US two generations behind Russian fighter jets

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Billy T, Jan 6, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mystical Sadhu Registered Member

    Messages:
    54
    I didn't find any links that substituted for the first one, which its video was removed due to complaint by the source, Konstantin Khmelik, however, he does have an account at YouTube with videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/KonstantinKhmelik
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    be quiet fanboy.

    First off, we don't have any air to air missile in our inventory that goes out to 200 miles, I don't think anybody does.

    Secondly, the F-16 is a multirole fighter.

    It is no interceptor, the F-15 is a fighter.

    And our missiles "sophistication" is always up to debate. In my opinion a Python-5 beats the living snot out of a Sidewinder-X any day.

    And correct me if I am wrong dyw, but there is a rather large school of thought that the Russian AA-12 is superior to the AIM-9x.

    I hate to give you a rough welcome, but that is the kind of response you get on this forum for being a fanboy and taking the discovery channel's and the New York Time's questionable opinion over well known fact.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    once more, shut up fanboy.

    You don't know what your talking about, you are just spouting propaganda bullsh*t, so shut up.

    The Su-47 could easily, and I stress, EASILY out maneuver every single jet we have now, and have on the drawing board by a significant margin.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
  8. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
  9. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    But it is a clever solution to a major problem. I don't really think it will work too well, at 200 miles that gives you a lot of time.

    I wasn't aware of that missile.
     
  10. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    I think it's not quite a "fire and forget" but more like a "fire and run like hell" solution.
     
  11. dhcracker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    196
    Well it depends, head on pass at high altitude one might get a kill at that distance without evasion. I was exaggerating to make a point it may as well be 200 miles, soviet bloc has always depended on picking up the pieces of our missiles and copying them. They always are responding to our technological leaps they hardly ever gain the initiative. Not since the debute of the mig-29 and the mig 15 has russian jets lead the way in air power.

    f-14's, f-15's, and f-16's rule the skies because the weapons systems and production numbers. Granted the top of the line 4th generation russian jets are nothing to sneeze at I'll concede still to say we're behind is wrong in so many ways I don't know where to start.

    If a mig 29 however gets close its a toss up really, the mig 29 is a good counter to the f-16 based on aircraft performance. However they are still behind us in weapons systems technology because they don't have billions of dollars to throw at it.. still for what they have invested they are doing a good job keeping up.

    Even when the luftwaffe pilots break from the training routine and try to take on our jets head on in those aircraft they lose the wargames.. though they do manage to get locks on some birds and get in close range from time to time.

    Experiments have been done to see who is superior and the west has the edge for now.
     
  12. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,645

    KS-172
    .
    R-37.

    Correct.
     
  13. dhcracker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    196
    Aim 9 is what 2nd generation technology?
     
  14. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,645
    No. First, of course.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Unless you specify model...
    AIM-9 as a whole dates back to 1946.
     
  15. MelissaF Registered Member

    Messages:
    4
    Hello,
    US defend it ships at sea with a bi-static radar system. The high power radar beam "paints" 360 around the ship and can easily detect the tiny fraction of the energy returned by small radar cross objects (such as one humming bird). (A dopper filter is used to keep slow moving tiny birds for being mistaken as target to shoot down.) This same beam is also recieved by the defensive anti-missle launched by the shipin it own defense - I.e. a bi-static system.
     
  16. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    That is basically correct description of the SAM missile and the Aegis ships; but normally one does not describe the 360 searching radar beams as "painting."

    That term is reserved for the high-intensity, narrow, beam that is directed toward the target. This beam reflects off the fast closing target and is received by the defensive missile so it can guide itself to this reflecting source (which is Doppler shifted so a different frequency from the sea reflections which may be stronger when the target is a "sea skimmer.") Thus as you say, it is a bi-static, Doppler-filtered, radar system.

    Sophisticated attacking missiles may receive the painting beam, amplify and frequency shift it and then rebroadcast that shifted frequency to make the defensive missile think it is closing faster in effort to make the defensive missile miscalculate the intercept point or even, if a sea skimmer is attacking, bounce its created stronger shifted beam off the sea in front of itsself in effort to cause the defending SAM missile to fly into the sea.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 9, 2010
  17. jmpet Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,891
    I think we all forget that Russia has twice the land and half the population America does... that Reagan starting an arms race with a nation that collected half as much from its half as many people cannot win a toe-to-toe arms race with the US. Sure Russian built/has more nukes than we do but those nukes each represent millions of dollars that didn't go to its people- and today it's a debt they are sustaining by keeping them all operational.

    I don't care if Russia has a faster/better plane than we do and yes, I fully understand the concept of air superiority in a combat situation. I just don't see the Russians putting their superior jets to any practical/tactical use/advantage in any scenario.

    As a young kid growing up during the Cold War even I knew a nuclear war was a no-win scenario... that my desk would not stop a nuclear bomb.

    "The Russians have 51,000 warheads stockpiled. Even if only 1% of them get through, that's still enough to kill every living thing on Earth." -Watchmen
     
  18. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Problem is that their warheads number less than 8,000.

    Watchmen=fiction...FICTION.
     
  19. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Assuming of course that the SAM's own frequency is WELL known and that it does not have a digital binary connection to the launching ship.

    Your plan is completely idiotic because it assumes that you know to the hundredth decimel the frequency that EVERY single SAM uses.

    The fact is that the SAM's each have unique frequencies, how do I know that? Because if they have to launch two SAM's both using the same frequency than they will both interfere with each other.

    Your plan is idiotic and unrealistic.
     
  20. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Besides the fact Billyt, that not only have we proven you wrong, but you completely forbid to see common sense.

    Ask yourself this, if a fifth generation fighter jet has stealth protection, than why are your magical voodoo woo-woo Russian 7th generation jets completely unstealthy?
     
  21. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,645
    No they don't.
    Learn what a bi static radar actually is.
     
  22. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I don't know anything about these 7th generation jets, but want to point out that there was an a-symmetrical requirement / need in the cold war era between the USSR and the US requirements for fighter jets.

    The US jets were to assist the SAC bomber penetrate deep into the USSR.* Thus the US jets needed to be as stealthy as they could be against the mono-static radars of the USSR's jets looking for them.

    The modern stealthy US jets are NOT stealthy against bi-static radars, they "shine brightly" (strongly reflect radar waves) when any of their flat surfaces acts like low reflectivity mirrors sending the transmitted beam straight to the not co-located receiver. This is why the USSR built about 6 huge powerful radar transmitters (antennas taller than 10 story buildings) and dozens of receiving stations for each in bi-static radar nets. Their idea was to vector their defensive fighter jets to the invading SAC bomber before the SAC bomber could get anywhere near Moscow etc. Speed was their jets main requirement.

    The USSR jets were never intended (They lacked both the range and aircraft carriers to take off from) to penetrate the US mainland.

    *One summer, I worked on a SAC bomber penetration aid under contract QRC 65. (QRC stood for Quick Reaction Contract - money was unlimited as SAC wanted the jammer we were building yesterday - and we delivered the first prototype in three months just as I was returning to Cornell!) I was the first person hired by the tiny company (CGS labs) with the new SAC funds (three times more than the company's total prior sales!) CGS labs had a unique "incroductor" with high power capacity. It was and RF coil on ferrite but that core also had a DC winding which could be used to change the inductance of that RF coil in ms by partially saturating the ferrite. Thus, as the tuned circuit or "tank coil" of a receiver and computer** controlled transmitter, our jammer could jam about a dozen USSR fighters trying to talk to each other as they closed on the SAC bomber. (Say broadcast a 0.07 sec noise burst on each frequency the USSR jets were using and with power enough to saturate their receivers for at least a second after the burst was over.)

    My job was a simple part - the system's power supplies and wiring harnesses, but the system was not yet designed! Some of the Mil-spec wires we might need had nearly a months delivery delay. I asked my boss, what should I do, explaining that I don't know what lengths or wire sizes will be needed. He said: order at least a mile of all we could possible use* (QRC-65 was a cost plus contract) so I did. Many thousands of dollars worth, 99% of which just ended up in the company's stock room.

    *This for one small (about a foot tall in a standard SAC rack} but heavy prototype - The weight being mainly ferrite and copper - I could barely lift it.

    ** The computer was made from / with those tiny two-pin neon bulbs. They have two stable states. I think because transistors were relative new and SAC feared they could be burned out by USSR's powerful ground based radars "painting" a SAC bomber with mega-watt beams, but I am not sure of that.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 13, 2010
  23. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    MilissaF was 100% correct. The Aegis ship / SAM missile is a bi static radar system. The transmitter is on the ship and the receiver is in the SAM flying out to intercept the threat to the ship. The receiver is not looking at frequency of the transmitted beam as is common in bi-static system as that is that the downward frequency shifted by the SAM's rapid speed away from the ship.

    The SAM based receiver is looking that the upward frequency shifted EM waves reflected off the attacking threat and that received frequency is further upward shifted by the SAM's own speed towards the threat.

    Actually the modern battle group (carrier at the center) now has CIC which APL designed. I forget for sure what CIC stands for but something like "Combat Integrated Command) I.e. all ships of the battle group have one common radar map of the air space - even 40 miles beyond the their own radar horizons for ships at the edge of the battle group.

    I.e. the individual radars collect data out to their radar horizons, but this data is integrated to give one picture of the air space for all CIC equipped ships. In some sense you could consider this CIC system to be a multi-static radar system. Every CIC ship is a receiver of ever other CIC ship's radar return information even if the two ships are beyond each other radar horizons.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 13, 2010
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page