Russia develops stealth defense for warships

arian · by **arian** » 22 Oct 2016, 23:37

Russia unveiled today its stealth shield for turning warships invisible and undetectable. Reports indicate that this is Russia's famed "plasma stealth" shield.

How will American weapons possibly detect and target a ship cloaked in this new stealth shield? Do we have a serious pre-Dreadnought gap on our hands? Do we need to invest more money in tire-burning technology?

count_to_10 · by **count_to_10** » 23 Oct 2016, 00:10

"Plasma stealth" was supposed to be basically a plasma screen placed in front of a fighter's radar, with the idea that the screen absorbs radio waves like a black body when energized, but transmits otherwise. Fantasy had the entire fighter skin covered in plasma screens. To my knowledge, it doesn't work.
The smoke screen might be something else I've heard about, something like micro-chafe.
(Also, smoke screens were still tactically useful into WWII. Probably still useful against IR seekers like what is in the NSM/JSM, assuming that they obscure the appropriate IR bands.)

popcorn · by **popcorn** » 23 Oct 2016, 00:21

That thing is definitely a threat... to the environment.

arian · by **arian** » 23 Oct 2016, 00:42

count_to_10 wrote:"Plasma stealth" was supposed to be basically a plasma screen placed in front of a fighter's radar, with the idea that the screen absorbs radio waves like a black body when energized, but transmits otherwise. Fantasy had the entire fighter skin covered in plasma screens. To my knowledge, it doesn't work.
The smoke screen might be something else I've heard about, something like micro-chafe.
(Also, smoke screens were still tactically useful into WWII. Probably still useful against IR seekers like what is in the NSM/JSM, assuming that they obscure the appropriate IR bands.)

I was joking. This is just Kuznetsov being Kuznetsov. A POS ship.

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 23 Oct 2016, 01:18

arian wrote:Do we need to invest more money in tire-burning technology?

Don't knock it. Probably what it uses for fuel. :lmao:

(On second thought, I'll bet there are people out there stupid enough to believe it's "green" because you're "recycling" tires.)

KamenRiderBlade · by **KamenRiderBlade** » 23 Oct 2016, 06:17

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10 ... -problems/

<sarcasm>You know your Government has faith in your vessel when they have to send a Tugboat with it</sarcasm>

mrigdon · by **mrigdon** » 23 Oct 2016, 08:04

KamenRiderBlade wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/21/russian-carrier-plagued-by-technical-problems/

<sarcasm>You know your Government has faith in your vessel when they have to send a Tugboat with it</sarcasm>

Why sarcasm? In Russia, is called 'tug boat' because is like 'child boat' which tug you 'Go faster! Go faster!'

Is really Encourage Boat!

count_to_10 · by **count_to_10** » 23 Oct 2016, 11:55

arian wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:"Plasma stealth" was supposed to be basically a plasma screen placed in front of a fighter's radar, with the idea that the screen absorbs radio waves like a black body when energized, but transmits otherwise. Fantasy had the entire fighter skin covered in plasma screens. To my knowledge, it doesn't work.
The smoke screen might be something else I've heard about, something like micro-chafe.
(Also, smoke screens were still tactically useful into WWII. Probably still useful against IR seekers like what is in the NSM/JSM, assuming that they obscure the appropriate IR bands.)

I was joking. This is just Kuznetsov being Kuznetsov. A POS ship.

Well, there was no explaining text, and I haven't been keeping up with news about said ship.
Um, is it's engine on fire?

popcorn · by **popcorn** » 23 Oct 2016, 12:00

I hope they got the toilets to work for her crew's sake.

count_to_10 · by **count_to_10** » 23 Oct 2016, 12:06

popcorn wrote:I hope they got the toilets to work for her crew's sake.

Castor oil?

sdkf251 · by **sdkf251** » 23 Oct 2016, 16:20

Looks like the old pictures of battleships using coal as fuel.

sersi · by **sersi** » 24 Oct 2016, 02:48

They're a bit late aren't they.

The US Navy has been using carbon fiber infused obscurants "smoke" as a radar screen against anti-ship missiles for some time now. It's more of a counter-measure than a attempt at "stealth". The Russian are doubtlessly trying to do the same.

arian · by **arian** » 24 Oct 2016, 03:38

sersi wrote:They're a bit late aren't they.

The US Navy has been using carbon fiber infused obscurants "smoke" as a radar screen against anti-ship missiles for some time now. It's more of a counter-measure than a attempt at "stealth". The Russian are doubtlessly trying to do the same.

You may have a point there. They may be using the particulate matter produced by their coal burning engines to block radar. I'd imagine those pre-Dreadnought 1905 battleships were really hard to pick up on radar too.

Of course, the Kuzentsov's crew might only have a life-expectancy of 5 years under these conditions.

35_aoa · by **35_aoa** » 24 Oct 2016, 03:54

A couple years ago while I was in the med, we cruised for a few days within 100 miles of her. Several of our jets intercepted the Su-33's that she put airborne every now and then. Will be interested to see how this plays out, back then it was very much not an operational carrier by any western standards. Couple jets flew every 5th day or so, daytime only, with no ordnance (likely due to their lack of catapults). Lots of bluster coming out of the Soviet Union (err "Russian Federation"), not a whole lot of truth to back up their claims. Failing nation, economic downward spiral, starving "middle class", and nothing to show for it other than 20 year old nukes which will (hopefully) never be used, and a bunch of conventional weapons and associated platforms that were outclassed by the West in 1995. Good luck Vladimir……...

arian · by **arian** » 24 Oct 2016, 04:04

35_aoa wrote:A couple years ago while I was in the med, we cruised for a few days within 100 miles of her. Several of our jets intercepted the Su-33's that she put airborne every now and then. Will be interested to see how this plays out, back then it was very much not an operational carrier by any western standards. Couple jets flew every 5th day or so, daytime only, with no ordnance (likely due to their lack of catapults). Lots of bluster coming out of the Soviet Union (err "Russian Federation"), not a whole lot of truth to back up their claims. Failing nation, economic downward spiral, starving "middle class", and nothing to show for it other than 20 year old nukes which will (hopefully) never be used, and a bunch of conventional weapons and associated platforms that were outclassed by the West in 1995. Good luck Vladimir……...

It's all propaganda of course. Chest thumping to show that they too can field a carrier strike force, useless as it may be. Her MiG-29s will carry out a few strikes with the usual dumb-bombs to coincide with the Iranian offensive on Aleppo, and if the Iranians win in Aleppo, Putin will declare that he won the war in Syria with his little toy carrier. And all of Youtube will eat it up.

That is, if she doesn't sink first, or one of her planes doesn't crash on the deck and send her aflame again.