Strongest Army in the world?

Deepak said:
Back to the UCAVs thing....if UCAVs are so useful/if the tech is available/if they can defeat F22/Su30s/if they are cheap....then why manned fighter projects are still being persued all over the world???

US-F22/F35(JSF)
Europe-Eurofighter/Typhoon
France-Rafale
UK-???
Russia-S37-Berkut/Mig PAK-FA
China-J-12??
India-LCA/MCA
others-???

It's called politics, there (read: finally) is a US administration with their collective heads out of their asses and as a result, we're seeing this push to UCAV instead of the pork-belly legacy projects left over from the '80s.

Also, outside of the US Industrial-military complex, there is no entity that can produce a fieldable UCAV at this time.

Can you give me any links for these UCAVs???

Go to a Book Store and buy Smart Weapons or the book I listed above about the Firebee's in Vietnam. And prepare to be amazed.

Infact, there are several UCAV technology demonstrator programs concurrently running in the "White-world" of unclassified research:

For example, the X-36 and it's tailless, thrust vectored body:

x-36-1223642.jpg


Or the current X-45. Also, there are several DARPA spearheaded studied in UCAVs that date back to the early '90s. Aswell as the persistent rumor that a UCAV is what persuaded the US to forgo the A-12 after several Billions invested.
 
vince....let me ask you something....OK! all this UCAV stuff sounds very good...and it can bash F22/Su30 easily....but...but....

there are several phases in developing a new aircraft/////

design-->miniature prototype-->actual prototype-->test runs-->weapon integration/////etc....and the entire cycle normally takes 20-30 yrs....

I ask you....

where are the development flightsof these UCAVs?? I never heard of any///

where is the actual prototype???

The truth is these concepts are still at a nascent stage....they are still on drawing board....and to develop anything is going to take a long time...20-30 yrs...
 
Deepak said:
how can be minimise poverty if not eradicate it???

It will be extremely difficult due to India's huge population. Same problem China faces.

Deepak said:
back to the UCAVs thing....if UCAVs are so useful/if the tech is available/if they can defeat F22/Su30s/if they are cheap....then why manned fighter projects are still being persued all over the world???

I can't vouch for the rest of the world, but my first guess would be that this is simply an example of American aerospace innovation. Hate to sound cocky, but we invented the only Mach 3+ aircraft (SR-71), we perfected stealth, developed integrated battlespace management, and now we're leading on UCAV development. Is that so surprising?
 
Deepak said:
where are the development flightsof these UCAVs?? I never heard of any///

where is the actual prototype???

The truth is these concepts are still at a nascent stage....they are still on drawing board

I wish you would just read the links I so painstakingly posted. You would have all the answers to your questions:

Initial Development flights: April, May 2002, continuing
Actual Prototype: At Edwards Air Force Base, California
Weaponization: Completed in 2005
Enter service: 2008 (ground attack variant)
 
fbg1 said:
I can't vouch for the rest of the world, but my first guess would be that this is simply an example of American aerospace innovation. Hate to sound cocky, but we invented the only Mach 3+ aircraft (SR-71), we perfected stealth, developed integrated battlespace management, and now we're leading on UCAV development. Is that so surprising?

But Russians are not too far....they were at par during USSR//// the only thing holding them back is money....!

In next 50 years India/China will catch up with US...
 
Deepak said:
But Russians are not too far....they were at par during USSR//// the only thing holding them back is money....!

Yep, Russia had some siginificant innovations too, but they're circling the drain now.

In next 50 years India/China will catch up with US...

Very possible. My personal hope is that by then China's communist government will have been replaced by a more modern, less repressive, dare I say it, democratic government, and India and the US will have closer relations.
 
Stealth is not always good...you have to make so many compromises...

Link

"LIMITATIONS"

There is no one optimum stealth design, but rather each mission requirement generates an appropriate mix of techniques. Implementation of stealth is not without penalties. Some of the materials used require special and costly maintenance. The maneuverability of an aircraft can be compromised by the introduction of stealth design features. As was the case with the F-117A, each B-2 bomber will have its own covered maintenance facility, since the B-2's low observable features require frequent performance of structural and maintenance activities.(3)

Stealth requires not only design compromises, it also imposes operational compromises. Sensors to locate targets pose a particular problem for stealth aircraft. The large radars used by conventional aircraft would obviously compromise the position of a stealth aircraft. Air-to-air combat would rely on passive detection of transmissions by hostile aircraft, as well as infrared tracking. However, these techniques are of marginal effectiveness against other stealth aircraft, explaining the limited application of stealth to the Advanced Tactical Fighter.

Aircraft for attacking targets on the ground face a similar problem. FLIR can be used for precise aiming at targets whose general location is known, but they are poorly suited for searching for targets over a wide area. A radar on the aircraft to scan for potential targets would compromise its position. In order to locate targets, stealth aircraft may rely on an airborne laser radar, although such a sensor may prove of limited utility in poor weather. A more promising approach would be to use data from reconnaissance satellites, either transmitted directly from the satellite or relayed through communications satellites from processing centers in the United States.

There are limits to the utility of stealth techniques. Since the radar cross-section of an aircraft depends on the angle from which it is viewed, an aircraft will typically have a much smaller RCS when viewed from the front or rear than when viewed from the side or from above. In general stealth aircraft are designed to minimize their frontal RCS. But it is not possible to contour the surface of an aircraft to reduce the RCS equally in all directions, and reductions in the frontal RCS may lead to a larger RCS from above. Thus while a stealth aircraft may be difficult to track when it is flying toward a ground-based radar or another aircraft at the same altitude, a high-altitude airborne radar or a space-based radar may have an easier time tracking it.

Another limitation of stealth aircraft is their vulnerability to detection by bi-static radars. The contouring of a stealth aircraft is designed to avoid reflecting a radar signal directly back in the direction of the radar transmitter. But the transmitter and receiver of a bi-static radar are in separate locations -- indeed, a single transmitter may be used by radar receivers scattered over a wide area. This greatly increases the odds that at least one of these receivers will pickup a reflected signal. The prospects for detection of stealth aircraft by bi-static radar are further improved if the radar transmitter is space-based, and thus viewing the aircraft from above, the direction of its largest radar cross section.

Several analysts claim stealth aircraft such as the ATF will be vulnerable to detection by infrared search and track systems (IRST). The natural heating of an aircraft's surface makes it visible to this type of system. The faster and aircraft flies, the warmer it gets, and thus, the easier to detect through infrared means. One expert asserts "if an aircraft deviates from its surroundings by only one degree centigrade, you will be able to detect it at militarily useful ranges."(4) In fact, both the Russian MiG-29 and Su-27 carry IRST devices, which indicates that the Russians have long targeted this as a potential stealth weakness.(5)

Stealth aircraft are even more vulnerable to multiple sensors used in tandem. By using an IRST to track the target and a Ladar (laser radar), or a narrow beam, high-power radar to paint the target superior data is provided.(6)

The most basic potential limitation of stealth, is its vulnerability to visual detection. Since the ATF is 25-30 percent larger than the F-15 and 40 percent larger than the F-18, for example, it will be much easier to detect visually from ranges on the order of 10 miles.(7) When one considers that stealth characteristics will drastically reduce the effectiveness of several types of guided air-to-air missiles, fighter engagements will probably move back to the visual range arena. In this context, the cumbersome F-22 would be at a distinct disadvantage.(8)

Another potential "limitation" of stealth technology has little to do with its capabilities. Rather, some question the effect the pursuit of such hi tech aircraft will have on the US aerospace industry as a whole. These aircraft would not be available for foreign export until well into the next century. During that time, competitors such as the Gripen, Rafale and EFA will be peddled aggressively by European exporters. One analyst estimated that US foreign sales saved the Pentagon "about $2.8 billion through surcharges to recover part of their development costs and perhaps another $4 billion through the learning curve effect of higher production runs."(9) Thus, America's stealth success could actually backfire, on its larger aerospace industry by causing it to forfeit sales to a new generation of top-of-the-line, although less formidable, European fighter aircraft.(10)"
 
Interesting article. A few minor points of contention though.

The large radars used by conventional aircraft would obviously compromise the position of a stealth aircraft. Air-to-air combat would rely on passive detection of transmissions by hostile aircraft, as well as infrared tracking.

That's what America's electronic battlespace management is designed to overcome. AWACS forwards target acquisition to the stealth fighters so they can remain "silent".

Aircraft for attacking targets on the ground face a similar problem. FLIR can be used for precise aiming at targets whose general location is known, but they are poorly suited for searching for targets over a wide area. A radar on the aircraft to scan for potential targets would compromise its position.

Again, battlespace management. JSTARS provides AWACS-like capability for acquiring ground targets for stealth attack jets.

Another limitation of stealth aircraft is their vulnerability to detection by bi-static radars.

And cell phone networks.

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V121/N63/Stealth.63f.html

In fact, both the Russian MiG-29 and Su-27 carry IRST devices, which indicates that the Russians have long targeted this as a potential stealth weakness.(5)

Actually, MiG-29, Su-27, F-14, among others have had IRST for a long time. It was intended for use against non-stealth fighters originally.

In this context, the cumbersome F-22 would be at a distinct disadvantage.

Not necessarily. The F-22 isn't just a big hog like the F-117. Yes it is large, but it has a greater thrust:weigh ratio than any fighter plane ever made. Combine that with its thrust vectoring and advanced cockpit information systems and it is still a match for even the Su-37.

Here's a slightly biased Russian article on the S-37 and F-22. The conclusion is that the Russian fighter has an edge in dogfighting due to its higher lift:weight ratio, thrust vectoring, and extra control surfaces (forward canards) that combine to give it higher angle of attack ability (tighter turning radius). But the article also notes that the F-22's thrust vectoring gives it a very high angle of attack as well, and its significantly more engine power than the S-37 gives it better acceleration. Combine that with US Air Force's typically better pilot training, integrated battlefield approach to air combat, and predominant BVR strategy, and that dogfighting edge is most likely neutralized. "Cumbersome" is most certainly a misnomer for the F-22.

http://www.aeroworldnet.com/1ra10277.htm
 
fbg1 said:
In this context, the cumbersome F-22 would be at a distinct disadvantage.

Cumbersome? heh, appearently they have yet to see the MiG MFI... yet another hype projects thats fallen short. I seriously believe people just want to see another overcome the US's dominence.
 
Deepak said:
what about the Russian Plasma Stealth technology??

It's nothing new and I want to see it in an operational aircraft. Because the way I see it, the rest of the world is ~25 years behind the US in the intoduction of true "Stealth" as measured by RCS (since Tactic Blue and Have Blue.

Plasma has this "cool" sound to it, especially to people who don't know how it works. Actually, the fundimental principles of this "Plasma Stealth Technology" is the same ideology that's used in the "candycoated" ferro-electromagnetic RAM applied to the F-117a, B-2, and F-22a.

As for the active Plasma, I think in the end it's counter-productive unless several downfalls (which led the US away from it IIRC in the '70s) such as power generation and sheilding can be overcome realistically... This type of R&D isn't present in nations outside of the US whose military, industrial, communications and electronics industry - aswell as the research university system provides.
 
but we invented the only Mach 3+ aircraft (SR-71)...

Isn't the Mig 25 Foxbat a Mach 3+ aircraft too? Reading this page here sheds some new light on that fact however:
http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/MiG-25.html

I remember reading a quote that said something to the affect of: "The Russians can go to Mach 3 also but we can stay there"

So I think the Mig 25 Foxbat can do Mach 3+ but in reality it is limited to just Mach 2.83 and cannot go above Mach 2.5 without 'special permission.'

BTW I still think the Blackbird is the most beautiful plane in the world followed by the Flanker.

Some pics:

su-27-2.jpg


su-27-34p04.jpg


su-27-34p07.jpg


And my all time favourite Black Beauty:

evergreen2.jpg


sr-080-9.jpg


ecn-4352.JPG
[/quote]
 
Tahir said:
but we invented the only Mach 3+ aircraft (SR-71)...

Isn't the Mig 25 Foxbat a Mach 3+ aircraft too? Reading this page here sheds some new light on that fact however:
http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/MiG-25.html

I remember reading a quote that said something to the affect of: "The Russians can go to Mach 3 also but we can stay there"

That's what I had in mind when I wrote that. The SR-71 is the only jet that can sustain Mach 3+. I was aware of the Foxbat, but the link you provided clarified its capabilities:

Engine control at high Mach is extremely difficult in a design like the MiG-25, let alone a system like the A-12/YF-12/SR-71. The problem is that the engine begins to act like a ramjet at speeds in excess of Mach 2.5 or so, and the turbine's speed is increasingly dictated by the flow through the propulsion duct rather than by fuel control. In the case of the Blackbird (or Cygnus), the J58 engine bypasses air past the rear stages of the compressor straight into the afterburner duct. This bypass, along with the complex inlet and nacelle bypass door contol system, works to stabilize the flow through the engine. The R-15 lacks the J58's compressor bypass, and the MiG-25 has only a single inlet duct bypass system. So--without going into gory engineering details--the results are engine speed control problems at high Mach. Engineering analysis aside, you might want to consider the following facts:

The MiG-25 that was clocked at Mach 3.2 by the Israelis achieved this speed while running from an intercepting F-4 (which can barely manage Mach 2 on a good day--before running out of fuel). Upon landing, both engines in the MiG had to be replaced.

Victor Belenko, the Foxbat pilot who defected in 1976, stated that the top speed of the MiG-25 was Mach 2.8, but flight above Mach 2.6 was difficult because of a tendency of the engines to overspeed. Victor related that MiG-25 pilots were in fact restricted to flying below Mach 2.5 except with special permission.

Tahir said:
BTW I still think the Blackbird is the most beautiful plane in the world followed by the Flanker.

Second that. Say what you will about the Ruskies, their modern fighters are works of art, especially the Su-27 and its variants.
 
BTW, achieving Mach1+ briefly with afterburners doesn't count on a fighter. (if fighter could sustain it, it would heat up too much)

SR-71 is a Ramjet built specifically for sustained high speed flight.

The only fighters that can sustain Mach1 fuel-efficiently for long periods is the F-22 and JSF. But even those wouldn't dare go Mach2+ for long.


At high Mach numbers, you lose manuerability, and humans could encounter crushing G-numbers if they could. UCAVs are perfectly suited for high-mach operations.
 
I had forgotten about the Valkyrie, another great one. If I remember, one of the prototypes had a major mishap during testing, broke apart at high altitude, and all crew were lost. Shortly afterwards it was abandonned as missile technology became the favored nuke delivery method.
 
What do you guys think about the morality of drones, or UCAVS sorry, but I mean it seems almost too cheap.

If you risk nothing to fight then war is too common, and a country like NK with nukes still cannot be containted by UCAVS, b/c they can just Nuke Japan, or blackmail people with them.

I truly understand the value of them, but I also think there is a value having a pilot in an aircraft, I know that they have remote pilots and whatnot, but still I begin to feel slightly uncomfortable with the idea of a guy sitting in washington or something flying a plane in Iraq, and deciding who he should kill and whether they are military or civillian targets.

I don't know...
 
Sxotty said:
What do you guys think about the morality of drones, or UCAVS sorry, but I mean it seems almost too cheap.

One of the links I posted earlier addresses that issue. Military pilots and Air Force personel themselves are aware of it, and share the concerns you've raised. They're building into the UCAVs a permission mechanism in which the UCAV can't fire on a target till approval is granted by its human controller.
 
Back
Top