Russia to unveil new fighter jet at Moscow’s air show

[beerftw]

I was referring to stealth aircraft like the 22 and 35 who's fasteners are covered over with stealth skin. The kind of stealth we use with the lowest possible radar signature from the bottom and sides and straight on and more importantly the infinite number of angles they are exposed to moving from one side to another. This what the Russians cannot do in most part becasue they are so far behind and cannot spend the billions needed to factory up -- Janes years ago

The russians already matched the f-35 stealth with the su-57 in the front and came close on the side, and only became an issue on the rear which of course was impossible to make stealth with the su-27 flanker platform and especially with 3d thrust vectoring.

Despite this they shown to do very well with a conversion of a non stealth aircraft, rather than designing a stealh aircraft from the ground up, rivets seemed to play no part at all for their stealth.

But the russians had known about stealth since the 1950's and wrote a book about it in the 1960's, which the us govt used to develope their own stealth bombers. So if russian knowledge is what the cia and american engineers used to create the b117 it is clear russia is not years behind and infact knew all along about stealth, atleast since they copied it from the captured nazi jets, and the nazi's never designed their bombers to be stealth anyways, that was an accident, they used wood skins to make them lighter to extend the range of bombing runs, with plywood wings, and an aluminum frame, but it was accidentally discovered radar got absorbed by the wood rather than reflected back.

Since the soviets discovered that they had been experimenting with radar deflecting and absorbing material, and by the 1960;s they wrote an article left as public access for the world to see talking about how unpractical stealth was and how to counter it. Russia never built a stealth aircraft until the su-57, and even then they only pushed it for export purposes.

The russians decided long ago stealth was not going to be part of their doctrine, that does not make them backwards or years behind, rather it says they never found a value in it and instead preferred hyper maneuverable aircraft and supersonic long range aircraft. Their doctrine is based entirely upon their needs, as you call russia not being as forward about stealth being backwards, they likely believe americans not building supersonic bombers similar to the tu-160 or ultra maneuverable fighters like the flanker series as being years behind, truth is though equipment only works as well as the doctrine it is implemented into.

 

[fortune]

The russians already matched the f-35 stealth with the su-57 in the front and came close on the side, and only became an issue on the rear which of course was impossible to make stealth with the su-27 flanker platform and especially with 3d thrust vectoring.

Despite this they shown to do very well with a conversion of a non stealth aircraft, rather than designing a stealh aircraft from the ground up, rivets seemed to play no part at all for their stealth.

But the russians had known about stealth since the 1950's and wrote a book about it in the 1960's, which the us govt used to develope their own stealth bombers. So if russian knowledge is what the cia and american engineers used to create the b117 it is clear russia is not years behind and infact knew all along about stealth, atleast since they copied it from the captured nazi jets, and the nazi's never designed their bombers to be stealth anyways, that was an accident, they used wood skins to make them lighter to extend the range of bombing runs, with plywood wings, and an aluminum frame, but it was accidentally discovered radar got absorbed by the wood rather than reflected back.

Since the soviets discovered that they had been experimenting with radar deflecting and absorbing material, and by the 1960;s they wrote an article left as public access for the world to see talking about how unpractical stealth was and how to counter it. Russia never built a stealth aircraft until the su-57, and even then they only pushed it for export purposes.

The russians decided long ago stealth was not going to be part of their doctrine, that does not make them backwards or years behind, rather it says they never found a value in it and instead preferred hyper maneuverable aircraft and supersonic long range aircraft. Their doctrine is based entirely upon their needs, as you call russia not being as forward about stealth being backwards, they likely believe americans not building supersonic bombers similar to the tu-160 or ultra maneuverable fighters like the flanker series as being years behind, truth is though equipment only works as well as the doctrine it is implemented into.

moronic bloviation

 

[Oozlefinch]

But the russians had known about stealth since the 1950's and wrote a book about it in the 1960's, which the us govt used to develope their own stealth bombers. So if russian knowledge is what the cia and american engineers used to create the b117 it is clear russia is not years behind and infact knew all along about stealth

The book was "Method of Edge Waves in the Physical Theory of Diffraction" by Pyotr Ufimtsev, published in 1964.

However, the Soviets lacked both the computers needed to design the aircraft, as well as the avionics that would be required to make it fly. Because they also designed one in the early 1970's, but concluded it was so unstable it would be impossible to fly.

This was also why "flying wing" research for the military largely died after the XB-35, YB-35, and YB-49. All were stealthy, but also unstable in flight and were not really practical until fly by wire avionics caught up to the design.

Also the Soviets never had the "need" for a deep penetration bomber like the US did. Most of the US infrastructure is right along the coasts, within easy range of conventional bombers. The interior was to be targeted by ICBMs. They never intended to take their bombers much further inland than Alaska, California, and Washington state.

 

[Fledermaus]

moronic bloviation

What did he state that was wrong?

 

[fortune]

What did he state that was wrong?

Read the thread. I stated as a joke that we could take out the engine and all electronics in an f35 and give it to Russia or China and they could no copy it becasue they don't have the manufacturing processes to make a stealth fighter. Now he says the Russians are not trying to make a stealth fighter.... bloviation in dissembling. As I said Janes Defense Weekly and Aviation Week and Space Technology covered this already three years ago.

Again... don't jump in midway through
Start at #18

And in the future please allow the person i am disusing something with to respond first so as not to send a signal that you are maybe a sock puppet of sorts. He can defend himself... or not.

 

[Fledermaus]

Read the thread. I stated as a joke that we could take out the engine and all electronics in an f35 and give it to Russia or China and they could no(sic) copy it becasue(sic) they don't have the manufacturing processes to make a stealth fighter. Now he says the Russians are not trying to make a stealth fighter.... bloviation in dissembling. As I said Janes Defense Weekly and Aviation Week and Space Technology covered this already three years ago.

Again... don't jump in midway through
Start at #18

And in the future please allow the person i am disusing(sic) something with to respond first so as not to send a signal that you are maybe a sock puppet of sorts. He can defend himself... or not.

1. I read the thread.

2. Do not mistake the concept of "don't want to" with "can't".

3. You are "disusing(sic) something" on a public forum.

4. You haven't answered "What did he state that was wrong?"

 

[beerftw]

The book was "Method of Edge Waves in the Physical Theory of Diffraction" by Pyotr Ufimtsev, published in 1964.

However, the Soviets lacked both the computers needed to design the aircraft, as well as the avionics that would be required to make it fly. Because they also designed one in the early 1970's, but concluded it was so unstable it would be impossible to fly.

This was also why "flying wing" research for the military largely died after the XB-35, YB-35, and YB-49. All were stealthy, but also unstable in flight and were not really practical until fly by wire avionics caught up to the design.

Also the Soviets never had the "need" for a deep penetration bomber like the US did. Most of the US infrastructure is right along the coasts, within easy range of conventional bombers. The interior was to be targeted by ICBMs. They never intended to take their bombers much further inland than Alaska, California, and Washington state.

Stealth in general was always difficult past stealth coatings, the russians have proven very effective in stealth coatings but have not put much into angles. The reason as pointed out by you and me already was it was not in their doctrine much like aircraft carriers were not, they focused on what they needed and what they could build to be as effective as possible without throwing the bank at the problem.

Likely even if they had wanted to go full stealth they would have seen the price tag and said no. Stealth aircraft are different from normal aircraft, with stealth you need to design the stealth aspect first and then figure out how to make it fly after. This can lead to extreme costs and design times to build stealth aircraft, it took how many years for the f-22 and f-35, and one is being canned after they fly long enough because they cost too much and the other is still not anywhere near what it promised to be, and likely will take more years to get software and engineering bugs fully worked out.

I would not be surprised if they ran every scenario and figured screw it they could build tens of thousands of mig 21 aircraft for the cost of designing and building a small fleet of stealth aircraft.

On the bombers the soviets had plans to go deep into airspace, they just used speed over stealth, it was in theory enough for nato to admit the bombers could fly past before the sams could react. Problem was the range was terrible at full afterburner, meaning if a tu22m was in full afterburner on a bombing mission to america after approaching hostile airspace it became a one way trip. The importance of such bombers became less and less as icbm's became more effective, as an icbm could reach said destination in the heartland without sending expensive bombers on a one way trip.

 

[fortune]

Stealth in general was always difficult past stealth coatings, the russians have proven very effective in stealth coatings but have not put much into angles. The reason as pointed out by you and me already was it was not in their doctrine much like aircraft carriers were not, they focused on what they needed and what they could build to be as effective as possible without throwing the bank at the problem.

Likely even if they had wanted to go full stealth they would have seen the price tag and said no. Stealth aircraft are different from normal aircraft, with stealth you need to design the stealth aspect first and then figure out how to make it fly after. This can lead to extreme costs and design times to build stealth aircraft, it took how many years for the f-22 and f-35, and one is being canned after they fly long enough because they cost too much and the other is still not anywhere near what it promised to be, and likely will take more years to get software and engineering bugs fully worked out.

I would not be surprised if they ran every scenario and figured screw it they could build tens of thousands of mig 21 aircraft for the cost of designing and building a small fleet of stealth aircraft.

On the bombers the soviets had plans to go deep into airspace, they just used speed over stealth, it was in theory enough for nato to admit the bombers could fly past before the sams could react. Problem was the range was terrible at full afterburner, meaning if a tu22m was in full afterburner on a bombing mission to america after approaching hostile airspace it became a one way trip. The importance of such bombers became less and less as icbm's became more effective, as an icbm could reach said destination in the heartland without sending expensive bombers on a one way trip.

I have never seen such bloviation contrary to known and accredited expert publications. This is what I meant by bloviation. I am a life long aerospace engineer at Douglas, Lockheed, and other. This guy is just shining everyone on. He is just SAYING shit 'cause he can. I have never seen the like. So sad the internet ever happened... it came upon us in a rush with no user manuals or instructions. And this is the result. Holy ****ing shit.

 

[beerftw]

I have never seen such bloviation contrary to known and accredited expert publications. This is what I meant by bloviation. I am a life long aerospace engineer at Douglas, Lockheed, and other. This guy is just shining everyone on. He is just SAYING shit 'cause he can. I have never seen the like. So sad the internet ever happened... it came upon us in a rush with no user manuals or instructions. And this is the result. Holy ****ing shit.

So you worked for those companies supposedly but never knew a darn thing about blatently available soviet documents left in public domain detailing stealth?

So how do you claim to have worked for those companies yet not know the history of said aircraft? Or even the various competing aircraft? They all are very easily researched, as well as soviet doctrine.

hell here is the supposed article from 1964, it is literally not top secret, even the soviets who wrote it long before translation made zero effort to hide it.
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB443/docs/area51_10a.PDF

 

[fortune]

So you worked for those companies supposedly but never knew a darn thing about blatently available soviet documents left in public domain detailing stealth?

So how do you claim to have worked for those companies yet not know the history of said aircraft? Or even the various competing aircraft? They all are very easily researched, as well as soviet doctrine.

hell here is the supposed article from 1964, it is literally not top secret, even the soviets who wrote it long before translation made zero effort to hide it.
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB443/docs/area51_10a.PDF

Just more bloviation .. you have yet to say anything I did not already know.
Your game is bloviate, that's all. You get off on yourself. Buy I can fix that, can't I?

 

[Fledermaus]

Just more bloviation .. you have yet to say anything I did not already know.
Your game is bloviate, that's all. You get off on yourself. Buy(sic) I can fix that, can't I?

Four posts in a row citing "bloviation" and not one intelligent counter argument.

Why don't you simply let Oozefinch and Beerftw discuss because you aren't adding jack.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Likely even if they had wanted to go full stealth they would have seen the price tag and said no. Stealth aircraft are different from normal aircraft, with stealth you need to design the stealth aspect first and then figure out how to make it fly after. This can lead to extreme costs and design times to build stealth aircraft, it took how many years for the f-22 and f-35, and one is being canned after they fly long enough because they cost too much and the other is still not anywhere near what it promised to be, and likely will take more years to get software and engineering bugs fully worked out.

Plus just the doctrine and how they would each have used them.

Contrary to the misnomer of the "F-117", it was never really a "Fighter". It really should have been designated as the "A-117", as it was entirely for ground attack, and had absolutely no air to air capability at all. And as we have seen, it has taken almost 4 more decades to create a true "stealth fighter".

The Soviets really did not need a "stealth fighter", as their intent was use in air space they controlled. Where stealth is much less important. Their entire doctrine was about their air forces keeping the skies clear, and using their ground forces to pummel the adversary into defeat. Very unlike that of the US, which had long favored the use of penetration missions wherever possible, to try and work on not only the morale, but the logistics of their adversary. This can even be seen reflected in a great many of the "WWIII" scenario books of the 1970's and 1980's. Where the Warsaw Pact primarily tried to smash Eastern Europe flat as fast as possible, rarely sending it's air force much forward of the forward edge of the battle area.

Where as the US would fight there also, but still maintain air forces to try and slip into the rear, not unlike the classical use of cavalry forces. And this was found in books not only be such "amateur experts" like Clancy, but also actual military leaders like Hackett. Both were using information known of Soviet doctrine and plans of the era.

 

[Oozlefinch]

So you worked for those companies supposedly but never knew a darn thing about blatently available soviet documents left in public domain detailing stealth?

And even more humorously, most do not even understand what "stealth" really is.

Contrary to popular belief, a "stealth aircraft" is not really invisible. The entire intent is simply to make it so hard to pick up that the enemy can not get a good lock onto it (primarily by ground based weapons). But almost any "stealth" can be blasted through, so long as you can focus enough power through your systems to be able to do so.

I know for a fact that the US PATRIOT system can see US stealth fighters. However, what they are mostly limited by is the power they can use. Being it is a mobile system, everything but the launchers themselves are powered by 2 150 kilowatt generators. That is not a lot of power for the RADAR system itself. We commonly "saw" them during exercises, but did not get anywhere near enough of a lock to be able to ever fire at one. The systems actually lock out such ability, as each missile is around $1 million each, and most launchers only have 4 of them.

The loss of an F-117 in former Yugoslavia was only possible by various things. Including using much more powerful ground based RADAR to track and triangulate the location, as well as having the ability to turn off those overrides and firing large numbers of missiles almost blindly, just in the hopes they could hit something. It literally was an "ambush", with a target left in clear sight in the hopes of attracting an F-117. And using only single RADAR systems intermittently over a scattered distance for times of no more than 10-30 seconds so the pilot was not even aware that he was being tracked. Then when it was overhead, literally blasting it from multiple directions and firing what some say is over a dozen missiles at the shadowy target (the pilot admits he saw at least two before he was shot down). Literally with an early 1960's era technology missile system.

And many also tend to forget that there are other ways to track a target. In an age when stealth becomes more common, I would not be surprised if ultimately other systems return to prominence, like visual and acoustic detection and tracking.

 

[beerftw]

And even more humorously, most do not even understand what "stealth" really is.

Contrary to popular belief, a "stealth aircraft" is not really invisible. The entire intent is simply to make it so hard to pick up that the enemy can not get a good lock onto it (primarily by ground based weapons). But almost any "stealth" can be blasted through, so long as you can focus enough power through your systems to be able to do so.

I know for a fact that the US PATRIOT system can see US stealth fighters. However, what they are mostly limited by is the power they can use. Being it is a mobile system, everything but the launchers themselves are powered by 2 150 kilowatt generators. That is not a lot of power for the RADAR system itself. We commonly "saw" them during exercises, but did not get anywhere near enough of a lock to be able to ever fire at one. The systems actually lock out such ability, as each missile is around $1 million each, and most launchers only have 4 of them.

The loss of an F-117 in former Yugoslavia was only possible by various things. Including using much more powerful ground based RADAR to track and triangulate the location, as well as having the ability to turn off those overrides and firing large numbers of missiles almost blindly, just in the hopes they could hit something. It literally was an "ambush", with a target left in clear sight in the hopes of attracting an F-117. And using only single RADAR systems intermittently over a scattered distance for times of no more than 10-30 seconds so the pilot was not even aware that he was being tracked. Then when it was overhead, literally blasting it from multiple directions and firing what some say is over a dozen missiles at the shadowy target (the pilot admits he saw at least two before he was shot down). Literally with an early 1960's era technology missile system.

And many also tend to forget that there are other ways to track a target. In an age when stealth becomes more common, I would not be surprised if ultimately other systems return to prominence, like visual and acoustic detection and tracking.

Stealth is easily not invisible, the russians have been able to track them the entire time through syria and iraq with mobile systems using L and S bands for early detection. Tracking and targeting have always been separate as L band in a powerful fixed system can see stealth quite a distance away but lacks targetting capabilities, while x band is good at targeting but has a hard time seeing stealth at longer ranges.

Either way there are advantages in stealth when used proper, for example even if you could not go unseen because a country like russia has an extremely integrated early warning radar system, it could give an advantage against interceptors but creating just enough range gap to try and exploit beyond visual range targeting, as a smaller rcs would mean the enemy aircraft would need to get that much closer to target.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Stealth is easily not invisible, the russians have been able to track them the entire time through syria and iraq with mobile systems using L and S bands for early detection. Tracking and targeting have always been separate as L band in a powerful fixed system can see stealth quite a distance away but lacks targetting capabilities, while x band is good at targeting but has a hard time seeing stealth at longer ranges.

Trust me, I know the difference.

Look up my "nick" in here, it should give an idea of exactly what I was doing when I first joined this debate board.

The Oozlefinch is the unofficial historic mascot of the Air Defense Artillery – and formerly of the U.S. Army Coast Artillery Corps. The Oozlefinch is portrayed as a featherless bird that flies backwards (at supersonic speeds) and carries weapons of the Air Defense and Coast Artillery, most often a Nike-Hercules Missile. The Oozlefinch has been portrayed in many different forms and artistic interpretations through its history.

Oozlefinch - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In 2009, I was part of the Battalion Staff of a deployed PATRIOT Battalion deployed to the Middle East, having spent several years already as a crewman of a PATRIOT launcher. And after returning to the US was assigned to a unit stationed at White Sands, conducting tests on future upgrades to the system.

This is why I often laugh at people that confuse "stealth" with "invisible", as I know they are not the same at all. This can even be seen in 2001, as Iraqi air defense guns were firing in the air at F-117 they could "see", but not accurately enough to actually shoot down.

 

[Dayton3]

You guys ever get a package of the "Stealth condoms" (the package is in the shape of an F-117A). ?

"They'll never see you cummin..."