A Revolution !! Russia Develops Plasma Stealth Tech

Originally posted by prelude
1 as another poster pointed out we have a good habit of astonishing the world .....i dont know how much openly is history toughT in USA .....but all authorities do accept that for countless times russia has astonished the world with her capablities and MIND THAT IN ALL THESE INSTANCES IT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY UNDERESTIMATED

Oh no doubt - Russian aircraft have often surprised the west. It goes both ways.

The difference is we talking about a completely new technology. New technology usually requires VAST funding. Again, that is something Russia does not seem to have at the moment.

1 Nepolion's invation ....almost the whole of europe was defeated ...US was not even considered to be a power to be defeated ....the french said it will capture russia in less than a month...and came back with less than 10 men

Ummm.... I don't see what this has to do with anything? It was nature (specifically the cold) that defeated Napolean - not Russias army or technology.

2 WW2
the brits were almost defeated ...europe was bleeding ...yanks sill unable to take revange after being screwed by the japs.......Hitler said he will take Moscow in 3 days ,US said the soviet military wasnt capable ...and in the long run we , Russians proved to be the saviors of the world ...and made the German prisoners make our metro railway

Again - what relevence does this have to Plasma technology, or even Russian technology in general?

3 space ....i think that yanks will try to stay away from this TOPIC ....only one reminder .......NASA is sill unable to send astronauts to ISS without RUSSIAN help after the Colombia disaster ....Russian Rockets are today the only link between the world and ISS

Talk to me when you get to the moon... It's been almost 50 years - the US is still waiting for some company. Not that this has anything to do with anything...

The fact is we loose to the yanks when it comes to exagerration some of our stupid officers EXAGERRATE on public, i accept but they are too studip to make others understand that its an exagerration.

But the US has a whole STATE policy of exagerration which consists of the entrire structure of the country beginINGg from education

The US has the best higher education system in the world, and it's not even close.

to foreign policy

How do we exagerate our foriegn policy? I think the current US stance is pretty well known.

media and not even ending when it comes to bollywood movies ...as far as exagerration is concerned the yank are far more sofisticated and polished.....(bla bla bla)

But what does any of this have to do with the US exagerating it's technology? Frankly, I can not recall the US ever claiming to have a piece of equipment it did not.

Russia has made the claim for AT LEAST 2 years now that they have plasma stealth.

WHERE IS THE PROOF?!?!

Originally posted by R988


Also if plasma stealth does make a plane 'glow' when the device is being used then it will stand out at night, making visual intercepts easy. Also they will not easily be able to use their own radar (unless the russians have found a way around this) so they will be a bright glowing target in the sky, but of course only if someone is actually out there looking for them.

Is this how planes with plasma stealth glow at night.

Originally posted by American Mad Man

The difference is we talking about a completely new technology. New technology usually requires VAST funding. Again, that is something Russia does not seem to have at the moment.


Russia has made the claim for AT LEAST 2 years now that they have plasma stealth.

WHERE IS THE PROOF?!?!

New technology does not always require vast funding, just expertise/knowledge in the area of interest - obtaining that knowledge can be expensive, but not always. Apparently Russia/USSR has had priority funding on plasma technologies for years, and developed ion drives for space probes many years ago as a result of the plasma research work.

Anyway, onto the 'proof'...

www.aeronautics.ru...

"A Russian scientific research organisation is to offer for export a 'bolt-on' stealth device that it claims renders non-stealthy aircraft practically invisible to radar. The system, which envelops the aircraft in a cloak of ionised gas known as a plasma, is said to be fully developed, with work on a "third-generation visibility-reduction system" under way.

Keldysh NITs (Nauchno-Issledovatelskiy Tsentr or Scientific Research Centre) is making the claims. According to its director, Anatoliy Koroteyev, the system weighs less than 100kg and consumes little more than several dozen kW of power.

Given the state of the Russian economy, analysts consider it unlikely that any of NITs' work has been applied to Russian Air Force aircraft. According to Koroteyev, however, the system will soon be offered for export.

By installing the system, a typical aircraft radar cross-section (RCS) might be cut "by more than 100 times", Keldysh NITs officials said. This would be much the same RCS as dedicated US stealth aircraft such as the Lockheed Martin F-117 stealth fighter and the Northrop Grumman B-2 stealth bomber.

The claims are given credence by corroborating information on the status of Russian aerospace plasma research acquired by Jane's Defence Weekly last year. Russian work in the use of plasmas that purported to reduce aircraft drag by as much as 30% was collated by British Aerospace (BAe) in the mid-1990s. BAe has since been trying to verify the Russian claims in experiments carried out jointly with the UK Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) and the UK Ministry of Defence (JDW 17 June 1998).

One of the spin-offs of 'plasma aerodynamics', Russian officials told BAe, was that it vastly reduced an aircraft's RCS. The absorption of radio waves by plasmas is well known as the communications black-out that a space vehicle encounters on re-entry is caused by the shielding effects of plasma. This builds naturally in front of the spacecraft as it hits the Earth's atmosphere and shocks the air to high temperature.

The same principle applies to the absorption of radar energy. Although the aircraft would appear to glow like a lightbulb, using plasma generators all around the airframe, it would be almost invisible on a radar screen, Russian officials maintain.

In the opinion of designers at Mikoyan and Sukhoi, the expense of all-embracing low-observable technology as applied in the US Air Force's F-117 and B-2 outweighs its effectiveness. Russians prefer to stress the 'balance' achieved in their latest-generation of fighter designs between aerodynamic efficiency and stealth. The Mikoyan 1-44 and Sukhoi S-37 technology demonstrators, both of which have been rolled out in the past 18 months, are supposed to make use of radar-absorbent paint and materials but are short of inherent stealth features.

Keldysh NITs said that "first- and second-" generation plasma-generators had been tested on the ground and in flight. The centre is working on a third-generation system "based on new physical principles", a possible reference to the use of electrostatic energy around an airframe to reduce RCS. Others believe the Russians could be attempting to duplicate secret work under way in the USA to make aircraft invisible to the human eye by using 'smart skins' that mimic their background."

(source: Jane's Defence Weekly, March 17, 1999)

2nd hand from Janes.


www.aeronautics.ru...

"Russia's latest fighter, the MFI/1.44, did not make its first flight in March as originally promised at the roll-out ceremony last December. However, MiG's former General Designer, Rostislav Belyakov, was recently quoted in a Russian newspaper as saying that the 1.44 is only one of five demonstrators involved in the wider multi-role fighter Project 1.42.

This claim might well be justified if a recently-announced plasma physics application can be exploited on the aircraft. This is said to involve the addition of a device (or more probably devices) weighing no more than 220lb (100kg), but consuming several thousand kilowatts of power. The plasma generator would envelop the aircraft in a film of ionized gas which would be impervious to radar pulses, thereby rendering it electronically 'invisible'. A possible downside to the application would be that the aircraft would glow like a beacon, but generators could be placed around the airframe and selectively energized by conventional radar warning systems in the appropriate quadrant. The infra-red penalty at close range would be significantly offset by the remarkable agility of the 1.44's design and of lesser consequence in BVR scenarios."

(source: AFM, April 1999)

2nd hand from Air Forces Monthly



[edit on 2-11-2005 by kilcoo316]

[edit on 2-11-2005 by kilcoo316]