Ask anything Thread


gadgetcool5

Junior Member
Registered Member
I know this is a dumb question, but is there any research into developing force field technology? I feel that in the future with missiles and drones being the most effective military weapons, the most effective defense will be a force field. You would have to find a chemical that projects out to a distance, adheres to itself in a dome-shape formation, can be suspended in air, and can withstand heavy physical hits by missiles. It may not be possible but if it were, it would be a killer weapon, IMO.
 

gelgoog

Senior Member
Registered Member
I know this is a dumb question, but is there any research into developing force field technology? I feel that in the future with missiles and drones being the most effective military weapons, the most effective defense will be a force field. You would have to find a chemical that projects out to a distance, adheres to itself in a dome-shape formation, can be suspended in air, and can withstand heavy physical hits by missiles. It may not be possible but if it were, it would be a killer weapon, IMO.

No there is nothing like that which works. What exists is active protection systems like Arena for tanks which detect incoming rounds and fire a counter round to defend. Or use lasers to blind the sensors of the incoming warhead. You also have systems which can jam radar or interfere with communications to drones.
 

gadgetcool5

Junior Member
Registered Member
Force fields? Why do Indians always do that.. skip even building a decent 3rd generation aircraft and go straight for hypersonic force field protected invisible Alcubierre drive spaceships.

Well in a war, military technology advances very quickly. The decisive technology of WW2 was or would have been the atomic bomb, which seemed like a complete fantasy and pipe dream in the mid-1930s. Today's fifth-generation fighter is not likely to be the decisive factor in a future major war.
 

davidau

Junior Member
Registered Member
I know pitot is for measuring aircraft speed, why then some fighter jets have pitot tube, others don't... Especially consider the space saving on a carrier..
 

crash8pilot

Junior Member
Registered Member
I know pitot is for measuring aircraft speed, why then some fighter jets have pitot tube, others don't... Especially consider the space saving on a carrier..
All jets have pitot tubes, even fifth-generation fighters.





Pitot tubes don't measure airspeed, they measure total ram air pressure - If my plane was not moving on the tarmac and a gust of wind blew 20 knots across my pitot tube, my airspeed indicator would read 20 knots. The air data computer (or airspeed indicator) subtracts static pressure (measured from a static port) from total pressure (measured at the pitot tube) to get the value of dynamic pressure, which is how we get the value of airspeed.

Since the aircraft body itself will distort airflow (especially in supersonic flight when subsonic/supersonic boundary layer forms), most fighters have a long pitot tube on the nose to allow it to pierce the boundary layer into smooth airflow in front of the body of the aircraft in order to receive accurate readings of dynamic pressure. Stealth fighters tend not to have such a feature because it'll increase its radar cross section. I'm a pilot and not an engineer, but I'm guessing plenty of research was done to place these "conventional" pitot tubes on the radome of fifth-generation stealth fighters to ensure they receive good clean airflow through all areas of the flight envelope. These "conventional" pitot tubes are also probably more expensive and sophisticated to produce, install, as well as maintain when compared to the long pitot probes most fighters, which is why I'm guessing is why they're not more widely featured across modern fighter planes.
 
Last edited:

Top