Jump to content

Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII

David Hingtgen
 Share

Recommended Posts

Nekko Basara Global's Pipe Holder

Nekko Basara

Posted
Posted (edited)

Re: stealth. Technically, it refers to ALL forms of detection. Infra-red being the big one after radar. No point in having a radar-proof plane if a heat-seeker can lock on from 10 miles away. AFAIK, infra-red was another place where the -23 was notably better than the -22. (no thrust-vectoring means it could have those ceramic(?) brick-lined exhaust troughs) Plus, just plain being sleeker means less heat/friction from skin-drag.

You're absolutely right, and I apologize for implying that stealth only referred to radar technologies; that was just the type discussed in the article.

The part that concerned me was this:

"If a stealth aircraft attempts to intercept these photons and resend them in a way that disguises its position, it would inevitably change the photons' quantum properties - revealing any interference."

Intercepting and re-sending radar signals isn't generally considered part of "stealth." It's an advanced type of jamming or spoofing that has been carried out since at least the Vietnam war, where a receiver/emitter countermeasures system detects incoming signals from an air-defense system and then responds with modified emissions that mimic those of the ADS, tricking the defender into thinking it is receiving the normal reflected signal. Sort of like in a comedy, when someone in a cave yells "echo" and someone else fools them by yelling back. The system in the article would essentially let the first person say, "Hey, that's not really my voice."

Point here being that "stealth" aircraft don't typically use active countermeasure systems like that; they rely on returning as little signal as possible, not emitting a false one. The technology in the article sounds more like a great counter to the defenses used by jammer pods, ECM aircraft, and basically every attacker that specifically isn't a stealth aircraft.

Edited by Nekko Basara
Link to comment
Share on other sites
F-ZeroOne Alaska Base Survivor

F-ZeroOne

Posted
Posted (edited)

Worth bearing in mind that the article appeared on "The Mail Online" (the web version of the UKs "Daily Mail" newspaper), which has something of a... reputation. Lets just say that the kindest way critics usually refer to the "Mail" is as "The Daily Fail".

Edited by F-ZeroOne
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shadow Global's Pipe Holder

Shadow

Posted
Posted

Another interesting point with the YF-23 was its weight which was around 11,000 pounds less than the YF-22. I remember hearing how fast the 23 could accelerate and no doubt the weight and overall design features helped. To fanboy alittle, I would love to see a YF-23 fitted with production F119s have a climb rate test against an F-22, see who wins. :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Knight26 Galactic Diva

Knight26

Posted
Posted

I used to work with one of the engineers who flight testes the YF-23. He said when it was fitted with the "Correct" engines it took off like something out star wars, nothing, not even the YF-22 could keep up. He should me a video from the F-15 in chase and the YF-23 was a full mil outaccelerating an F-15D at max burn. The F-15 eventually said, to hell with it and started doing rolls around the YF-23s contrails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dobber Galactic Diva

Dobber

Posted
Posted (edited)

The YF-23 sounds like it was, by all accounts, an outstanding aircraft. Fast forward to today, the U.S. continues to waste millions of dollars into that turd F-35.

Chris

Edited by Dobber
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shadow Global's Pipe Holder

Shadow

Posted
Posted

PLAAF pilots have been watching way too much Top Gun. <_<

US accuses China fighter of reckless mid-air intercept

A Chinese fighter came perilously close to a US military patrol plane over international waters east of China's Hainan Island, the Pentagon has said.

Spokesman John Kirby said that the US had protested to the Chinese military over the mid-air intercept, calling the fighter pilot's actions "unsafe and unprofessional".

He said that the Chinese aircraft came within 10 metres of the US Navy plane.

Correspondents say that it is the fourth such incident since March.

So far there has been no comment about the reported near-miss from China.

Rear Admiral Kirby said that the incident happened on Tuesday when an armed Chinese Su-27 fighter intercepted a US Navy P-8 Poseidon patrol aircraft that was on a routine mission.

"We have registered our strong concerns to the Chinese about the unsafe and unprofessional intercept, which posed a risk to the safety and the well-being of the air crew, and was inconsistent with customary international law," he said.

He said that the Chinese manoeuvre detracted from efforts to improve American relations with China's military.

The warplane flew close to the surveillance aircraft three times, he said, flying above, underneath and alongside it. At one point it performed "a barrel roll" in an apparent display of its weapons.

Rear Adm Kirby said that the Chinese manoeuvre was "very, very close, very dangerous".

Near-misses between aircraft and naval vessels of the US and China are commonplace off the coast of China.

In December China said one of its warships "encountered" a US guided missile cruiser, confirming US reports of a near-collision in the South China Sea.

Shortly before this incident China set up an Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) in the East China Sea, and said that aircraft flying through the zone must follow its rules, including filing flight plans.

The US, Japan and South Korea have rejected China's zone, and flown undeclared military aircraft through it. The US has called the move a unilateral attempt to change the status quo in the region.

The most serious incident in recent years however took place in 2001, when a Chinese fighter jet collided with a US Navy EP-3 spy plane, killing the Chinese pilot.

_77126569_77126568.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
F-ZeroOne Alaska Base Survivor

F-ZeroOne

Posted
Posted (edited)

How I explained it to a friend, who also made a "Top Gun" comparison (with tongue very firmly in cheek! :) ):

"Its more that the trouble is that the Chinese haven't been doing this very long, so they don't know the rules. In the good old days of the Cold War, handlebar-moustachioed plucky RAF lads would form up on potato-munching vodka-sniffing Comradely Tu-95s at sufficient distance to let each other know they knew each other were there. The Russians would then take photos of the latest state-of-the-art RAF equipment (which in those days, meant English Electric Lightnings dating from 1953) and the Byrlcreem Boys would in return take photos of the latest state-of-the-art Soviet equipment (which in those days, was a Tu-95 that still had Igor Sikorskys personal, handwritten signature on the builders plate). The RAF pilots would then show the Russian crewmen any interesting pr0nography they happened to have lying around the cockpit, and the Russians would return the favour by not displaying any Russian pr0nography they happened to have lying around the cockpit. Both sides would then break off and return to base, happy in the knowledge that the forthcoming nuclear holocaust would be fought by friends.

Actually colliding with the other guys aircraft, as the Chinese have been known to do, was considered very bad form.".

Edited by F-ZeroOne
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...