Ummm, a 5th gen fighter has more than just stealth. It has 360 degree radar detection

Hmm, didn’t the MiG-31 have that long ago? 😉

and fully integrated ESM suite plus many other features and attributes that the previous aircraft made by Mig didn’t have. It makes sense to me to have two seperate full sized versions… one for integrating the various systems and checking the basic aerodynamics

What “basic aerodynamics”? The 1.42 will have a different aerodynamic layout, no? Why test something it won’t have?

1.44 has no radar either. So, if the “different aerodynamic layout” is true, 1.44 is at best, an RWR testbed?

Then what do you make of the claims of integrating such devices into Su-34 strike aircraft?

The Su-34 is already so heavy and non-maneuvering that sticking a plasma generator into its nose won’t have too much detrimental effect. That’s the main reason Su-34 is put forward as a candidate instead of a dogfighter.

Even assuming that were true why not have a double layer aircraft skin with the outer layer being radar transparent and filling the cavity with this ionised gas with a current through it?

The thinner the plasma layer, the less the attenuation of radio waves. What you propose would be no more effective than painting the aircraft with RAM, and many times more expensive.

The reports I have read seem to suggest the ionised plasma will be created by a powerful magnetic field rather than super heated gas.

“seem to suggest”?? i.e. they really have no idea?

Magnetic fields are useful for confining plasmas in tokamak fusion research reactors, but they don’t ionize anything, and it’s unlikely such massive devices will find their way into aircraft anytime soon.

So don’t believe in air or the existence of atoms and sub atomic particles?

Where are we going with this line of reasoning? Is the existence of air some kind of evidence that RCS of Tu-160 is smaller than MiG-21? What is your age, please?

The US didn’t pick the most stealthy prototype either. Why do you think the design of the 1.42 or 1.44 had anything to do with luck? You act like those poor russians don’t understand what RCS or stealth is. Why do you have such a low opinion of them?

A subject walks down the street.
An observer comments, “what a beautiful woman!”
A second observer corrects, “my friend, that’s not a woman.”
The first observer – “why do you have such a low opinion?”
The second – “On the contrary, I would very much like to be so good-looking a gentleman! I’m just saying, he’s not a woman, that’s all.”
The first observer – “what if it’s a woman dressed like a man?”
The second – “what, with a rogueish five o’clock shadow and a moustache?”
the first – “cosmetics can do amazing things!”
the second – “what – cosmetics to make a woman look like a man??”
the first – “it’s possible!”
the second – “I’m sure it’s possible, but what makes you think it’s done? Do you really think there’s a market for such nonsense?”
the first – “since when are you the expert?”
the second – “look, is that really the point? Couldn’t you just go up and ASK to see if it’s a woman or a man?”
the first – “oh, and you think she would tell me that so easily, do you?”
the second – “what, it should be some kind of secret?”
the first – “Well if it’s a woman dressing like a man, surely she must have a reason to hide that she is a woman.”
the second – “so you concede, our subject has at least the appearance of a man.”
the first – “appearances can be deceiving!”
the second – “yes well that may be so, but why assume an elaborate deception right from the start? Do you have any evidence that’s a woman instead of an ordinary, albeit good-looking, man?”
the first – “Oh what, now I’m not supposed to believe in air, just because I can’t see it??”
the second – “what on earth are you talking about?”
the first – “what are you anyway, some kind of woman-hater? Why would you call her a man?”
the second – “it IS a man! It’s not an insult to call it what it is!”
the first – “oh come on, a woman that looks like a man? That’s not an insult?”
the second – “but it’s not a woman! It’s a handsome man! That’s a compliment!”

I like Russian aircraft more, because I don’t need them to be stealthy to justify admiration. 😀

Is it your 1985 CIA report? It probably said they didn’t have 2nd gen Thermal Imagers in production too.

Why speculate? Go ahead and prove it, I provided the link.

The Su-27 vanilla model is a Mig-29A with more flight range…

…fighter datalink and tactical display, liquid-cooled IRST, more missiles with twice the range, superior radar, fly-by-wire, wingtip-podded ECM…

the Su-33 adds folding wings and a hook.

…canards, navy datalink, dual target track mode, R-27EM capability, new RWR and GPS…

It is the Su-30s after the M model and the Su-35s and Su-34s that are interesting.

Su-30M has some new strike ability but is limited in this role by its air-to-air-only radar. It’s also good in the air-to-air role, but little advance in this role over Su-30 or even Su-27UB. Su-35 adds the R-77 which is rumoured to be a flop, lacking even a loft ballistic flight profile. Smoky single-stage motor, draggy high-RCS fins, redesigned by the Chinese for actual military use. Su-34 could almost be interesting except someone gave it a MiG-31-style ESA radar antenna that can’t look sideways far enough to do SAR, such that everything the Su-34 can do, the Su-27KUB can do better.

What does obsolete mean? It is a strike aircraft… it has a strike optimised radar.

It means the Russian Air Force happily go public saying they no longer want the Su-34 as is, because they found the Su-27KUB’s radar to be vastly superior for A2G work. Unfortunately fitting that radar to the Su-34’s nose would require an extensive redesign.

-SK

“Purely aerodynamic demonstrators” are not new to Russian aerospace. One great example: the MiG-21 Analog. Another: the MiG-105 Spiral. Yet another: Sukhoi’s S-22I. Better yet, the Su-47 Berkut.

Fair examples, but in each case it’s very clear what radical new technology was being tested. What innovation justified development of 1.44, separate from 1.42, if neither 1.42’s new RCS features nor even its “aerodynamic layout” merited such dedicated testing?

…all of which would have been made moot by the Keldysh stealth techniques.

If Keldysh has anything to do with “plasma stealth”, then it involves nuclear warheads, not aircraft. It was long ago discovered that giving space vehicles blunt noses can decrease the vessel’s aerodynamic heating upon re-entry even while increasing drag – the heated gases shoot off to the sides and heat the atmosphere instead the spacecraft hull. Correct shaping of the nose curvature can increase or decrease the ionization of these gases and create a “plasma shield” as the vehicle hurtles towards the earth. This can complicate targeting of ABM defenses by reducing the RV’s RCS.

“Plasma stealth” on aircraft is something completely different, limited to filling dielectric nosecones and rendering them temporarily inoperative for a temporary reduction of RCS. This has no connection that I know of to Keldysh except for the words “plasma RCS reduction”.

Everything about creating “plasma clouds” around conventional aircraft is just confusion and misinformation. Believe it when you see it.

The ejection seat testbed at Faustovo? Look again and you’ll notice some differences between this and the 1.44.

Do you mean that a bodiless rocket sled is indication that 1.42 has a different aerodynamic layout than 1.44? That would indeed be low-RCS… 🙂

Actually, the production-configured 1.42 would have had a different wing planform, a different intake design, and a reshaped forward fuselage, to include canard root fairings which were properly mated to canards.

Source?

The problem here is that people like to cast aside the 1.44/1.42 as typical Soviet junk. The difference is that while stealth was the predominant factor in the design of the ATF, the Russians saw maneuverability as the primary driving design factor. Hence the multitude of control surfaces, pitch and yaw TVC, etc.

So the claims of “lower RCS than F/A-22” – this was not even the “predominant factor in the design”? The Russians intend to accomplish more RCS reduction by luck with their first, as-yet-unrevealed 1.42 design, than the US does with third-generation stealth technology and a flyoff between two competing prototypes? 😮

I disagree that the problem is about anti-Soviet bias. I think it’s that “lower RCS than F/A-22” and almost every other claim about Russian RCS reduction is a flat-out deception to try to con more funds.

I’d agree the MiG-23 and MiG-29 get a much worse rap than they deserve. The Su-25 could be better appreciated if we stopped comparing it to the A-10. The Kuznetsov may be a big sailboat and the Su-34’s radar obsolete, but the Su-27, -33 and -27KUB are real triumphs of humanity, and overall the Soviet and Russian aircraft designers did well. The 1.42 project is atypical. To give it, and ethereal Russian RCS “reduction measures,” the same credit as the industry’s solid other achievements is to denigrate those solid other achievements. Soviet aircraft can be appreciated for what they already accomplish well with limited resources, without needing to make up stories about what “could be, if only we were rich.”

The real problem is that people keep insisting upon a definition of “junk” that is anything not equal to American designs. It is more honest to relax this definition, than to offer up Russian designs as equals. A high-RCS supersonic bomber with intercontinental range may indeed have high RCS – but that doesn’t make it any less supersonic, or intercontinental. :diablo:

-SK