Съвременна авиация!

[Гост]

Охо, и още как! Особено пък там, като помиришат държавната поръчка.

[Imperial]

М, недейте забравя, че американските оръжейни поръчки имат като първи приоритет финансирането на собствената оръжейна промишленост

[Гост]

Да-а. То това е много интересен въпрос - товарят или движат една икономика военните програми. Ама то си е за цяла тема.

[Елемаг]

Всяко производство особенно военното спомага за развитието на технологиите и повишава потреблението. Не напразно много държава купуват нова техника само при условие че част от комплектацията й ще се сгробява там. В България престъпните управляващи правят обратното - ремонтите и дълговременната подръжка се извършва в чужбина. Типичен пример е сделка със самолетите "Пилатус" при които дори и регламеннтите прегледи се извършват в Швейцария. Бедна България плаща заплати на богатите швейцарци. А същото време се уволняват българските авиоспециалисти!:fire: :fire: :fire:

[Гост]

Не знаех за Пилатус. Те все пак са малко и са самолетчета с една перка, за обучение.
С хеликоптерите Кугар май вече не е така, сигурно и с другите големи бъдещи поръчки няма да бъде?

[Елемаг]

Не знаех за Пилатус. Те все пак са малко и са самолетчета с една перка, за обучение.
С хеликоптерите Кугар май вече не е така, сигурно и с другите големи бъдещи поръчки няма да бъде?

И с Кугуара е така! Заради него могат да унищожат вертолеторемонтния завод в София! Ремонтите на френските вертолети ще се извършва в Франция. Засега едниствения шанс на нашата вертолетна промишленост е че все още за повечето проблемни задачи Ми-17 е незаменим,така че засега сведенията се че ще запазим определен брой от тях. Пожението с Беловете е същото, ремонта ще се извършва май в Германия където Бел имат ремонтна база. Западняците дават големи пари за да могат да извършват ремонта и подръжката на авиационната техника която продават тъй като по-този начин се печели много повече от продажбата на самите авиокомплекси! А управляващата в България натовска измет е готова да подаде всичко за пари:fire: :fire: :fire:

[piko1]

тони е прав ако продалжи както е тръгнало дори за поправка на хеликотерите
самолетите танковете та даже и колитени в чужбина заради някакви тъпи политици тази държава ще умре заедно с народа си
до кога този народ ще си трае то бива бива ма то на нищо не прилича
свалиги и ги разтреляи всичките аз ще управя тази държава само за един
ден само една почти пълна нацьонализация(дано правилно съм го написъл) и да видим после дебело врати тия ония мафия и глупости
по темата според мен руските самолети са много да не казвам голяма дума пред американските поне за изтребителите особено ако
става въпрос за любимеца ми МиГ-31 особено за стелтовете тои само
4 ракети има но пък може всичко да прихваща даже и бог може да види
с този радар а пък за топлото да не говорим пропуснахте че повечето руски самолети имат топлопеленгатори та не им трябват радарите могат и без тях все пак става въпрос за реактивни двигатели каквото и да правиш издишъш топло и ракетите с топлино ГСН само това и чакат че видиш ли ф-22 се срешне с някоя Р-73т или Р-27т

[Parabellum]

Докато не се изправят един срещу друг добре натренирани пилоти в истински бой с руски и американски самолет не мога да кажа, кой е победителят и кой победеният. За момента печели Запада със своите 200 часа годишен нальот-може и повече да са.

[Thunderchief]

Докато не се изправят един срещу друг добре натренирани пилоти в истински бой с руски и американски самолет не мога да кажа, кой е победителят и кой победеният. За момента печели Запада със своите 200 часа годишен нальот-може и повече да са.

Повече са в зависимост от това къде служи съответния фъркат, на моменти го докарва и до 400 часа годишно.
Пико много мъдро изказване. Особено ми харесва частта за "нацьонализацията" Прочее не знам дали знаеш но има разни съвсем не стелтове дето любимеца ти да се скине не мож ги хвана, въпреки че се е разпрал да опитва - за SR71 иде реч, не че не ги вижда, вижда ги и кво от това? Може само да помаха на офицера управляващ апаратурата

[Пилот]

piko1, всъщност МиГ-31 може да носи 6 ракети - 4 под тялото и по една под всяко крило. Мисля че има модернизиран вариант дето носи 8 ракети.

[piko1]

точно знам 6 от главния калибър и две със среден обсег или 4 р-60
на здвоени 8)

[Елемаг]

По точно 4 Р-33 и 2 Р-40!

[Пилот]

В модернизираният вариант са 4 Р-33 и 4 Р-77 или 2хР-77 + 2хР-73
По мое мнение МиГ-31 е един шедьовър.

[Thunderchief]

В модернизираният вариант са 4 Р-33 и 4 Р-77 или 2хР-77 + 2хР-73
По мое мнение МиГ-31 е един шедьовър.

Да руснаците са царе в създаването на единични бройки шедьоври за показване по авиошоута, но може би единствените два самолета за реална работа, които са създали до момента са МиГ-29 и Су 30МКК/МКИ

[centara]

Намерих интересна статия относно митовете и стелт технологиите. Ето я:
By any measure, the introduction of stealth into U.S. tactical air-strike forces represents a quantum increase in combat effectiveness and surgical-strike capabilities. However, such unprecedented success as that achieved during the Gulf War brings with it certain dangers. The principal danger is the conviction in the minds of many of this country's decision-makers that stealth renders us invincible. In that regard, stealth is greatly misunderstood by the U.S. taxpayer, and its effectiveness is deliberately overstated by too many government officials—civilian and military—who know better.

The general public should know what stealth really is; but more important, they should know what it is not! To explain what it is not, we must dispel the six myths that surround it:
Stealth is purely a phenomenon associated with radar signature.
Stealth is a new phenomenon.
Stealth cannot be countered.
Stealth carries no penalties.
Stealth makes platforms invisible to radar.
Stealth is passive.
More than radar signature

Is radar signature the only aspect of a platform's observability to which stealth techniques can be applied? No, it may be the most important, but it is still only one aspect. All aspects must be addressed if real stealth is to be achieved. There are other aspects of the observability spectrum that are terribly important as well; they include infrared, acoustic, optical, magnetic, electromagnetic and probably others that include fluid wake effects.

• Infrared. Objects passing through a fluid medium generate heat, by virtue of the medium passing over the object's surfaces. This heating is detectable. For an airplane, surface heating occurs in the 8- to 12-micron range of the infrared spectrum. Thus, an existing infrared search-and-track system (IRST) designed for installation in a fighter-interceptor could detect a high-altitude, supersonic bomber at a distance of several hundred miles.

Platforms that develop propulsion through internal-combustion powerplants generate heat that causes their engine and exhaust systems to be detectable in the 3- to 5-micron range. For over 30 years, airborne IRST systems in fighter airplanes have been able to detect another fighter in afterburner at distances of more than 30 miles. IRST systems that operate in the 8- to 12-micron range have enormous potential, especially in the detection of air platforms. When the 8- to 12-micron technology has matured, it may well render moot most other aspects of observability

• Acoustic. This has been pursued in the field of antisubmarine warfare for over 50 years. Submarines generate acoustic noise with their screws, by their passage through the water and by the sound of their equipment and crews. In the Vietnam War, the U.S. developed and deployed an acoustically stealthy airplane. It was called the "QT-2" (for "quiet airplane"). Even today's drone aircraft employ acoustic stealth.

• Magnetic/electromagnetic. Surface ships and submarines possess enormous magnetic fields because they are made up of thousands of tons of ferrous metal (steel). They also generate an electromagnetic field because of the power-generating machinery on board. These fields are minimized by a process known as "degaussing." For over forty years, antisubmarine aircraft have been targeting submerged submarines by using magnetic anomaly detectors (MAD).

• Wake effects. Submariners have known for years that subs' wakes generate turbulence that can be detected, often for hours after they have passed by. Work in this area has been going on for over 25 years and is still highly classified. However, the same laws of physics apply to airplanes, which also leave a telltale "wake" in the atmosphere.

• Optical. This has been with us ever since spear-throwers discovered the operational benefits of hiding behind trees. Ships wore camouflage paint schemes as early as WW I. It was only in recent years that the pro-active use of lights mounted on and in the airframe could reduce the effects of contrast in tactical airplanes. Using lights in this way had the effect of decreasing the optical detectability of aircraft, since their detectability was directly related to the contrasts in their optical signature against their background. Not surprisingly, F-117s were painted black because they were intended to be deployed exclusively at night.

Much more could be said about the abovementioned aspects, but the point is made. Stealth is not limited to radar.

The optical aspect of observability was saved until last because it is so important. More airplanes have been shot down by enemy gunners using their optical signature than by any other means. That fact will probably not change in the foreseeable future. If this is true, optical stealth should get major emphasis in the design and development of future tactical airplanes.


Stealth is not new

Camouflage is optical stealth in its crudest form. Camouflage has been used in warfare as far back as history has been recorded. The hulls of WW I combat vessels were painted with various shades of camouflage gray to make them hard to see. Airplanes were camouflaged to achieve the same end, but with enemy gunners both in the air and on the ground, the paint schemes had to be a little more sophisticated. Since the sky and the ground have two distinct backgrounds, camouflaging aircraft is more difficult. The principles, however, are the same. The camouflage must make the object blend with the background—just as in nature's classic example of the chameleon.

In WW II, the Luftwaffe put radar-absorbing carbon material in the leading edge of one of its bomber's wings to make acquisition by British radar more difficult. Still later, the U-2 was developed as a stealthy airplane as were the B-1B bomber and the SR-71 reconnaissance airplane. So stealth is not new; not by a long shot—not even radar stealth.


Can stealth be countered?

Yes. Several countries are already hard at work developing counter-stealth technology. Of course, the simplest way to counter radar stealth is to decrease the frequency and thereby increase the wavelength of radar. Regardless of the size of an airplane, it will act as a dipole antenna to a certain radar frequency whose wavelength is a multiple of the airplane's natural radar return. That is why the F-117s were clearly visible to the air-search radar of an old British destroyer on patrol in the Persian Gulf.

The same principle applies to the highly touted B-2 bomber. The laws of physics apply, despite ballyhoo and public relations "smoke and mirrors." The question of designing a search radar with a variable frequency and a spectrum-survey capability has been considered. Unfortunately, such equipment is very expensive to buy as well as labor-intensive to operate. The cost to configure/reconfigure an entire class of ships or model of aircraft would be prohibitive for most users. In the final analysis, all stealth really does is reduce detection range.
Penalties

Are there penalties associated with the use of stealth? Of course there are, and they are enormous!

Most of the penalties fall in the aircraft-performance category. For example, external stores on stealth aircraft had to be eliminated almost entirely. Fuel tanks and weapons suspended from the bottom of the airplane acted like radar corner reflectors; therefore, all weapons and extra fuel had to be carried internally. This had an enormous effect on the design of the airplane and on its "natural" radar signature, and it also produced drag polars that substantially reduced an airframe's maximum speed as well as its ability to turn and to accelerate. During the weapons-release phase, the F-117 has to open its weapons-bay doors. While in this configuration, however briefly, the F-117's radar signature (and, therefore, its vulnerability) increases dramatically. This is one of the most significant penalties of stealth
Invisible? Only temporarily

An expression from WW II antisubmarine warfare refers to a "flaming datum." This is the location of a burning ship that has been struck by a submarine weapon. The counterattack against the offending submarine uses as a "datum" the location of the burning ship and the time of the attack.

Knowing the submarine's speed and the range of its torpedoes well defines the search area. Most of the more than 700 German U-boats sunk in WW II were destroyed after the flaming datum had been established.

The moment the F-117 opens its weapons-bay doors is the modern-day equivalent of the flaming datum. Once seen, how-ever briefly, the F-117's presence has been announced. Air defenses, knowing the F-117's speed limitations, can quickly mount a counterstrategy that, given modern weapons systems, can find it and destroy it.
Low altitude isn't the cure

First designed purely for high-altitude operation, the B-2 bomber was modified to operate at lower altitudes. The resulting increase in structural weight and the added weight incurred by the addition of gust-load-alleviation systems has produced a tactical airplane that is ridiculously vulnerable. The B-2's maximum speed at sea level, for example, is so low that virtually any tactical airplane (of Korean War vintage or later) can easily run it into the ground.

Modern tactical aviators have always thought there was a haven at extremely low altitudes and high speeds. When in trouble, it was worthwhile to head for the tall grass during egress from a highly defended target area. Regardless of weapons and platforms, a target going 700 knots at 50 feet off the ground is difficult to shoot down. In the highly touted B-2, we now have a tactical airplane that costs over two billion dollars and is "dead meat" once it has been detected at low altitude. A burst of 20-millimeter gunfire from a Korean War F-86, for example, cannot be affected one iota by all of the multimillion-dollar electronic and electro-optical countermeasures that the B-2 carries. The B-2 is probably the most technology-intensive aircraft ever built. It certainly does not, however, possess the important ingredients of all successful tactical aircraft: survivability and graceful degradation of battle-damaged weapons systems. From a cost-effectiveness standpoint, one should ask what the relative merits might be to have the same interdiction mission attempted by a careful mix of more conventional, less expensive aircraft, including the low-flying, low-tech A-6s of the Persian Gulf War. That is, if we still had any—but that's yet another story.Passive or active stealth

A few words need to be said about the passive aspect of stealth technology: it is not just passive. Unfortunately, the active aspect of stealth is still shrouded in secrecy—especially as it relates to the B-2 program. Suffice it to say that incoming radar energy is "modified" in such a way as to tell the source of the radar that there is no target.


Summary

As tactical aviation approaches its first century, aircraft designers will have to weigh the relative merits and the tradeoffs involved in striking the proper balance between stealth and aircraft performance. The tradeoffs probably won't be exactly the same for unmanned systems, such as a stealthy Tomahawk missile or a reconnaissance drone. Infrared detection systems in the 8- to 12-micron range seem to offer the greatest promise at this juncture. Technology in the development of new theater air-defense systems is advancing in parallel with stealth technology. There is no technical reason to suspect that either will jump substantially ahead of the other.

As a bottom line, it is probably safe to say that there is no such thing as an invisible airplane. And if it isn't invisible, it certainly ought to be equipped to fight its way into and out of a highly defended target area
Stealth design efforts

• Acoustic. Sound suppression of air vehicles is most concerned with quieting the powerplant. In the case of propeller-driven drones, the effort involves a quiet propeller design and muting the exhaust system. In the case of jet-powered aircraft, the effort focuses on exhaust-gas noise suppression. Sound suppression in submarines is done through external anechoic coatings and by shock-mounting noisy internal equipment such as generators.

• Infrared. For air vehicles, IR emanations in the 3- to 5-micron range are suppressed by using cooling air and shrouding around hot parts of the machine (usually the powerplant). In submarines, IR emanations come principally from fluid efflux, either from powerplant-related operations or jettisoned ship-related products such as garbage and human waste.

• Magnetic stealth. Can only be achieved through degaussing that requires dedicated ship time on a dedicated range. The effects are not always as permanent as intended, and there is no simple fix once the ship is “in the field.” In aircraft, the problem doesn’t exist simply because of the limitations of magnetic measuring detectors. If the hunter got close enough to a target aircraft to detect its magnetic emanations, the aircraft would be well inside the detection range of other sensors and also the hunter’s own minimum weapons envelope.

• Optical. Aside from what we know about camouflage, the most promising optical stealth technology is that dealing with the elimination of contrast by the use of lighting. In the latter stages of the Vietnam War, serious efforts were made to enhance the combat effectiveness of U.S. tactical aircraft through the medium of optical stealth. The classic example was a ground test conducted at Miramar, California, in which a Phantom II was configured with a series of strategically located white lights. The test showed rather dramatically that when contrast is reduced, so is the optical signature. For a number of reasons, follow-up tests to this initial development effort were never pursued; however, the results of tests conducted a few years ago showed great promise. The drawback of optical stealth is the same proximity problem that faces the magnetic detectors.

• Fluid wake effects. For both aircraft and submarines, the phenomenon of fluid wake effects represents an aspect of observability that could have serious implications. Unfortunately, (or fortunately, depending on whether one is the hunter or the hunted), it represents an enormous technological challenge and is also shrouded in secrecy.