Hanimichal
Charter Member
'Stealth' shot down in Yugoslavia
http://translate.google.com.br/tran...ido-na-iugoslavia/comment-page-1/&sl=pt&tl=en
http://translate.google.com.br/tran...ido-na-iugoslavia/comment-page-1/&sl=pt&tl=en
-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
OT - New Russian Stealth Fighter
- Thread starter centuryseries
- Start date
deathfromafar
Charter Member
Yes, that did happen but that article as well as most stories about the incident are gross disinformation. There is an audio clip of the flight and the pilot explaining what happened at a press conference after action. He came off a successful target run and one of the bay doors jammed open leaving his plane with a greatly increased RCS which a SAM battery(I believe an SA-3's) was able to lock onto. The Serbs and Russians thump their chest over this all day long but fail to explain why they were never able to replicate their "anti-stealth" SAM and Radar capability on the thousands of F-117 and B-2 sorties. They fired a lot of SAM's with only a handful of hits and shootdowns on NATO aircraft. After many of their SAM batteries were taken out by HARM's they stopped turning them on. NATO OWNED the airspace.
Stealth works but they can suffer system and mechanical failures like any other machine rendering them vulnerable.
Here is the F-117 pilot talking about it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmqLyn4Q15U
perhaps a bit OT.
Without the knowledge of the Russians, ISS (international Space Station) could not have been built. In 1971 the Russians already launced their first manned space station (Salyut 1).
Russian technology is often based on a different philosophy, but in no way "less" than Western technology.
Based on my own experiences in space industry, I'm convinced the Russians don't need an example to construct a stealth fighter. And perhaps better, equal or less sophisticated, but definitely a lot cheaper than any western product of comparable quality.
Cheers,
Huub
Without the knowledge of the Russians, ISS (international Space Station) could not have been built. In 1971 the Russians already launced their first manned space station (Salyut 1).
Russian technology is often based on a different philosophy, but in no way "less" than Western technology.
Based on my own experiences in space industry, I'm convinced the Russians don't need an example to construct a stealth fighter. And perhaps better, equal or less sophisticated, but definitely a lot cheaper than any western product of comparable quality.
Cheers,
Huub
Bjoern
worst developer ever
if Russia solve this thing and keep costs down i suspect a few countries will take a real interest in this thing, even NATO member states would consider it... i know at 1 point Greece Looked to the east and at Sukhois... only time will tell on this one guys
Well, I always said dump the A400M and get a westernized An-70...but nooooo...the Luftwaffe and FAF had to have it their way.
During Yom Kippur the procedure was the standard "stay below the radar" employed/taught ever since SAMs hit the scene.
countries copy other countries, get used to it, america has done it before .. when they werent "hireing" the others scientists
Haha, so did the Russians. :d
centuryseries
SOH-CM-2023
Need we say Ho229 and B-2 here?
A point well made. Also just look at the US space programmes beginnings, German scientists!
Regarding the stance of Soviet SAM systems, I agree with what you say to an extent, but someone has to push the fire button and during a surprise attack that person is likely to be off guard. During wartime it's fair to say he'd be on his toes actively looking for trouble headed his way.
Re the Stealth Fighter being shot down over Yugoslavia, I read somewhere that it was because the aircraft was flying the same tracks each day?
Also I need to point out that the F-117 is only stealthy to certain radar wavelengths.
Need we say Ho229 and B-2 here?
BS. Look up the Northrop N9M and B-35 before making stupid assumptions. The B-2 was based off of the B-35, NOT the Ho-229. In fact, they have the exact same wing span, and control system.
CodyValkyrie
Charter Member 2016
I cannot speak specifically to the stealth plane, but regarding EW and SAM sites, having done 5 years EW for the F-16 and A-10, I can assure you we were WELL aware of the equipment that the Russians and MANY other countries (including allies) were capable of.
Regardless, with exception of the newest Russian equipment, I had full faith in even our antiquated AN/ALQ-184 jamming pod to tackle almost anything thrown at it. The Iraqi's learned the lesson the hard way, along with many of Israel's enemies. After a while, the Iraqi army simply stopped turning their equipment on because of the HARM. What they often resorted to was blinking their radar to get a fix, turning the system off, then waiting until the aircraft was closer and thus had a smaller response time at which point they turned it back on. The flexibility of basic fighter ECM however often gave the pilot a fighting chance.
In many ways, I miss my EW days. I certainly miss the F-16 and A-10!
Regardless, with exception of the newest Russian equipment, I had full faith in even our antiquated AN/ALQ-184 jamming pod to tackle almost anything thrown at it. The Iraqi's learned the lesson the hard way, along with many of Israel's enemies. After a while, the Iraqi army simply stopped turning their equipment on because of the HARM. What they often resorted to was blinking their radar to get a fix, turning the system off, then waiting until the aircraft was closer and thus had a smaller response time at which point they turned it back on. The flexibility of basic fighter ECM however often gave the pilot a fighting chance.
In many ways, I miss my EW days. I certainly miss the F-16 and A-10!
The Iraqi's resorted too blind firing there SAM's in a long run, resulting in one landing in a crowded shopping mall. That was blamed on the US, till photo's proved it was a SAM that was blind fired, turned around, and landed near the launch sight that just happened to be near the market.
Matt Wynn
Charter Member
Kevin, I DIDN'T say it was a modified copy, what i failed to say (Don't worry i'll take the flak) is that the Ho229 had 'Stealth' tendencies, this was back in 1944 and 1945 this thing is from remember...
"Using radar of the same type and frequency used by British coastal defenses in World War II, the engineers found that an Ho 229, flying a few dozen feet above the English Channel, would indeed have been "invisible" to the Royal Air Force — an advantage that arrived too late for the Nazis to exploit." and this document goes on to say...
"This was the most advanced technology that the Germans had at the end of the war, and Northrop solved the question of how stealthy it was and its performance against Allied radar at the time.. It's significantly better than anything flying operationally probably until the 1960s"
i do believe Northrop Grumman visited the Ho229 in the Smithsonian while working on the B-2... see the XB35 was partial... but you look carefully the shape of the B-2 to me looks closer to the 229 than to the XB-35... stealth as stated before relies on the radar wavelength... you could make a housebrick practically invisible to radar I bet, also the hindrance lies in radar nice habit of de-cluttering, were it not for that well an object flying at high altitude and high subsonic .75M+ with the radar cross section of a pigeon... i wouldn't hang about in hitting or giving the Fire order
I think what this thread is doing now is just highlighting how different all our viewpoints are, to me the East is where my fascination lies, the west across the pond is where I look for 'usage above looks'. American Aircraft look the part and are made to be good at a job, to the East the aircraft are designed to be Rugged, and practically go anywhere! look at the worlds largest aircraft the AN-225, thats rough field capable believe it or not as i say, just differences of opinion, i'll be quiet now and Kevin, my apologies for implying what was said, no hard feelings *offers hand* "put it there buddy, no qualms" :ernae:
"Using radar of the same type and frequency used by British coastal defenses in World War II, the engineers found that an Ho 229, flying a few dozen feet above the English Channel, would indeed have been "invisible" to the Royal Air Force — an advantage that arrived too late for the Nazis to exploit." and this document goes on to say...
"This was the most advanced technology that the Germans had at the end of the war, and Northrop solved the question of how stealthy it was and its performance against Allied radar at the time.. It's significantly better than anything flying operationally probably until the 1960s"
i do believe Northrop Grumman visited the Ho229 in the Smithsonian while working on the B-2... see the XB35 was partial... but you look carefully the shape of the B-2 to me looks closer to the 229 than to the XB-35... stealth as stated before relies on the radar wavelength... you could make a housebrick practically invisible to radar I bet, also the hindrance lies in radar nice habit of de-cluttering, were it not for that well an object flying at high altitude and high subsonic .75M+ with the radar cross section of a pigeon... i wouldn't hang about in hitting or giving the Fire order
I think what this thread is doing now is just highlighting how different all our viewpoints are, to me the East is where my fascination lies, the west across the pond is where I look for 'usage above looks'. American Aircraft look the part and are made to be good at a job, to the East the aircraft are designed to be Rugged, and practically go anywhere! look at the worlds largest aircraft the AN-225, thats rough field capable believe it or not
as i say, just differences of opinion, i'll be quiet now and Kevin, my apologies for implying what was said, no hard feelings *offers hand* "put it there buddy, no qualms" :ernae:Sorry for jumping like that. I just get sick of people attributing the B-2 too the Ho-229. Its simply not giving proper credit were credit is due. The flying wing was Jack Northrops dream. To have the credit taken away from him is just a sin in my mind. The Horton brothers and Northrop worked seperatly without much knoledge of each others work till well after the war. Each came up with unique designs that shared few engineering and design elements other then the fact they were flying wings.
I spoke to a few of the designers of the B-2. Yes, they did visit the 229, and I quote directly from them "We learned nothing new". The B-2 has 0 design elements from the 229, but share many many elements from the B-35. From the wings span, too the controle system (split ailerons, the Horton used air brakes on the wingtips for rudders), and even down too little airbrakes in front of the bomb bay too brake up the air.
Funny storry about those airbrakes the engineer told me. During the B-35/49 development, Northrop found out that flying wings created a dense mass of fast moving air under the body. When they would drop bombs from the B-35 and B-49, they would litterally SKIP on this airstream, throwing off targeting. They installed small airbrakes in front of the bomb bay to brake up this airstream, and those same airbrakes are on the B-2.
You can see them here above the guys head.
http://www.afgsc.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/090814-f-5205b-026.jpg
Not many photo's of them, but its one of those little things not many people know about.
I spoke to a few of the designers of the B-2. Yes, they did visit the 229, and I quote directly from them "We learned nothing new". The B-2 has 0 design elements from the 229, but share many many elements from the B-35. From the wings span, too the controle system (split ailerons, the Horton used air brakes on the wingtips for rudders), and even down too little airbrakes in front of the bomb bay too brake up the air.
Funny storry about those airbrakes the engineer told me. During the B-35/49 development, Northrop found out that flying wings created a dense mass of fast moving air under the body. When they would drop bombs from the B-35 and B-49, they would litterally SKIP on this airstream, throwing off targeting. They installed small airbrakes in front of the bomb bay to brake up this airstream, and those same airbrakes are on the B-2.
You can see them here above the guys head.
http://www.afgsc.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/090814-f-5205b-026.jpg
Not many photo's of them, but its one of those little things not many people know about.
K
Ken Stallings
Guest
Sundog,
Flew the MC-130E in those successful Red Flag missions in 1997-99.
We had many "tricks" to defeat the latest Soviet stuff. I flew multiple Red Flag sorties and was never shot down. Had a few claims made on us, but our "tricks" often fooled their systems in sly little ways that even the operators were unable to figure out until everyone sat down and crunched the actual numbers.
Cheers,
Ken
Flew the MC-130E in those successful Red Flag missions in 1997-99.
We had many "tricks" to defeat the latest Soviet stuff. I flew multiple Red Flag sorties and was never shot down. Had a few claims made on us, but our "tricks" often fooled their systems in sly little ways that even the operators were unable to figure out until everyone sat down and crunched the actual numbers.
Cheers,
Ken
The ugliest, most beautiful aircraft. Certainly not aesthetically pleasing, but it has a utilitarian beauty. :ernae:
Bjoern
worst developer ever
CodyValkyrie
Charter Member 2016
While I personally despise using Wikipedia as a source, in this context I want to point something out....
... to note, "...that began in 1929..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_brothers
The Northrop designs began in 1929, while nearly four years later the 1933 the first of the Horten gliders were built and flown.
Saying the Northrop design was developed from the Horton Brother's designs is taking it out of context. It does say "in-part", which to me is questionable at best and there is no evidence to suggest this on the same page you referenced. About the only concession I would make would be that the Horton/Gotha designs inspired them to continue their research.
This is the problem with Wikipedia. Multiple sources is not necessarily a bad thing, but often there is little fact checking against other material that speaks in opposite.
That is much like saying that the AK-47 owes its design to the Sturmgewehr 44 (Stg-44) assault rifle. Not only are they completely different designs internally and operate differently, Kalishnikov has defended against this claim since it was first brought up. Basically, just because there are some similar looks, does not mean they were built from each other.
Bjoern
worst developer ever
That's the problem with anything. If you want absolutely, positively watertight proof you'll have to go back in time and write everything down yourself.
For getting a quick overview, Wiki is awfully nice though. And that was all I was on about; showing that Northrop and Horten had indeed a connection.
The mechanism may be different but one would be blind denying any connection between the StG44 and the AK-47.
Matt Wynn
Charter Member
Mikhail Timofeevich Kalashnikov was a Tanker, he admired the StG44 and while in hospital set about designing the answer to it, the rest, as we know is history...
wiki is good for a quick overview, paired with books and digging afterwards you can really gen up on something
wiki is good for a quick overview, paired with books and digging afterwards you can really gen up on something
CodyValkyrie
Charter Member 2016
GROSSLY off topic, but I knew what I said would draw a bit of fire.
Kalishnikov, before his death in a camera interview disputed these claims that his design was based on the STG44. Now, myself I have been an avid firearms collector and smith for 12+ years, as well as an NFA Form 4 owner (yes, I own machine guns legally). I have fired about every type of AK variant (AK-47, AKM, AMD-65, Galil, Krinkov, AK-74, etc etc etc) and have become intimately familiar with the design, concepts and function. I have also fired and studied in detail the STG-44. About the only similarity that the two have is the banana style clip and some similarities to the gas system (not new concepts, but I digress). The AK has more in common with Simonov's SKS than any other conventional firearm of the time. Both the STG-44 and the AK have on paper similar modes of operation, however so do most other designs of the time. The biggest difference between the AK (with exception of a few other Russian designs) is that it was built from the ground up with large amounts of tolerance, spacing the parts such as the bolt, gas piston, recoil springs, etc far apart so that it could withstand high amounts of debris intrusion while still being able to operate. The STG-44 clearly was not made with this being the most important aspect of the firearm. Even the breakdown of the two firearms is completely different.
Of note, weapons designers of all sides often had examples of enemy weapons, including Kalishnikov. It just happens that because these were some of the first assault rifles built, people attribute the design of the AK to the STG-44. Kalishnikov entered into competition for a weapon platform for new 7.64x41 round. He lost the competition to the SKS design. When a new competition was spurred later on for the development of a true assault rifle style weapon based on the 7.62x39 round, he used some of his developments from 1943 to create his new AK firearm. The STG-44 was being fielded at roughly the same time.
The ONLY conclusion I can come to in either regard if you ignore Kalishnikov's own words is that the STG-44 spurred the development in competition only. They owe very little design similarities to each other. The same can be said about Northrop's designs versus that of the German's. Potentially, the same "might" be said about the new Russian aircraft, however time will tell.
Invariabely, history has often shown, if you task two different people in different circumstances who have similar problems, they often come up with similar solutions.
Kalishnikov, before his death in a camera interview disputed these claims that his design was based on the STG44. Now, myself I have been an avid firearms collector and smith for 12+ years, as well as an NFA Form 4 owner (yes, I own machine guns legally). I have fired about every type of AK variant (AK-47, AKM, AMD-65, Galil, Krinkov, AK-74, etc etc etc) and have become intimately familiar with the design, concepts and function. I have also fired and studied in detail the STG-44. About the only similarity that the two have is the banana style clip and some similarities to the gas system (not new concepts, but I digress). The AK has more in common with Simonov's SKS than any other conventional firearm of the time. Both the STG-44 and the AK have on paper similar modes of operation, however so do most other designs of the time. The biggest difference between the AK (with exception of a few other Russian designs) is that it was built from the ground up with large amounts of tolerance, spacing the parts such as the bolt, gas piston, recoil springs, etc far apart so that it could withstand high amounts of debris intrusion while still being able to operate. The STG-44 clearly was not made with this being the most important aspect of the firearm. Even the breakdown of the two firearms is completely different.
Of note, weapons designers of all sides often had examples of enemy weapons, including Kalishnikov. It just happens that because these were some of the first assault rifles built, people attribute the design of the AK to the STG-44. Kalishnikov entered into competition for a weapon platform for new 7.64x41 round. He lost the competition to the SKS design. When a new competition was spurred later on for the development of a true assault rifle style weapon based on the 7.62x39 round, he used some of his developments from 1943 to create his new AK firearm. The STG-44 was being fielded at roughly the same time.
The ONLY conclusion I can come to in either regard if you ignore Kalishnikov's own words is that the STG-44 spurred the development in competition only. They owe very little design similarities to each other. The same can be said about Northrop's designs versus that of the German's. Potentially, the same "might" be said about the new Russian aircraft, however time will tell.
Invariabely, history has often shown, if you task two different people in different circumstances who have similar problems, they often come up with similar solutions.
centuryseries
SOH-CM-2023
Thats not what I'm saying, what I was trying to say about their defences originally was that the sheer quantity of their SAM systems ie different SAM systems, long range, short range, high altitude low altitude etc, the Russians must have the know how to develop a half decent stealth aircraft for less money.
I don't care whether the USAF can defeat their missiles or not that was not my point that I was trying to get across.
It's amazing how defensive you guys get!!
but I did not state anywhere that 'their SAMs are better than your defensive equipment'. This topic is about the T-50 and Russian technology not a pro-US nor pro-Russian thread. Please lets stay on track, it was a good discussion a few pages back about a new aircraft but as usual there are elements of the community who are exceptionally patriotic (nothing wrong with that) and that doesn't encourage constructive discussion.