104 replies to this topic

[Sweetpumper]

Sorry, "flying saucers".

[and then]

Lord Vetinari, on 04 February 2013 - 09:23 PM, said:

I once read that they didn't keep the B-2 out in the rain for much the same reason, although I don't know how true that might be.

I vaguely recall that we lost a 117 Stealth fighter in the Bosnia intervention and it was traced to rain/bad weather reducing the stealth effect.  AFAIK it's the only one ever shot down.

[Yamato]

Goblin-5, on 04 February 2013 - 09:09 PM, said:

Doesnt look stealthy to me. I concur with the comment that it is a mimic of the F22.

[Yamato]

and then, on 04 February 2013 - 09:14 PM, said:

I recently read that the F-22 has to be recoated with a material every so many hours of flight time for it to remain stealthy.  I don't recall the details but it sounded like some high tech form of paint that helped with "dampening" return.  In a real combat situation this could cause issues with effectiveness and availability that could be unacceptable.

No, an F-22 is already stealthy by aggregate of design.  Decreasing its radar cross section even more is a matter of policy not necessity for the technology to work.   There is no one secret that produces "stealth", it's a multitude of design considerations that work together synergistically yet simultaneously unconducive to performance, analogous to armor plating on a tank.   And contrary to a previous claim, it is invisible to radar such that a radar is going to hit on so many signals it results in vectoring pilots to intercept birds and insects.   When you're lost in the noise of the environment, you're invisible.  

This Iranian jet is obviously just a prototype.  The most noteworthy thing I see about its design is the severe anhedral on the main wings, making this design extremely unstable.  They were obviously trying to go for maximum maneuverability...it appears extremely likely to me that this is just a platform to test new technologies they'll incorporate into a future design intent to produce for service.

[and then]

Yamato, on 04 February 2013 - 10:43 PM, said:

No, an F-22 is already stealthy by aggregate of design.  Decreasing its radar cross section even more is a matter of policy not necessity for the technology to work.   There is no one secret that produces "stealth", it's a multitude of design considerations that work together synergistically yet simultaneously unconducive to performance, analogous to armor plating on a tank.   And contrary to a previous claim, it is invisible to radar such that a radar is going to hit on so many signals it results in vectoring pilots to intercept birds and insects.   When you're lost in the noise of the environment, you're invisible.  

This Iranian jet is obviously just a prototype.  The most noteworthy thing I see about its design is the severe anhedral on the main wings, making this design extremely unstable.  They were obviously trying to go for maximum maneuverability...it appears extremely likely to me that this is just a platform to test new technologies they'll incorporate into a future design intent to produce for service.

I couldn't remember where I saw the article but here is a piece on how the coating for the F-35 is being used on the F-22 to reduce maintenance costs and time out of service.

http://www.paintsqua...on=view&id=5424

[Mr Right Wing]

Lord Vetinari, on 02 February 2013 - 06:30 PM, said:

You may as well just give up, Obama. last week it was a Submarine, now it's the Dominant 313.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-21307208

I wonder if it uses Keshe antigravity technology?

The Americans dont have a stealth fighter capable of carrier operations.

Something tells me Iran just won the race to build their N-bomb

[Yamato]

Mr Right Wing, on 05 February 2013 - 12:06 AM, said:

The Americans dont have a stealth fighter capable of carrier operations.

Something tells me Iran just won the race to build their N-bomb

So if we can't safely bomb Iran from carrier jets, they'll finish their nuke?    If the most offensive weapons in our military lose their edge, maybe our policies and Presidents who think they're Kings will too.  

We seemed to lose our three major technological advantages during the Clinton administration....we gave our space cards away to the Russians, our nuclear cards away to China, our stealth cards away to Europe.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Mr Right Wing, on 05 February 2013 - 12:06 AM, said:

The Americans dont have a stealth fighter capable of carrier operations.

Something tells me Iran just won the race to build their N-bomb

I really don't think that (even if they were to lose use of all the land bases within reach) would deter them too much, since they could use b-2s, if Stealth really was essential; although I don't think the Iranian air defenses'd be so formidable as to make that the only way they could penetrate Iranian airspace in any case.

[and then]

Lord Vetinari, on 05 February 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

I really don't think that (even if they were to lose use of all the land bases within reach) would deter them too much, since they could use b-2s, if Stealth really was essential; although I don't think the Iranian air defenses'd be so formidable as to make that the only way they could penetrate Iranian airspace in any case.

Typically such an onslaught has begun by saturation of AAA site by cruise missiles.  Between that and electronic/computer interference the enemy is usually blind from the outset.  
I have no problem with Iran building all the toys they like, short of one that can be used to strangle the world's economy if they choose to.

[Eldorado]

Can it still be termed as stealthy now that everyone has seen it?

[AsteroidX]

American air power is so much more then anything Iran has on the table. I remember the dismantling of a few infrastructures without losing much more then a plane here and there during our "war on terror". Look back at what happened to Serbia/Bagdhad due to American air power for a good example of being blinded by our systems. Its definitely one of our specialties.

Missing and hitting civilians not so good however.

[AsteroidX]

Quote

Can it still be termed as stealthy now that everyone has seen it?

Western media is starting to say its not even real just like the Monkey launch. So who knows whats really going on. Things that make you go hmmmm.

[and then]

AsteroidX, on 05 February 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

American air power is so much more then anything Iran has on the table. I remember the dismantling of a few infrastructures without losing much more then a plane here and there during our "war on terror". Look back at what happened to Serbia/Bagdhad due to American air power for a good example of being blinded by our systems. Its definitely one of our specialties.

Missing and hitting civilians not so good however.

Not perfect surely.  But compared to 30 years ago it's a totally different order of accuracy.  The damage that used to require fleets of aircraft to accomplish on a target can now be done with a few sorties of tens of aircraft versus hundreds.  In the last Gaza dustup they had tailored specific bomb sizes to take out targets that were within meters of civilians that killed only those targeted and not the civilians.  So that aspect is getting better all the time.  But if one goes to war, innocents will die.

[The New Richard Nixon]

It looks cheap lol

[skookum]

I am no expert in military aircraft, however I have flown and built Radio Control aircraft and helicopters for the last ten years at club level.  The pictures are not great but looking at it I would say it is a small aircraft, ie about 20 inches long but maybe up to 50 flying close to the ground and fairly slow rather than a large aircraft flying higher and faster.  Note there is also no heat haze behind the engine and no sign of combustion.  

I am 99% sure it is R/C using an EDF (electric ducted fan).  I think the model has gone through various stages of development as it was filmed and tested before using a propeller. This is something easy to do for models due to the high power to weight ratio regardless of propulsion method but I cannot see the point in doing this on a full sized plane.  Why would you do it?  A propeller would ruin it's stealth capabilities so it would be useless for testing that and the flight characteristics would change majorly if you are using a prop and engine so it would be useless for testing flight performance.

This video will show you how an EDF performs.

http://www.dailymoti...ch#.URDciqWZalg


Looking at the full size aircraft I have also noticed another problem.  To maintain Stealth weapons need to be kept in internal bays.  The size of this thing would either suggest it wouldn't be stealthy once loaded or has a pathetic payload.

Edited by skookum, 05 February 2013 - 10:57 AM.