• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Plasma stealth round 2?

sublight is back

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
739
Reaction score
9
Now you can apparently create complex plasma shapes in mid air with a laser. Does this portend a comeback of plasma stealth? If you could retrofit a plasma projector onto an F16, it would entirely change the stealth game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNoOiXkXmYQ
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,421
Reaction score
282
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
sublight is back said:
. Does this portend a comeback of plasma stealth?
Nope. And for the simple reason that you can't have a "comeback" for something that never existed in the first place. It's like a "gun buyback program;" how can you "buy back" something you didn't own in the first place?

The video is interesting, but it's pretty blatantly obvious that stealth is just about the *last* capability that this system would offer. A system that makes air *explode* and glow white hot (and undoubtedly also crackles pretty loudly) is not something that you can hide behind. And it certainly would do the pilots night vision any good either.
 

sublight is back

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
739
Reaction score
9
Orionblamblam said:
Nope. And for the simple reason that you can't have a "comeback" for something that never existed in the first place.
You can have a comeback for something that WAS experimented with in the first place.


You wouldn't need all aspect stealth with it, just project a "wall" between you and the threat. If you could ionize the air enough to absorb the radar, and not enough to create the starburst, you'd be able to use it at night.
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,932
Reaction score
17
Ah, well - my main reaction is: Disaster areas often have burst gas mains...


As for plasma stealth: One might see it more as an active countermeasure (blinding IR missiles and temporarily braking radar locks) as opposed to an anti-detection measure.

One thing I could never figure out: Why couldn't one have the plasma contained within chambers inside of the aircraft's skin? Similar to the use of plasma to protect the main radar from acting as a radar reflector... If someone who is more knowledgeable could inform me?
 

Adventurer104

Retired Texas Peace Officer
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
31
Reaction score
1
As my flawed memory tells me..... The A-12 that sets(sat) on the Intrepid was the one with plasma outlets on the skin for a plasma stealth attempt.
Nothing else ( information wise) sticks to my Teflon coated memory cells. I defer to the experts here on the for more information.

A Retired Campus Cop in Texas
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,421
Reaction score
282
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
sublight is back said:
You can have a comeback for something that WAS experimented with in the first place.
Only if that something actually existed. There was experimentation on perpetual motion machines, remote viewing and antigravity as well, but they, like "plasma stealth," never left the realm of preliminary and apparently failed testing. The Russians are reported to have offered plasma stealth tech for sale some years ago, but it has failed to actually turn up anywhere. The experiments with the U-2 and SR-71 seem to ahve been more or less complete busts.
 

sublight is back

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
739
Reaction score
9
Orionblamblam said:
The experiments with the U-2 and SR-71 seem to have been more or less complete busts.
Project Kempster was halted because the xray byproduct irradiated the pilots and the resulting lead suit made flying difficult. It was not a bust.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,806
Reaction score
261
Orionblamblam said:
The Russians are reported to have offered plasma stealth tech for sale some years ago, but it has failed to actually turn up anywhere.
Meteorit cruise missile actually has had mini-laundry-washer-sized plasma stealth device masking her inlet. Judging from radar screen capture in NPOMash book on Meteorit, and some state awards, it did the masking trick quite well.
Quite recently it was publicily shown, but a few understood what it was, in fact.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,374
Reaction score
40
flateric said:
Orionblamblam said:
The Russians are reported to have offered plasma stealth tech for sale some years ago, but it has failed to actually turn up anywhere.
Meteorit cruise missile actually has had mini-laundry-washer-sized plasma stealth device masking her inlet. Judging from radar screen capture in NPOMash book on Meteorit, and some state awards, it did the masking trick quite well.
Quite recently it was publicily shown, but a few understood what it was, in fact.
Sir is there any more "mini-laundry-washer-sized plasma stealth device" available?
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,806
Reaction score
261
I have seen and touched Meteorit plasma generator by myself.
Some recent open papers/patents give a clue that plasma screens will be extensively used on prospective ALCMs, PAK FA and PAK DA. Reportedly, plasma screen alike was used on Tu-160 nose cone.
Of course, local using of plasma screens is totally different from 'total' plasma stealth cloud masking entire a/C.
 
I

Ian33

Guest
In 1991 these crossed laser plasma balls could talk, albeit slightly robotically, but still utterly understanble.
 

kcran567

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
664
Reaction score
1
flateric said:
Orionblamblam said:
The Russians are reported to have offered plasma stealth tech for sale some years ago, but it has failed to actually turn up anywhere.
Meteorit cruise missile actually has had mini-laundry-washer-sized plasma stealth device masking her inlet. Judging from radar screen capture in NPOMash book on Meteorit, and some state awards, it did the masking trick quite well.
Quite recently it was publicily shown, but a few understood what it was, in fact.
I thought the Russians were talking about that device in the 1990s for use on the Mig 1.42 and that it was lightweight and power efficient. Why couldn't a smaller unit be placed in front of the Pakfa's intakes or exhaust nozzles for example and only be used when needed?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,328
Reaction score
427
sublight is back said:
Orionblamblam said:
The experiments with the U-2 and SR-71 seem to have been more or less complete busts.
Project Kempster was halted because the xray byproduct irradiated the pilots and the resulting lead suit made flying difficult. It was not a bust.
Sounds like a bust to me. ;)
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,328
Reaction score
427
flateric said:
I have seen and touched Meteorit plasma generator by myself.
Some recent open papers/patents give a clue that plasma screens will be extensively used on prospective ALCMs, PAK FA and PAK DA. Reportedly, plasma screen alike was used on Tu-160 nose cone.
Of course, local using of plasma screens is totally different from 'total' plasma stealth cloud masking entire a/C.
Why spend the weight/money/complexity for a plasma stealth device to mask an inlet when you could achieve the same result simply by proper inlet design? ???
 

bipa

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
80
Reaction score
1
Ditto. Seems overkill for intake RCS reduction (although other RCS solutions may be difficult to implement on such high speed vehicles).
I'd guess the main benefit should be some sort of MHD flow control, which can be way beyond simple intake design.
Maybe it was meant to do both (RCS and MHD).
 

phrenzy

as long as all they ask me about is the air war...
Joined
Oct 31, 2013
Messages
278
Reaction score
0
bipa said:
Ditto. Seems overkill for intake RCS reduction (although other RCS solutions may be difficult to implement on such high speed vehicles).
I'd guess the main benefit should be some sort of MHD flow control, which can be way beyond simple intake design.
Maybe it was meant to do both (RCS and MHD).
Do we know much about how effective plasma MHD can be for increased inlet area or more efficient flow? Sounds a little like the old wikipedia article on ayaks.

If the generators are that small and reasonably effective as in the meteorit then why wouldn't you use it?
 

Ogami musashi

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2006
Messages
304
Reaction score
2
Plasma for flow control is kinda to-be-released soon because many patents from LM, boeing and Northrop use them at various locations and peharps more significantly in a recent US navy program to decrease jet engine noise from superhornets, plasma control for jet exhausts was seriously considered but electric power demands were far too great.
 
Top