Sturgeon Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 Doesn't work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostCosmonaut Posted May 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 http://i.imgur.com/1XinXPA.png Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeps_Guns_Tanks Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 It's sad there are no F-14s on there. Belesarius 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xthetenth Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 Not pictured: long legs. Jeeps_Guns_Tanks 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 Belesarius and LostCosmonaut 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 Gripen STRNG Belesarius, Collimatrix and LostCosmonaut 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belesarius Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 Tactical Kitties! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted May 23, 2015 Report Share Posted May 23, 2015 Since when did Russia build so many Ka-52s? And is that the airframe they decided to make their next-gen attack helo? What happened to the Mi-28? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T___A Posted May 24, 2015 Report Share Posted May 24, 2015 The XB-70 is my favorite plane: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xthetenth Posted May 25, 2015 Report Share Posted May 25, 2015 Sad day, that. Sturgeon 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted May 26, 2015 Report Share Posted May 26, 2015 R-3LD plane (with Lorraine-Dietrich 12Eb engine, 450 h.p.) armed with 76 mm APK-1 recoilless gun ("DRP APK-1"). It was supposed to be fired at bombers at higher altitudes. http://www.airwar.ru/enc/other1/r3.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted May 29, 2015 Report Share Posted May 29, 2015 Cockpit of the mighty blackjack: According to my sources, there is an extremely fine wire mesh in the canopy glass of the TU-160. This prevents radar waves from entering the cockpit and reflecting off of anything in there. It serves the same purpose as the gold-colored finish on F-22 canopies. I *think* you can just barely make out the mesh in this picture. The airframe is also supposed to incorporate radar absorbing material in strategic locations (the air intakes, I would wager) in order to further reduce radar cross section. Sturgeon 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted May 29, 2015 Report Share Posted May 29, 2015 Reducing the radar cross-section to the motish size of a 747! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted May 29, 2015 Report Share Posted May 29, 2015 I've never seen RCS figures for the blackjack, but if I had to guess, yes, those aren't the sort of measures that are going to make the airplane small on radar, they're the sorts of things that make it less enormous. Similar things were proposed for the (X)B-70: Note that, sans RAM application, the XB-70 was ten times as large on radar as a B-52! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted May 30, 2015 Report Share Posted May 30, 2015 Blackjacks undergoing overhaul: LoooSeR and Belesarius 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted June 1, 2015 Report Share Posted June 1, 2015 I WILL MASH ALL YOUR POTATOES. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted June 1, 2015 Report Share Posted June 1, 2015 Front aspect of a Eurofighter Typhoon. Note the PIRATE IRST up front, and the shape of the air intakes. The curvature of the intake ducts hides the compressor blades of the engine, as these are a major contributor to radar cross section. Even more aggressively curved intakes are seen in the F-22 raptor: These "S-duct" intakes are also believed to be coated with radar absorbing material, so that any radio energy entering the intakes will be attenuated before it can ricochet down the intakes and into the compressor blades. S-ducts do come at some cost of additional drag and additional distortion of the airflow entering the engines. For this reason, the F119 engines in the F-22 are believed to be very tolerant of distorted airflow. Curiously, the engine compressors appear to be visible from the front through the intakes of the PAK-FA: Which seems like an odd oversight in an aircraft that is otherwise (planform alignment, horizontal stabs hidden behind main wing, avoidance of right angles) well-designed for low radar cross section. The most likely explanation is that what we are seeing is not an engine compressor at all, but a radar blocking device in front of the engine. The F/A-18E/F has a similar device. However, other explanations are possible. The PAK-FA prototypes have provisional engines, so it seems plausible that the definitive type 30 engine will have such different airflow requirements that the air intakes will have to be completely re-designed in the future anyway. It is also possible that the compressor blades themselves will be made of a carbon-carbon composite, which would reflect radar less effectively than traditional metal compressor blades, which would make hiding them less critical. Sturgeon, Xlucine and LoooSeR 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xlucine Posted June 1, 2015 Report Share Posted June 1, 2015 Does carbon attenuate radar, or will the radar go straight through and find one of the metal blades behind the carbon blades? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 Pretty sure carbon fiber absorbs radar waves fairly well, since a lot of RAM is graphite-impregnated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 LoooSeR 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 Almaz-Antey showed results of their analysis of MH17 plane damage. They managed to point at possible place of launch, based on given material. Material was given by official European/Netherlands investigation team. Pics (a lot of them): http://twower.livejournal.com/1683243.html Missile was 9M38M1 with 9N314M warhead, launched by Buk-M1 from Zareshenskoe. Some pics: Collimatrix and Xlucine 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 Video by Almaz-Antey, with eng subs (although they are not very good). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted June 4, 2015 Report Share Posted June 4, 2015 There seems to be some disagreement about who controlled that area at the time, unsurprisingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted June 4, 2015 Report Share Posted June 4, 2015 This whole time US officials, bellingcat and medias were claiming that missile was from Snezhnoe. Now we have at least something remotely objective to speak about. Almaz-Antei analysis points at very different missile launch site. Nobody showed any evidance of rebel's/Russian Army/Putin's own Buk system in that area. And there are evidence of UAF presents in that area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted June 4, 2015 Report Share Posted June 4, 2015 Ah, gotcha. This analysis puts the SAM coming out of probably-Ukraine-controlled territory instead of probably-rebel-controlled territory. At least all that nonsense about the airliner being splashed with an IR-guided dogfight missile fired from a frogfoot is put to bed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.