Leaders not impressed by new Russian fighter

[gambit]

Nope, Raptor is still a beautiful beast. Cost of maintenance is what is pulling it down. Its a 15yr old design. Lots of takeaway are there for next level of fifth gen from F-22 in a much affordable way. So no need to call it crap.

On the contrary, the US military prefers potential adversaries to call our weapons 'crap' and whatever else derogatory labels they could bring to mind.

 

[satishkumarcsc]

No, you cannot because the B-2, as a flying design was predated by the YB-49. The flying wing design was explored, NOT because of its effect on radar behavior but because of its aerodynamics. The HO 229's supposedly radar evading capability was of secondary importance...

Horten Ho 229 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Horten suspected those behavior and attempted to manipulate them. The flying wing design does have some low radar reflectivity properties but they were largely unexplored by Horten, more likely unknown by him.


Of course we do. Ufimtsev ended up with a professorship in the US. Can you show the readership where the US denied him his credit?


Because we did not have anyone sufficiently smart enough at that time. This is where you revealed your ignorance. Radar detection was developed upon the discovery of how radio communication signals reflected off natural and manmade structures such has hills and buildings. Even ships offshore reflected radio signals.

Radar

Got that? We discovered how radio waves reflected off bodies back iin 1888 and it took a couple decades to produce a radar detection device.


Wrong...The flying wing design had nothing to do with the development of radar low observable designs. That distinction goes to the F-117, which as not a flying wing design. The B-2 simply combined the two, which is the flying wing design and shaping of that flying wing to produce a very low radar observable aircraft.


According to you? Your opinion is crap when the Raptor is deployed and the PRAT-FALL is still trying to walk.

My opinion is Craptor and Prat-Fall cant be compared yet. The YB 49 which is derived from the HO 228. The HO was made because of the common myth that by removing the vertical stabilizers more speed can be added to the aircraft. It was theoretically correct but is not achieved till date. The 2nd prototype of the HO229 crashed I suppose, prompting the Germans to abandon the project. The Ho went back to the design board after knowing about Ufimtsev's equation and started incorporating his radar deflecting equations when the WW II was brought to end.

I never meant America not giving credit I meant "you'.

Yes Radar was invented by Watson-Watt so what are you trying to imply here? He was asked to make a death ray and he stumbled upon something important. And he ended up with a radar.

 

[gambit]

My opinion is Craptor and Prat-Fall cant be compared yet.

My opinion is that they can and the PRAT-FALL is inferior.

The YB 49 which is derived from the HO 228. The HO was made because of the common myth that by removing the vertical stabilizers more speed can be added to the aircraft. It was theoretically correct but is not achieved till date. The 2nd prototype of the HO229 crashed I suppose, prompting the Germans to abandon the project. The Ho went back to the design board after knowing about Ufimtsev's equation and started incorporating his radar deflecting equations when the WW II was brought to end.

This is in no way supportive of the argument that the B-2 was derived from the HO 229 as a 'stealth' aircraft. The HO 229 was never a 'stealth' aircraft in the first place. Horten attempted at creating a radar absorbent material (RAM) but not at shaping.

The First attempt on stealth was HO 228 which the NG has it at home.

Your argument above was wrong if there was an association between the flying wing design and being radar low observable.

Yes Radar was invented by Watson-Watt so what are you trying to imply here? He was asked to make a death ray and he stumbled upon something important. And he ended up with a radar.

That was in response to the ridiculous argument that if the US knew about how radar behave on a surface then the US should have been the one to create the predictive equations...

If you had known about the "behaviour of radar signals on surface" why wasnt America the first to derive the equation?

You falsely associated the two distinctive achievements.

 

[sivadreams]

On the contrary, the US military prefers potential adversaries to call our weapons 'crap' and whatever else derogatory labels they could bring to mind.

A question off topic though...

Is F117 air-2-air Fighter or a Ground Attack aircraft. I always thought its a ground attack. It was never used in A2A role. May be I am wrong. Please do correct me if I am wrong.

 

[sivadreams]

You falsely associated the two distinctive achievements.

Yes, As I already quoted before one is theory and other is application of the theory.

 

[jagjitnatt]

A question off topic though...

Is F117 air-2-air Fighter or a Ground Attack aircraft. I always thought its a ground attack. It was never used in A2A role. May be I am wrong. Please do correct me if I am wrong.

Its a ground attack aircraft. No air 2 air support. And to reduce its rcs, it doesn't even have a radar. Hell, not even a radar warning indicator. No way to detect an incoming missile.

 

[sivadreams]

Its a ground attack aircraft. No air 2 air support. And to reduce its rcs, it doesn't even have a radar. Hell, not even a radar warning indicator. No way to detect an incoming missile.

Hmmmm then why is it designated in F series instead of A series.

Radar and missile locks: I can understand as its 70's era plane and for this obvious reason its no more in service. A Raptor can play this role now.

 

[jagjitnatt]

Hmmmm then why is it designated in F series instead of A series.

May be because it was Lockheed who developed F117. They usually name their aircraft F.

 

[lockh33d]

Let me get this straight, just because Northrop used the flying wing configuration made the B2 a mere copy? In that case, the MKI is a copy of the F-14 and the Tejas a copy of the J-10. No, your logic is flawed. When the basic shape is adopted for the basis of development, it cannot be called a copy because that's what every nation does today. What copying is, is when development/update towards a shape is imitated, in the case, slant angles and such in 5G fighters. That's what the AF commander meant.

 

[jagjitnatt]

Let me get this straight, just because Northrop used the flying wing configuration made the B2 a mere copy? In that case, the MKI is a copy of the F-14 and the Tejas a copy of the J-10. No, your logic is flawed. When the basic shape is adopted for the basis of development, it cannot be called a copy because that's what every nation does today. What copying is, is when development/update towards a shape is imitated, in the case, slant angles and such in 5G fighters. That's what the AF commander meant.

B2 can't be called a copy, but it was inspired heavily from the german aircraft. The plane shape was unique and never used before.

Regarding 5gen fighters, I don't think they are copying because its not just about the shapes. A lot goes underneath those curves that we think are solely responsible for stealth.

There have been several stealth demonstrations and all were unique, they were visually so different from each other. So shape is not the biggest contributor to stealth.

 

[sivadreams]

May be because it was Lockheed who developed F117. They usually name their aircraft F.

Nope! there is a role based designation assigned.

F-15 - A2A & F/A-18 a multi-role plane from Boeing whereas F-16 is A2A from Lockheed. B series is a Bomber and U series an Unmanned vehicle. A series is a strike aircraft or an ground attack aircraft. C - Transport, E - Awacs.

 

[jagjitnatt]

Nope! there is a role based designation assigned.

F-15 - A2A & F/A-18 a multi-role plane from Boeing whereas F-16 is A2A from Lockheed. B series is a Bomber and U series an Unmanned vehicle. A series is a strike aircraft or an ground attack aircraft. C - Transport, E - Awacs.

Yeah. I know but as you said its weird its named so. So I just put up a wild guess.
The only time I saw F117 launching missiles is in HAWX

 

[sivadreams]

Let me get this straight, just because Northrop used the flying wing configuration made the B2 a mere copy? In that case, the MKI is a copy of the F-14 and the Tejas a copy of the J-10. No, your logic is flawed. When the basic shape is adopted for the basis of development, it cannot be called a copy because that's what every nation does today. What copying is, is when development/update towards a shape is imitated, in the case, slant angles and such in 5G fighters. That's what the AF commander meant.

Yes, you get this straight ...

F-14 is more a naval aircraft and of the 70's era. Don't even be a match to Su-27. Yes, Su-27 can be compared to F-15's

J-10 and Tejas can be comparable but not the same... please get your facts right before you flame dude.

 

[ouiouiouiouiouioui]

anyway it wud be certainly flying over asia.........who can stop that....the americans are attentive to this development

 

[lockh33d]

Yes, you get this straight ...

F-14 is more a naval aircraft and of the 70's era. Don't even be a match to Su-27. Yes, Su-27 can be compared to F-15's

J-10 and Tejas can be comparable but not the same... please get your facts right before you flame dude.

No, get your reading and your mindset straight before you respond. If you consider taking the "flying wing" design all copies of that Nazi contraption, then surely by Indian logic all fixed wing designs are mere copies of one another. Hence by that standard, F-14=Su27 and Mig-21=F-86, am I not right?