+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 01/18/2018 11:10 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  10.342 Visits   6 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
08/23/2007 07:13 PM ID: 64456 Permalink   

Russia Unveils "Stealth" Bomber UAV


Russia has recently unveiled a pilotless stealth bomber at an ongoing airshow outside of Moscow. The UAV is called "Skat"; meaning "Stingray". The Skat project was developed by Russia's MiG corporation.

The aircraft has features of US Air Force's stealth aircraft, including having a flattened, swept-back profile and despite not having a pilot has a bubble canopy. According to contractors it will be less vulnerable to detection than US versions.

"Many firms are trying to work in this area, but few so far have achieved results. Today we have begun real work on building an assault craft," said Vladimir Barkovsky; director of MiG's Mikoyan design bureau.

    WebReporter: havoc666 Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
  How long before UAV becomes U"C"AV?  
Ladies and Gents,
You heard it here first. It's not even a prediction. It's almost - no, a complete dead cert.
  by: redstain   08/23/2007 07:37 PM     
  Here's video of the static display

It'll also give you a chance to brush up on your Russian.
  by: Zpravodajec     08/23/2007 08:35 PM     
  I guess  
it's impervious to cameras as it seems no news site has a picture. It's a shame because, my curiousity is peaked.
  by: seniorgato     08/23/2007 08:42 PM     
  by: Zpravodajec     08/23/2007 09:48 PM     
  @ seniorgato  
The U.S. stealth bombers were in service long before being captured by the public eye. No differene here.
  by: Discarded Vet   08/23/2007 10:00 PM     
  This one is just for show  
Rembmer that this particular one was just a static display. It is nonfunctional. It not even a proof of concept. These airshows, much like the Paris Airshow, are intended to act as a display of what might be available if there are enough interested parties. It gives developers a chance to show off their concepts. Kind of like the Detriot motor shows. Most of the static stuff never makes it into production. MiG is just trying to lure potential customers.
As Discarded Vet alluded to, there's nothing new here...
  by: Zpravodajec     08/23/2007 10:35 PM     
Nice try on that...

Always, without fail, when I say that someone puts me in my place lol Kudos!
  by: seniorgato     08/23/2007 10:40 PM     
  @ seniorgato  
Um, what? Nice try?
  by: Discarded Vet   08/23/2007 10:52 PM     
No offense meant. Only that no sooner did you post, Zprav posted pictures.
  by: seniorgato     08/23/2007 11:35 PM     
  @ seniorgato  
Ah, got it.
  by: Discarded Vet   08/24/2007 12:21 AM     
  Inevitable - delayed  
I've been waiting for the inevitable "Our UCAV's better than their UAV" discussion.

8 hours on; where's Goge and opponents? Are they on strike or something?
  by: redstain   08/24/2007 03:17 AM     
The US is always two steps ahead anyway (ie. Aurora).
  by: Drudge   08/24/2007 03:27 AM     
  @Drudge: see?  
I thank you Drudge for kicking that off.
Well, would anyone like to counter that?

  by: redstain   08/24/2007 03:34 AM     
  @redstain &drudge  
i'll take this one..

Aurora isn't unmanned is a 2 crew craft, also its never been proven to even exist from what i know, though sightings have been claimed for 18 years. everything about Aurora is hypothesised.

@drudge (specifically), i hope you didn't just pull that name out of a hat, as there are quite a few UAV's:

MQ-1 Predator
MQ-9 Reaper
RQ-4 Global Hawk
RQ-3 DarkStar (cancelled)
MQ-1C Warrior (in developement)
MQ-8 Fire Scout (unmanned helicopter)

smaller UAV's:
RQ-2 Pioneer
Dragon Eye
RQ-11 Raven
RQ-7 Shadow

all of the above are all made and used by the US.
  by: havoc666     08/24/2007 03:57 AM     
The last on this project is that it was killed in the very early 90's, due to the fact that cost per flight was far less than feasable.

So, if Aurora is the factor of "two steps ahead", being the project failed (if ever did exist) how many steps behind does this actually make the States,?

  by: Discarded Vet   08/24/2007 05:07 AM     
  @Discarded Vet  
Technology advances.

Think of the computers that were "in their prime" in the 90's, and then compare them to today's standards.

Graphics Cards: In the 90's, AGP was the "cat's meow". Now, it's PCI-e.

Processors: Speed has been upped by over 200%

And that's just with consumer products.

Just imagine what advances have been made in military applications. Such advances may make things possible and “affordable” now, what was not in the 90’s.

Technology progresses exponentionally. Gene Rodenberry predicted this… and it has proven to be true. As we technologically evolve, our technology progresses more rapidly.
  by: CArnold     08/24/2007 09:03 AM     
  Processor Speeds are largely irrelavent now  
By the time a circuitboard comes into pre-production, it's already a generation out of date.

America's made a lot of pioneering progress in innovations. With brute processing, other nations will eventually catch up.

It's not sufficient to be two-steps ahead as the pace is always changing. We need to forge new grounds in tech; "own it as it were".

@CArnold: I'd like to disagree, I don't think Military Hardware evolves more quickly than Consumer Electronics. Clock speeds increased from quater to quater.

Military tech, according to audits, due-process, contractual upgrades, change more slowly.
  by: redstain   08/24/2007 01:15 PM     
not entirely true...

i have a relic here the proved otherwise... the Amiga 1000 ran rings around IBM computers for almost a decade after its release... it was all about the archetecture, its the same way AMD pulled ahead of intel. intel spent years trying to beat AMD using brute power by ramping up the clock speed, whereas AMD was making CPU's there were faster (more efficent) per hertz than Intel's CPU's... i'm actually expecting this trend to continue when the phenom is releases.

also redstain is probably correct on military hardware... though the evolutions in military hardware are more signifigant, and we the consumer tend to get the back splash a decade or two or three later... for instance both the cd-rom and internet were both originally military hardware.
  by: havoc666     08/24/2007 04:54 PM     
  @carnold, havoc666, redstain  
Most technology advances are driven by the military. On a broad scope, technology makes it into the general population much quicker. The requirements that the military places on equipment make it much haarder to develop. It's cost is also much more inflated than consumer goods, but it has to be to cover all of the developmental costs. Implementation within the military takes much longer due to infighting amongst branches and even more so within units. Some equipment will also be deployed on a very limited scale that will never make it to the general populace (either military or civilian).

Can civilian equipment compare to military equipment? No, they are two different veins. Civilian equipment is broad in scope, but narrow in depth. Military equipment is narrow in scope, but broad in depth. Based on that factor alone, civilian equipment will always develop faster than military equipment, but the major evolutionary advances that do occur, are usually driven by military development.
  by: Zpravodajec     08/24/2007 07:32 PM     
  @ CArnold  
Likewise, with the tech advancment out of other countries, due to the advancment and open market for the stuff.

Other countries are now able to advance just the same, closing the "2 steps ahead" gap.
  by: Discarded Vet   08/24/2007 10:51 PM     
  @captain zap: I concede to your assessment  
  by: redstain   08/25/2007 05:35 AM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: