Manny

Would not the manufacturer have an absolute maximum and a operational maximum limited by the FCS? Could those two numbers be equivalent? I highly doubt it. The MiG-25 info I posted recorded a maximum of 11 gs, exceeding the operational limit, but not the maximum structural since the aircraft returned to base iintact.

Well, GG, if that is true and 9 is a nominal structural limit, then the Eagle must return for maintenance requiring airframe repair all the time. Perhaps the Eagle is G-limited to 9 but manufactured structurally for 12...this I do not know as I don't have the manufacturer's design information. The MiG-25 info I posted in another thread recorded it pulling 11+ gs during training :confused: poor pilot but they wrote off the airframe when the plane landed.

quote=Sundowner.pl I have to disagree with you, the rotating blades give a very strong echo, and can be seen by radar from long ranges, a helo like Mi-8 have RCS of the rotor itself in 8m^2 range (6 or less for new composite ones). This is highly logical. If one has ever been exposed to an Electro-magnetic test environment and observed, in an Electro-magnetic chamber, mechanical stirrer in operation, a parallel can be drawn for rotor blades of course revolving at a much higher revolution but still slower than the speed of light. In prinicple, the rotor blades would be the equivalent of a solid disc partially scattering and/or interrupting the fuselage RCS but still allowing detection. This is, of course, similar to receiving RADAR echoes off stage-1 intake fans of jet engines. Thats enough for radar which wavelength is in millimeters. Trust me on this one, I live all my life with helos and their crews. Exactly why, in an EM environment, rotor blades unmask helos from a distance when "looking" down upon them. At near level flight, the handle between the pilot's legs are the safest choice.

Goya, lol what are you describing here? Is this how you feel about the F-15? I would hate to read your description of the MiG-29 :p

Typical... :icon_jook

I think if I have provided anything within this thread it is certainly a counter opinion to this so I am clueless as to your comment. ;)

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China or the XBox 360 in Japan? Point I made was simple: The notion of the invincible and/or the untouchable is a fallacy as applied consistently by many to military aviation. To that order, the notion of stealth somehow ruling the skies is as plausible to the Klingons stealthing their Birds of Prey to avoid detection. Last I recall in those episodes, didn't someone find a way to detect them anyway. Of course that is television at it's best but the prinicple applies in earnest here. Nonetheless, the number of SAMs shot is irrelevant since the compression of the air is the only factor less shrapnel that kills at high altitude... need a lot of overpressure to bring down a dot in the sky. The fallacy was proven once Power's feet touched Soviet soil. Oh, GG, for a good read about the MiG-25 and the SR-71, head over to here http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/mig25.html I know of no attempts made other than SAMs to engage an SR-71. Some interesting facts about the MiG-25: Although Viktor Belenko's aircraft was eventually returned to the USSR, it was first dismantled and carefully analysed by the Foreign Technology Division; now called the National Air and Space Intelligence Center of the USAF, at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton, Ohio. After 67 days the aircraft was returned to the Russians in pieces. The analysis of Belenko's aircraft, which was brand new, showed some surprising facts: The MiG-25 was built primarily of nickel-steel, and not titanium as supposed. Some titanium was used in heat-critical areas. The steel construction contributed to its massive 64,000 lb (29 t) unarmed weight. Welding was done by hand and construction was relatively crude. Like most Soviet aircraft, in areas that would not adversely affect aerodynamic drag, rivet heads were left exposed. The majority of the on-board avionics was based on vacuum tube technology, not solid state electronics. Though the Mig-25's electronics were ridiculed in the West, many experts found it ingenious and quite practical to use vacuum tubes as, compared with transistor technology, they were less suceptible to radiation (for example, EMP) in case of nuclear warfare. The MiG-25P's original Smerch-A (Tornado, NATO reporting name 'Foxfire') radar had enormous power of about 500 kilowatts, allowing it to burn through hostile ECM, but requiring vast amounts of pure alcohol for cooling. Pilots were forbidden to engage the radar on the ground, and legend held that it was powerful enough to kill rabbits near runways. The airspeed indicator was redlined at Mach 2.8, and pilots were required not to exceed Mach 2.5. The Americans had witnessed a MiG-25 flying at Mach 3.2 over Israel in 1973, a flight that had resulted in the total destruction of its engines. The Americans were unaware of the inevitability of the destruction, which helped to fuel the myths about the aircraft's capabilities. Combat radius was 186 miles (300 km), and maximum range on internal fuel (at subsonic speeds) was only 744 miles (1,200 km). In fact, Belenko had only just made it to Japan without running out of fuel - without sufficient fuel for a carefully planned landing, he narrowly missed a commercial airliner taking off, and overran the available runway on landing. Maximum acceleration (g-load) rating was just 2.2 g (22 m/s²) with full fuel tanks, with an absolute limit of 4.5 g (44.1 m/s²). This was significantly poorer performance than the previous generation F-4 Phantom. One MiG-25 withstood inadvertent 11.5 g (113 m/s²) pull during low-altitude dogfight training, but the airframe had to be written off due to deformation. When the appearance of the Foxbat became known to the West, it was alleged that the design of the MiG-25 was based on the North American A-5 Vigilante. Both aircraft have the same general layout (the A-5 was also initially designed with twin-tailfins), but the Foxbat has its origins in the MiG-21, rather than the VigilanteThe MiG-25`s acknowledged combat record by the West is one F/A-18 Hornet during the Second Gulf War, when a Iraqi MiG-25PD shot down a U.S. Navy F/A-18C on January 17, 1991, 29 nautical miles southeast of Baghdad. Nevertheless, some F-15s have been claimed by the Syrian Air Force (however, most sources say that, to date, no F-15s have been shot down in A2A combat).

I am sure the same general malaise was spoken of the U-2 program. If you fly high enough, the Soviets can't touch you, they don't have the technology or capability. I am also sure Mr. Powers, while sipping his afternoon tea and marvelling at the curvature of the earth, was awaken sharply to find some very large exploisons going off near and ahead of his aircraft. It was only then Mr. Powers knew he was not dreaming that his feet hit terra firma and the sound of Soviets surrounding him was enough to put that premenition to rest. The whole reason the SR-71 and later spy satellites were deveoped was to counter the harsh reality of overflying airspace.

That is possibly a good reason... I do know the Navy is working on a Helmet Mounted Sight and they have demonstrated at the test range they can point-n-shoot an AIM-9...this looks promising. You do sound awfully biased and higly opinionated against Russian technology???? "unlike aircraft whose radar sucked?" That is a stretch to home plate...

If so, then why haven't manufacturers and the Military required it be employed on all aircraft?

quote=GGTharos Actually ... yes, it will. That's its purpose. I am not convinced IRSTs are notoriously short ranged in the forward quarter. I think there are some gross misconceptions as to just how much the leading edges heat up in high altitude supersonic flight and just how much atmosphere inhibits IRSTs. Sure they are by nature of the eminating source being small. Smaller, at times, than background radiation and effective to a certain distance. If the F-22 is gonna supercruise at over Mach 1, I think there will be quite a bit of IR radiation. Just my opinion. No, the F-22 is a 'full stealth' design. All aspects - sure, some less, some more, but it's no 'frontal stealth only' design or 'stealth front' and 'stealthed otherwise' liek the F-35. Still my opinion. The variety of radar types in service today will have to prove that. It's invisible in BVR insifar as weapon systems are involved. What more do you need than making the enemy's weapons incapable of tracking you? On the other hand, YOUR systems are tracking THEM just fine. EWRs can detect it all they want. The systems the stealth is designed against, WILL NOT WORK. THose systems are fighter and missile radars working within certain frequencies (and no, they won't be changing frequencies to ones outside of those spectra any time soon) Your opinion, I respect that. Stealth aircraft in transit will use radar beacons so that they -can- be tracked, until such a time that they wish to dissapear. In addition, if you're close enough to a radar (ie enough power is radiated at you) naturally, the return will be 'large enough'. IIRC those fighters flew quite close to one ;) If I am not mistaken, these aircraft were not detected while their beacons were on. Even if proximity to the radiator resulted in detection, the notion of invisibility is false. But again, my opinion I could be wrong. Yeah, too bad you're wrong. The crew knew the F117 was coming because the route had not been changed for several sorties - there were also allegations of a leak but I won't touch that one too much. This is almost an exact quote from a site where this was discussed and I find no evidence to the fact when I examined the testimony of the Serbians. The SA-3 uses a long-wavelength radar (much like an EWR), which was able to pick up the F117 when it came close, but the missile was command-guided and just as likely command-detonated ... and they didn't launch just one missile, they launched a volley and hoped to monte-carlo the F117. It wa sa 'damned good shot', but it's the exception and not the rule - they basically took the shotgun aproach to shooting one aircraft down. The SA-3s capability is quoted correctly but to think it was a lucky shot is agreeing to what the comon opinion is that stealth is invisible and it was pure luck. I do not believe this but that is my opinion.

Didn't know that as I haven't studied the aircraft. Is that classified info?

Yeah, it has 2 IRST systems? I was wondering when the US would catch up with the Soviets in the use of that tech. Well playing field is a bit more even now, eh? I heard the Soviets borrowed the concept from the Bell Cobra and mad a practical IRST system that is usable.... can anyone cofirm this?

Well, the laws of physics are certainly not somehow manipulated to the advantage of stealth technology either GG. It is my opinion that completely inhibiting B & H field electromagnetic radiation is impossible, there will still be leakage. There is no technology that prohibits total external reflection either. The RCS may be reduced to the size of a bird on radar, but that doesn't mean it will be filtered to noise levels either. The F-22 itself will be radiating high frequency E-Mag energy from its' own radar to search for aircraft. EWRs will be alive even if the F-22 is also attempting to Jam in an attempt to degrade them. An F-22 supercrusing at above Mach 1 will have highly visible Infrared radiation due to local heating of the skin. An Infrared Search and Track will likely have no problem simply seeing the F-22. Also, the greatest effect of attempting to inhibit E-Mag is forward aspect. If the F-22 conducts maneuvering outside that aspect, there will likely be a full bloom on the enemy radar. What about attackers approaching from all multiple quadrants? The F-22 is simply not "invisible." If it can be seen non-BVR, it will be killed. If it can be detected, primarily by ground control first then vectoring planes to turn on your radar and "look here", it will be detected. It is also a fact that the French received radar returns from F-117 Stealth Fighters during the Gulf War. French Radar tracked the F-117s in a fligtht and had to confrim to US Command these aircraft were theirs. Even further than that, Serbians using a modified SAM, locked onto an F-117 overflying the region and engaged it, destroying the aircraft. Much has been written regarding this. Perhaps the Serbians had hacked into comms, knew the routes, and conducted hotshot procedures in the hopes to down one. I don't think this is the case. I feel certain the 117 was re-radiating the SAM's E-Mag and BOOM, gotcha.