Russian Plasma-Stealth Technology?

[Lianachan]

This page describes alleged Russian stealth technology based on the use of plasmas.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/plasmamain.htm

While it all seems to make sense in general principle, I was wondering if anybody could comment on the likelihood of this technology actually existing (or even working) in the real world.

[Nicolas]

I'm very sure those 2 protrusions on the nose (and the smaller ones on the fwd fuselage) are nothing more than pitot tubes. I wouldn't belive too much of the "plasma stealth" thing.

[Amadeus]

Then again I would be very surprised if Russia is not working on stealth flight. They have seen what a benifit it is to the American Air Force.

I can also see them doing it in a different way to the American stealth tech. They could asume that because they developed the technology they
would have detection systems in place for it.

[Nicolas]

It's not because they're not working on plasma stealth that they aren't working on stealth. Nor is it because this plane has a pitot tube on it's front that it doesn't have plasma stealth. But if that lowest large tube is NOT a pitot tube, they really have camouflaged it like that! :)

Looking at the colour (:)) the Berkut seems to incorporate the absorbing paint. Maybe they work on other active stealth, like new generation radar jammers and things like that.

[Lianachan]

I can also see them doing it in a different way to the American stealth tech. They could asume that because they developed the technology they
would have detection systems in place for it.

Based on other aspects of Russian aviation and attitude to technology, it would also be a lot cheaper, a lot easier to maintain, a lot more resistant to extremes of weather and possibly better.

[Nicolas]

I can also see them doing it in a different way to the American stealth tech. They could asume that because they developed the technology they
would have detection systems in place for it.

Based on other aspects of Russian aviation and attitude to technology, it would also be a lot cheaper, a lot easier to maintain, a lot more resistant to extremes of weather and possibly better.

..and without any funding to go beyond one nicely working protoype :D

[captain swoop]

Since when have they built anything better?

[Lianachan]

Since when have they built anything better?

I notice you don't question "a lot cheaper, a lot easier to maintain, a lot more resistant to extremes of weather" - which you could say is enough to qualify as "better". There's the old story of the US spending an absolute fortune developing pens that can write in zero gravity for their space programme while the Soviets just used pencils from the start; and the western discovery that the radar on the Mig-25 was based on old valve technology, laughed off as old rubbish until it was realised that as well as being considerably cheaper, it's also considerably harder to jam. That's the kind of frugal design and attitude I mean.

:D

[JimTKirk]

...There's the old story of the US spending an absolute fortune developing pens that can write in zero gravity for their space programme while the Soviets just used pencils from the start...

http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp :wink:

[R.A.F.]

Since when have they built anything better?

I notice you don't question "a lot cheaper, a lot easier to maintain, a lot more resistant to extremes of weather" - which you could say is enough to qualify as "better".

When I think of "better", I also think of it being safe. In that way, the Russians have always been "behind" the U.S.

[Nicolas]

Watch out with the word "always".

The Soyuz is a very safe craft. Plus it has an escape tower.

[Rich]

Given that I have been reading about Russian "plasma-stealth" technology for more than a decade I would have to say the likelihood is very near to zero.

Various Russian "scientists" have been popping up in Jane's Defense and other magazine for quite some time to talk about this technology. Then a bunch of other folks explain why it can't work as described or simply doesn't exist and the story disappears for about 18-24 months. Then after the general level of knowledge on this non-existant technology falls below a simple point one of these guys pops back up with claims about plasma-stealth no different than we heard many years ago. I think the last time a reputable defense journal had an article about this stuff was around '98-'99 since then no one has touched it, because it has been so thoroughly debunked. Perhaps why the folks trying to sell the idea have turned to the internet.

From what I understand, and it has been a while since I read about this in detail, the whole thing is a horrible concept in any case. The plasma-stealth might, theoretically, absorb or deflect radar but would be very visible in the IR... such an aircraft would be imminently vunerable to IR tracking weapons (which are very plentiful in the SA defense market), making it one of the biggest boondoggles ever.

Now, it's possible that such a technology could have come quite a long way in 6 or 7 years, but given the nature of the claims and where they are coming up, I seriously doubt it. Think about it, why would Russian defense developers be advertising and bragging on the internet? This is the sort of thing you generally stay hush about until, at the very least, you have a working demonstration craft. You would think that such an edge in technology would be something to quietly take advantage of for a while... who wouldn't want cheap stealth tech? The whole thing stinks of bad science and cheap stunks like any number of free-energy machine schemes.

[Nicolas]

Also, why would they allow pictures of their new stealth craft clearly showing the stealth technology?

Final thought:
if this prototype really had 2 plasma booms (that look extremely much like the pitot tubes I'm familiar with), it wouldn't have pitot tubes on the front, which is rather strange for a test craft, which usually is almost "a forest of small and large pitot tubes".

[R.A.F.]

Watch out with the word "always".

The Soyuz is a very safe craft. Plus it has an escape tower.

Agreed...I should have said "mostly". :)

[Nicolas]

Also, in aircrafts, the Russian ejection seats (you know those things with cow leather and wooden boards where people used to laugh about) performed better (safer, less hard on the pilot) than western ones.

The Russian Ka-50 helicopter was the first helicopter to incorporate ejection seats, and is better armored than the American Apache helicopter.

[Lianachan]

Given that I have been reading about Russian "plasma-stealth" technology for more than a decade I would have to say the likelihood is very near to zero.

Various Russian "scientists" have been popping up in Jane's Defense and other magazine for quite some time to talk about this technology. Then a bunch of other folks explain why it can't work as described or simply doesn't exist and the story disappears for about 18-24 months. Then after the general level of knowledge on this non-existant technology falls below a simple point one of these guys pops back up with claims about plasma-stealth no different than we heard many years ago. I think the last time a reputable defense journal had an article about this stuff was around '98-'99 since then no one has touched it, because it has been so thoroughly debunked. Perhaps why the folks trying to sell the idea have turned to the internet.

From what I understand, and it has been a while since I read about this in detail, the whole thing is a horrible concept in any case. The plasma-stealth might, theoretically, absorb or deflect radar but would be very visible in the IR... such an aircraft would be imminently vunerable to IR tracking weapons (which are very plentiful in the SA defense market), making it one of the biggest boondoggles ever.

Now, it's possible that such a technology could have come quite a long way in 6 or 7 years, but given the nature of the claims and where they are coming up, I seriously doubt it. Think about it, why would Russian defense developers be advertising and bragging on the internet? This is the sort of thing you generally stay hush about until, at the very least, you have a working demonstration craft. You would think that such an edge in technology would be something to quietly take advantage of for a while... who wouldn't want cheap stealth tech? The whole thing stinks of bad science and cheap stunks like any number of free-energy machine schemes.

Cheers. I've been reading about it for a few years myself, although there's absolutely no new information I can find anywhere. I remember reading about how the first generation of this technology was about to be offered for export, but surely if it was so cheap and so effective then people would have bought it and we'd all know all about it by now.......

[John Kierein]

I started this thread:
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=20826&

[captain swoop]

Since when have they built anything better?

I notice you don't question "a lot cheaper, a lot easier to maintain, a lot more resistant to extremes of weather" - which you could say is enough to qualify as "better". There's the old story of the US spending an absolute fortune developing pens that can write in zero gravity for their space programme while the Soviets just used pencils from the start; and the western discovery that the radar on the Mig-25 was based on old valve technology, laughed off as old rubbish until it was realised that as well as being considerably cheaper, it's also considerably harder to jam. That's the kind of frugal design and attitude I mean.

:D

Pens weren't developed by NASA a company saw an oppertunity and offered them to NASA. Old Valve technology is also less reliable and harder to maintain, if you haven't had your Marshall head dropped you wouldn't know :-? . Why would it be harder to jam? surely that's to do with frequency. I can't see that the Germans were eager to use any of the Soviet tosh they got from the East after unification.

I am also sure that the US navy would rather stick with their Hornets than anything the Soviets ever built. On a different front look at their armour, all very much useless in action. Their philosophy has been pile high and build cheap. It doesn't work when you come up against someone who can knock them out before they get to fire anything at you.

[Nicolas]

Since when have they built anything better?

I notice you don't question "a lot cheaper, a lot easier to maintain, a lot more resistant to extremes of weather" - which you could say is enough to qualify as "better". There's the old story of the US spending an absolute fortune developing pens that can write in zero gravity for their space programme while the Soviets just used pencils from the start; and the western discovery that the radar on the Mig-25 was based on old valve technology, laughed off as old rubbish until it was realised that as well as being considerably cheaper, it's also considerably harder to jam. That's the kind of frugal design and attitude I mean.

:D


Pens weren't developed by NASA a company saw an oppertunity and offered them to NASA. Old Valve technology is also less reliable and harder to maintain, if you haven't had your Marshall head dropped you wouldn't know :-? . Why would it be harder to jam? surely that's to do with frequency. I can't see that the Germans were eager to use any of the Soviet tosh they got from the East after unification.

I am also sure that the US navy would rather stick with their Hornets than anything the Soviets ever built. On a different front look at their armour, all very much useless in action. Their philosophy has been pile high and build cheap. It doesn't work when you come up against someone who can knock them out before they get to fire anything at you.

Russian fighter planes really are not that behind on American ones. There is continuous development in the MiG and Sukhoi planes, with very potent new models.
I don't think a Berkut in general would be shot down before it could fire anything at the enemy. And they've got some very serious fighter helicopters.

http://tomcat85.free.fr/plan-berkut.jpg
Berkut
http://homepage.eircom.net/~steven/images/su34_7.jpg
Su-34: long missions fighter: cockpit allows the 2 crew to stand up, and has a kitchen.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/helicopter-m/ka50/ka52_04.jpg
Kamov Hokum.

Russian war technology doesn't stand still.

[captain swoop]

Also, in aircrafts, the Russian ejection seats (you know those things with cow leather and wooden boards where people used to laugh about) performed better (safer, less hard on the pilot) than western ones.


Source?


The Russian Ka-50 helicopter was the first helicopter to incorporate ejection seats, and is better armored than the American Apache helicopter.

I would bet that the Apache is the more capable machine though.

[Nicolas]

Also, in aircrafts, the Russian ejection seats (you know those things with cow leather and wooden boards where people used to laugh about) performed better (safer, less hard on the pilot) than western ones.


Source?


Source (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/eject.htm)

I do think they once mix up a SU-27 variant with a MiG-29 however, but that does not matter for the point of the seats.




The Russian Ka-50 helicopter was the first helicopter to incorporate ejection seats, and is better armored than the American Apache helicopter.

I would bet that the Apache is the more capable machine though.

Source? :)

[Lianachan]

Pens weren't developed by NASA...
edited for brevity

I was more hoping there'd be a discussion on the feasibility of plasma stealth technology, and the chances of it already existing in some form than I was looking for a tired old eastern v western aviation technology debate.

[Nicolas]

Well the opinion here is that the plane just is a test plane incorporating pitot tubes, and that plasma stealth is very unlikely (and stories about it have been proven very unreliable). Unless someone has got something to add to that, that subject won't grow. There seem to be comments on russian technology (wrt the why and how of developing stealth technology) so that still is discussed. It isn't really on the original topic, but again unless someone has something to add on the original topic, it won't be discussed of course.

Have you got new things about plasma stealth you want to discuss, or things already brought up here that you feel are incomplete?.

With directed questions or comments on the subject, we can continue to discuss plasma stealth and it's use on this plane.

[Fortis]

With directed questions or comments on the subject, we can continue to discuss plasma stealth and it's use on this plane.
If such a creature existed, I'd love to see it flying at night. :)

[John Kierein]

Probably can't see it flying at night. Too stealthy.

[lyndonashmore]

It's not because they're not working on plasma stealth that they aren't working on stealth. Nor is it because this plane has a pitot tube on it's front that it doesn't have plasma stealth. But if that lowest large tube is NOT a pitot tube, they really have camouflaged it like that! :)

Looking at the colour (:)) the Berkut seems to incorporate the absorbing paint. Maybe they work on other active stealth, like new generation radar jammers and things like that.
maybe they are just not planning to invade peace loving nations?
Lyndon

[publiusr]

There has been some talk about using forward rocket thrust to reduce drag at hypersonic speeds. Their rocket torpedo--the Skvall, had a big thruster in back--and a smaller one up front.

Makes me wonder if that--and not the high-test peroxide torps--blew up the Kursk.

[Fortis]

Probably can't see it flying at night. Too stealthy.
I don't know. I would have thought that an aircraft flying with an envelope of plasma would have a nice healthy glow. ;) :)

[publiusr]

It's not for stealth--but it would be close to plasma--at least. I thought the former-Soviets had cracked stealth anyway. Pump enough RF out there--and you will light anything up.

[Nicolas]

It's not because they're not working on plasma stealth that they aren't working on stealth. Nor is it because this plane has a pitot tube on it's front that it doesn't have plasma stealth. But if that lowest large tube is NOT a pitot tube, they really have camouflaged it like that! :)

Looking at the colour (:)) the Berkut seems to incorporate the absorbing paint. Maybe they work on other active stealth, like new generation radar jammers and things like that.
maybe they are just not planning to invade peace loving nations?
Lyndon

I don't follow the reasoning. Do you mean they're not investing in military material because they don't plan a war? You can invest in military material without planning war. ANd tings like the Berkut and the new Sukhois clearly show they are investing in military developments.


It's not for stealth--but it would be close to plasma--at least. I thought the former-Soviets had cracked stealth anyway. Pump enough RF out there--and you will light anything up.

What were you referring to with "It's"?