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

Su-57 RCS and general Stealth discussion

Cool ice

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 21, 2020
Messages
15
Reaction score
9
>blocker vs S-Duct : irrelevant for su-57 , it uses both S- ducts and blockers with only about 10 percent of the disk face showing , blown out of proportion by the internet to make it look like the entire face is showing. Sukhoi knows that the blades are a radar disco ball. Its obvious. Anaechoic chambers know that too. Thus , its just what kind of solution they picked to meet the requirment , if RAM on the walls plus mostly serpentine duct plus a blocker is good enough for the attenuation to be _at least_ F-22 level , (which is the requirment , the official requirment, the only official one , in vast contrast to the widely popular yet unsubstansed claim of "the russians only aimed for semi-stealth//frontal stealth//watered down stealth , and Su-57 *passed* the trials dedicated to display that, thus , checked the requirment of _at least_ F-22 level of RCS), perhaps capitalising on 10 years of advancement in materials science, then you can shave off the extra weight of that extra volume that would've been existed. Theres evzn The idea of using that weight elsewhere , such as thicker RAM ,which in return gives off less radiance.
As long as no detailed, structured , well backed up research , with test chamber data from multiple angles comes in , the whole su-57 stealth flaw story simply has no grounds. It does make for some nice clickbait there's a good reason why it was enviwaged that even anaechoic chambers would take more than 72 continuous hours of testing to assess the RCS.
It is very flawed and irrealistic to think that a people with extensive academic and practical activity in the field of radio physics and materials science , process engineering and mathematical modeling ,will commit an giant oopsie. Just like mike from downtown will never convince anyone that his garage concotion will defeat the corona virus while thousands of well established companies pulled tooth and nail to acheive some progress , internet articles about the round IRST/KS-0 bad and poor panel work will never school actual professionals.
F-35 is far bumpier than the extremely faceted F-117 , but guess which one is an order of a magnitude stealthier?
BAE systems are not morons and they went for putting a a round IRST on TAI-TFX, sukhoi are not morons for having faceted IRST on mig-25 then ditching just it , and being as extreme as to make faceted tiny engine bumps but forgetting about the mandarine in front of the cockpit, or purposefully edging panels and leaving others , the fact that they did it in certain parts and not others means they are fully aware of the principle . Mikoyan too , look at mikoyans keel-less stealth heavy fighter concept of the 90s . They perfectly grasp the principles of stealth. the fact that We dont know what solution they picked doesn't mean su-57 isnt syealthy or inferiorly stealthy to F-22/35.
As for the Criticism of the T-50 prototype then it was wrong from start. You can apply the same logic to USA's T-50's (YF-22/X-32/35 ) and the same will happen. Bottom line: requirment is at lezst F-22 level of stealth , stated by academian davidenko , Su-57 passed trials,confirmed characterstics , thats official. By elimination, it meets the goal.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_2020-12-26-04-28-23-76.jpg
    Screenshot_2020-12-26-04-28-23-76.jpg
    36.1 KB · Views: 122
  • IMG_20201226_041937.jpg
    IMG_20201226_041937.jpg
    150.3 KB · Views: 108
  • Screenshot_2020-12-26-04-32-48-88.jpg
    Screenshot_2020-12-26-04-32-48-88.jpg
    100.4 KB · Views: 97
  • images - 2020-12-26T043741.451.jpeg
    images - 2020-12-26T043741.451.jpeg
    25.3 KB · Views: 79
  • IMG_20201226_044338.jpg
    IMG_20201226_044338.jpg
    24.9 KB · Views: 77
  • IMG_20201226_044414.jpg
    IMG_20201226_044414.jpg
    71.5 KB · Views: 75
  • IMG_20201226_044252.jpg
    IMG_20201226_044252.jpg
    25.4 KB · Views: 72
  • IMG_20201226_044216.jpg
    IMG_20201226_044216.jpg
    19.6 KB · Views: 63
  • IMG_20201226_044448.jpg
    IMG_20201226_044448.jpg
    65.8 KB · Views: 71
  • Screenshot_2020-12-26-04-47-08-17.jpg
    Screenshot_2020-12-26-04-47-08-17.jpg
    132.7 KB · Views: 83
  • images - 2020-12-26T044640.091.jpeg
    images - 2020-12-26T044640.091.jpeg
    30 KB · Views: 81
  • images - 2020-12-26T044635.283.jpeg
    images - 2020-12-26T044635.283.jpeg
    12.7 KB · Views: 91
  • images - 2020-12-26T044827.264.jpeg
    images - 2020-12-26T044827.264.jpeg
    35.2 KB · Views: 143

BLACK_MAMBA

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jul 17, 2019
Messages
27
Reaction score
34
>blocker vs S-Duct : irrelevant for su-57 , it uses both S- ducts and blockers with only about 10 percent of the disk face showing , blown out of proportion by the internet to make it look like the entire face is showing. Sukhoi knows that the blades are a radar disco ball. Its obvious. Anaechoic chambers know that too. Thus , its just what kind of solution they picked to meet the requirment , if RAM on the walls plus mostly serpentine duct plus a blocker is good enough for the attenuation to be _at least_ F-22 level , (which is the requirment , the official requirment, the only official one , in vast contrast to the widely popular yet unsubstansed claim of "the russians only aimed for semi-stealth//frontal stealth//watered down stealth , and Su-57 *passed* the trials dedicated to display that, thus , checked the requirment of _at least_ F-22 level of RCS), perhaps capitalising on 10 years of advancement in materials science, then you can shave off the extra weight of that extra volume that would've been existed. Theres evzn The idea of using that weight elsewhere , such as thicker RAM ,which in return gives off less radiance.
As long as no detailed, structured , well backed up research , with test chamber data from multiple angles comes in , the whole su-57 stealth flaw story simply has no grounds. It does make for some nice clickbait there's a good reason why it was enviwaged that even anaechoic chambers would take more than 72 continuous hours of testing to assess the RCS.
It is very flawed and irrealistic to think that a people with extensive academic and practical activity in the field of radio physics and materials science , process engineering and mathematical modeling ,will commit an giant oopsie. Just like mike from downtown will never convince anyone that his garage concotion will defeat the corona virus while thousands of well established companies pulled tooth and nail to acheive some progress , internet articles about the round IRST/KS-0 bad and poor panel work will never school actual professionals.
F-35 is far bumpier than the extremely faceted F-117 , but guess which one is an order of a magnitude stealthier?
BAE systems are not morons and they went for putting a a round IRST on TAI-TFX, sukhoi are not morons for having faceted IRST on mig-25 then ditching just it , and being as extreme as to make faceted tiny engine bumps but forgetting about the mandarine in front of the cockpit, or purposefully edging panels and leaving others , the fact that they did it in certain parts and not others means they are fully aware of the principle . Mikoyan too , look at mikoyans keel-less stealth heavy fighter concept of the 90s . They perfectly grasp the principles of stealth. the fact that We dont know what solution they picked doesn't mean su-57 isnt syealthy or inferiorly stealthy to F-22/35.
As for the Criticism of the T-50 prototype then it was wrong from start. You can apply the same logic to USA's T-50's (YF-22/X-32/35 ) and the same will happen. Bottom line: requirment is at lezst F-22 level of stealth , stated by academian davidenko , Su-57 passed trials,confirmed characterstics , thats official. By elimination, it meets the goal.
The Russians are always going to say that the Su-57 is "at least F-22" level of stealth. They boast about this plane as "the best in the world" in their propaganda videos when there is plenty evidence they still committed a few stealth no-no's.

At the end of the day it comes down to their requirements which from an outsiders perspective is affordable stealth. They didn't fuss and spend millions on evey single feature of the aircraft to decease its signature. The spent the money where big gains are to be had and accepted the losses brought by other aspects. It simplifies production quite a bit if you don't facet every single joint on the airframe for example.

So yes, I have no doubt that Sukhoi met the requirements expected of them but those requirements were not "at least F-22 level" as they like to claim in the media.

Just an after thought - the reason the construction of the X-32/35 is ignored by many is because they were experimental concept demonstrators designed to prove how they would meet the VSTOL requirements. The ATF program on the other hand delivered prototypes in the shape of the YF-22/23. This should be clear from the designation and the difference in attention to finish and design detail of their construction compared to the experimental JSF demonstrators. The T-50's were clearly prototypes more inline with the YF-XX's than experimental demonstrators of the X-XX's hence construction criticsm although the fit and finish of production aircraft seem of very high quality - western levels of fit and finish I would say.
 

Cool ice

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 21, 2020
Messages
15
Reaction score
9
>blocker vs S-Duct : irrelevant for su-57 , it uses both S- ducts and blockers with only about 10 percent of the disk face showing , blown out of proportion by the internet to make it look like the entire face is showing. Sukhoi knows that the blades are a radar disco ball. Its obvious. Anaechoic chambers know that too. Thus , its just what kind of solution they picked to meet the requirment , if RAM on the walls plus mostly serpentine duct plus a blocker is good enough for the attenuation to be _at least_ F-22 level , (which is the requirment , the official requirment, the only official one , in vast contrast to the widely popular yet unsubstansed claim of "the russians only aimed for semi-stealth//frontal stealth//watered down stealth , and Su-57 *passed* the trials dedicated to display that, thus , checked the requirment of _at least_ F-22 level of RCS), perhaps capitalising on 10 years of advancement in materials science, then you can shave off the extra weight of that extra volume that would've been existed. Theres evzn The idea of using that weight elsewhere , such as thicker RAM ,which in return gives off less radiance.
As long as no detailed, structured , well backed up research , with test chamber data from multiple angles comes in , the whole su-57 stealth flaw story simply has no grounds. It does make for some nice clickbait there's a good reason why it was enviwaged that even anaechoic chambers would take more than 72 continuous hours of testing to assess the RCS.
It is very flawed and irrealistic to think that a people with extensive academic and practical activity in the field of radio physics and materials science , process engineering and mathematical modeling ,will commit an giant oopsie. Just like mike from downtown will never convince anyone that his garage concotion will defeat the corona virus while thousands of well established companies pulled tooth and nail to acheive some progress , internet articles about the round IRST/KS-0 bad and poor panel work will never school actual professionals.
F-35 is far bumpier than the extremely faceted F-117 , but guess which one is an order of a magnitude stealthier?
BAE systems are not morons and they went for putting a a round IRST on TAI-TFX, sukhoi are not morons for having faceted IRST on mig-25 then ditching just it , and being as extreme as to make faceted tiny engine bumps but forgetting about the mandarine in front of the cockpit, or purposefully edging panels and leaving others , the fact that they did it in certain parts and not others means they are fully aware of the principle . Mikoyan too , look at mikoyans keel-less stealth heavy fighter concept of the 90s . They perfectly grasp the principles of stealth. the fact that We dont know what solution they picked doesn't mean su-57 isnt syealthy or inferiorly stealthy to F-22/35.
As for the Criticism of the T-50 prototype then it was wrong from start. You can apply the same logic to USA's T-50's (YF-22/X-32/35 ) and the same will happen. Bottom line: requirment is at lezst F-22 level of stealth , stated by academian davidenko , Su-57 passed trials,confirmed characterstics , thats official. By elimination, it meets the goal.
The Russians are always going to say that the Su-57 is "at least F-22" level of stealth. They boast about this plane as "the best in the world" in their propaganda videos when there is plenty evidence they still committed a few stealth no-no's.

At the end of the day it comes down to their requirements which from an outsiders perspective is affordable stealth. They didn't fuss and spend millions on evey single feature of the aircraft to decease its signature. The spent the money where big gains are to be had and accepted the losses brought by other aspects. It simplifies production quite a bit if you don't facet every single joint on the airframe for example.

So yes, I have no doubt that Sukhoi met the requirements expected of them but those requirements were not "at least F-22 level" as they like to claim in the media.

Just an after thought - the reason the construction of the X-32/35 is ignored by many is because they were experimental concept demonstrators designed to prove how they would meet the VSTOL requirements. The ATF program on the other hand delivered prototypes in the shape of the YF-22/23. This should be clear from the designation and the difference in attention to finish and design detail of their construction compared to the experimental JSF demonstrators. The T-50's were clearly prototypes more inline with the YF-XX's than experimental demonstrators of the X-XX's hence construction criticsm although the fit and finish of production aircraft seem of very high quality - western levels of fit and finish I would say.
Friend ,
Which russians? Propaganda news outlets made to speak good of russian equipment and trash US equipment are *entirely* separated entities from Sukhoi and Academians such as Alexander davydenko which make accurate and reasonable statements in contrast to propaganda sources.
we can make an exact same analogy with western sources and pretty much an enormous amount of western news websites showering us with endless "su57 bad" and "su 57 cancelled" articles , and then say that because those outlets lie , Lockheed must be lying too. again , separate entities.
by the way , being state funded or not has no relation , it still does not eliminate the point that news outlets made to propagate ideas or make money from clickbait are separate from the guys that actually make the plane.
"the russians are lying and boasting" argument is quite a misconception , news agencies can lie , not multi million dollar companies that will have their equipment checked over and over in all kinds of trials by both domestic and foreign countries to actually sign contracts. Lying about military products will just shoot you in the foot. Had there been any scandlas regarding su-35s not being as good as advertised ? or Su-30SM? T-90S tanks being sold like hot cakes? Did the russian MoD care about bad press when they aimed to pick the Felin individual soldier pack instead of russian equipment in the early 2000's?
if an official source directly from the company states something then there are very high chances that its true because they do not have any right to lie, and do not have any gain from lying since its trials and tests that will win the deal and bring money , not the claims.
Of course i am aware of the chances of scandals happening now and then , like literally any company , but its not something sukhoi is particularly famous for , and if someone wants to claim the su57 is worse than advertised , evidence is needed , if not , its a guess.
and that evidence is to be in form of solid concrete data gained from real tests with appropriate equipment.Anything less than that does not qualify as evidence , let alone photograph observations. then at that time we can conclude that they are lying. Apart from that anyone can say any company is lying.

the official requirment is no less than F-22 level because there is a non propaganda source telling so: Screenshot_2020-12-28-02-02-01-58.jpg

i dont see any stealth no nos with the su57 , what is considered evidence is not a photograph , RCS testing need an echo chamber , hours upon hours of irradiation , and accurate data from all angles, nothing short of that will ever be evidence
''But how about the gaps that are non aligned ?'' a sealant is Used. ''But all stealth planes use sealants yet they have edged panels !'' except that there is a sealant from another and it all depends on its quality and the level of attenuation ,glazing coatings on the SU57 are twice as absorbant as previous models , there are ten years between the F22 and Su57 , also , note that the edged panels on the su57 are on moving parts , landing gear and weapon bay doors , meanwhile , the straight ones are the ones on non moving parts , hence tighter cavities.That may only need a good enough sealant to hide
Just think about it this way ; Sukhoi knows about the importance of panel serrations , which is why they implemented them , if they did not implement them in other panels then they must have a very good reason for it , the fact that we dont know why doesnt mean they are necessarly wrong. why would they purposely pick certain panels to edge and leave others?

the point that they are doing it to simplify production does not stand. For starters there is no source claiming it , furthermore , can someone calculate the cost saving of using non aligned panels vs using aligned panels and ration that with the signature increase related to it if there is any ? what is the pourcentage of any potential cost incrase related to edging all of the panels , ill have to remind people that if a plane costs 100 million dollars , and edging all of the panels adds an entire million on its own , that is a measly 1 percent cost increase , not something you'd wanna care about if it gives you Rcs drawbacks. and last but not least , it goes in absolute contrast to the su57 patent which purposely state that they are eliminating all of the inhomogenities in the signature , which totally kills the ''panel alignment flaw" argument: Screenshot_2020-12-28-01-50-48-01.jpg

It says , literally : eliminate , entirely remove.
literally all of the "flaws" seen on the su 57 follow the same model , weather it be the round IRST or the 101KSO bulbs or others.
they all have the flaw of assuming that hundereds of experts with hundereds of hours of RCS testing data in their hands will make rookie mistakes , which is not conceivable , or assume that they did it on purpose because the requirment is ''semi stealth / watered down stealth / partial stealth" which not only have zero evidence from the company , but also , goes in absolute contradiction with the actual official statement on the matter. Which means that by elimination , they simply found solutions to go around any potential drawbacks of the traditional solutions.(although i can talk about each part , the IRST , Optics , etc , it will result in a very long post)

the logic that states that the su57 is inferior in stealth to things like F-22 / 35 also implies that the F-35 is less stealthy than the F-117. The F35 has many rounded up shapes , such as the back of the engine , the massive cylinder where the gun lays, the countless lumps and bumps on its underside , by any means , the extremely faceted F-117 should be stealthier , but the F-35 actually is stealthier than.
 
Last edited:

Cool ice

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 21, 2020
Messages
15
Reaction score
9
X-35 and 32 are full of what are to be considered , by the Logic usually hammered upon the Su-57 , big RCS flaws.

Sure their point was to demonstrate VSTOL requirments and other matters , but that point is exactly appliable to the T-50 prototypes , that had specefic goals of construction that were not necessaily stealth. Some of them were made purely to validate flight performance, others to test weapons and radio electronics, therefore , stealth details were out of concern. Yet we've seen some media outlets literally criticise the stealth of T-50-1.
 

Cool ice

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 21, 2020
Messages
15
Reaction score
9
If you believe the RCS requirement for F-22 was 0.3-0.4 sq m, then you may be interested in an investment opportunity in Nigeria I recently received in my email.
If you believe that RCS is a single value then then you might be interested in a post as a janitor in my recently built company over at Nigeria
 
Last edited:

LMFS

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
110
Reaction score
129
Since apparently a couple of rivets ruin the Su-57 as VLO design, I am genuinely interested in knowing how this AESA of almost 1 sqm:


...can have a much smaller RCS than a metal ball of 5.6 mm radius? Or to put it differently, if the Su-57 was carrying a huge plate full of metal spikes on the fuselage, could it be considered a VLO-compatible design? Genuine question, please let me know how this is done if you know it because I am not seeing it that easy.

 

Cool ice

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 21, 2020
Messages
15
Reaction score
9
Since apparently a couple of rivets ruin the Su-57 as VLO design, I am genuinely interested in knowing how this AESA of almost 1 sqm:


...can have a much smaller RCS than a metal ball of 5.6 mm radius? Or to put it differently, if the Su-57 was carrying a huge plate full of metal spikes on the fuselage, could it be considered a VLO-compatible design? Genuine question, please let me know how this is done if you know it because I am not seeing it that easy.

I dont know about F-35(although im sure they do have a solution.) but the Su-57 is going to have an easy time giving the fact that it has a flat antenna tilted upwards.

I wouldnt get too carried away with the 0.0001 sqm idea , Lockheed is right about anything they specefy about their plane , but Lockheed states that as a frontal value. They never said anything regarding other angles.

Imagine any stealth airplane irradiated by enemies from above , like six different angles from the sides , possibly ground radars from below , all networked , one may understand why sukhoi likes to use more pragmatic values during their interviews. Im sure lockheed is just as knowledgable , the only entity blowing things out of proportion is the internet.
 
Last edited:

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,563
Reaction score
3,845
The short answer is frequency selective radomes. Which are very difficult to get right.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,563
Reaction score
3,845
If you believe the RCS requirement for F-22 was 0.3-0.4 sq m, then you may be interested in an investment opportunity in Nigeria I recently received in my email.
If you believe that RCS is a single value then then you might be interested in a post as a janitor in my recently built company over at Nigeria

Of course it’s not a single value. However stealth only works with reductions in RCS of multiple orders of magnitude. Reducing RCS from 10 sq m (F-15) to 0.4 sq m would not be tactically very significant.

Averaging the RCS in every possible direction isn't meaningful because the stealth aircraft RCS has large spikes in certain specific directions. Any radar energy not absorbed by RAM/RAS must reflect somewhere!

The art of stealth design is arranging the spikes in the least useful direction for the enemy, and also planning your flight to minimise the chance of your "spikes" pointing in tactically useful directions.

If you imagine a stealth aircraft with a large spike pointing directly down to the ground - this isn't tactically very useful to its opponent as you won't detect it until it passes directly overhead - and that assumes the radar even has a useable elevation capability of 90 degrees.

Every air-air fight is going to start at a certain geometry (roughly equal heights, heading at each other) which means frontal RCS is very important.

A frontal RCS of 0.3 to 0.4 sq m would be less ambitious than Typhoon or later model F-16/18 and result in no useful stealth capability at all.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
540
Reaction score
209
If you believe the RCS requirement for F-22 was 0.3-0.4 sq m, then you may be interested in an investment opportunity in Nigeria I recently received in my email.
If you believe that RCS is a single value then then you might be interested in a post as a janitor in my recently built company over at Nigeria
Do you have a dental plan?
 

BLACK_MAMBA

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jul 17, 2019
Messages
27
Reaction score
34
Friend ,
Which russians? Propaganda news outlets made to speak good of russian equipment and trash US equipment are *entirely* separated entities from Sukhoi and Academians such as Alexander davydenko which make accurate and reasonable statements in contrast to propaganda sources.
we can make an exact same analogy with western sources and pretty much an enormous amount of western news websites showering us with endless "su57 bad" and "su 57 cancelled" articles , and then say that because those outlets lie , Lockheed must be lying too. again , separate entities.
by the way , being state funded or not has no relation , it still does not eliminate the point that news outlets made to propagate ideas or make money from clickbait are separate from the guys that actually make the plane.
"the russians are lying and boasting" argument is quite a misconception , news agencies can lie , not multi million dollar companies that will have their equipment checked over and over in all kinds of trials by both domestic and foreign countries to actually sign contracts. Lying about military products will just shoot you in the foot. Had there been any scandlas regarding su-35s not being as good as advertised ? or Su-30SM? T-90S tanks being sold like hot cakes? Did the russian MoD care about bad press when they aimed to pick the Felin individual soldier pack instead of russian equipment in the early 2000's?
if an official source directly from the company states something then there are very high chances that its true because they do not have any right to lie, and do not have any gain from lying since its trials and tests that will win the deal and bring money , not the claims.
Of course i am aware of the chances of scandals happening now and then , like literally any company , but its not something sukhoi is particularly famous for , and if someone wants to claim the su57 is worse than advertised , evidence is needed , if not , its a guess.
and that evidence is to be in form of solid concrete data gained from real tests with appropriate equipment.Anything less than that does not qualify as evidence , let alone photograph observations. then at that time we can conclude that they are lying. Apart from that anyone can say any company is lying.

the official requirment is no less than F-22 level because there is a non propaganda source telling so:View attachment 647335

i dont see any stealth no nos with the su57 , what is considered evidence is not a photograph , RCS testing need an echo chamber , hours upon hours of irradiation , and accurate data from all angles, nothing short of that will ever be evidence
''But how about the gaps that are non aligned ?'' a sealant is Used. ''But all stealth planes use sealants yet they have edged panels !'' except that there is a sealant from another and it all depends on its quality and the level of attenuation ,glazing coatings on the SU57 are twice as absorbant as previous models , there are ten years between the F22 and Su57 , also , note that the edged panels on the su57 are on moving parts , landing gear and weapon bay doors , meanwhile , the straight ones are the ones on non moving parts , hence tighter cavities.That may only need a good enough sealant to hide
Just think about it this way ; Sukhoi knows about the importance of panel serrations , which is why they implemented them , if they did not implement them in other panels then they must have a very good reason for it , the fact that we dont know why doesnt mean they are necessarly wrong. why would they purposely pick certain panels to edge and leave others?

the point that they are doing it to simplify production does not stand. For starters there is no source claiming it , furthermore , can someone calculate the cost saving of using non aligned panels vs using aligned panels and ration that with the signature increase related to it if there is any ? what is the pourcentage of any potential cost incrase related to edging all of the panels , ill have to remind people that if a plane costs 100 million dollars , and edging all of the panels adds an entire million on its own , that is a measly 1 percent cost increase , not something you'd wanna care about if it gives you Rcs drawbacks. and last but not least , it goes in absolute contrast to the su57 patent which purposely state that they are eliminating all of the inhomogenities in the signature , which totally kills the ''panel alignment flaw" argument:View attachment 647334

It says , literally : eliminate , entirely remove.
literally all of the "flaws" seen on the su 57 follow the same model , weather it be the round IRST or the 101KSO bulbs or others.
they all have the flaw of assuming that hundereds of experts with hundereds of hours of RCS testing data in their hands will make rookie mistakes , which is not conceivable , or assume that they did it on purpose because the requirment is ''semi stealth / watered down stealth / partial stealth" which not only have zero evidence from the company , but also , goes in absolute contradiction with the actual official statement on the matter. Which means that by elimination , they simply found solutions to go around any potential drawbacks of the traditional solutions.(although i can talk about each part , the IRST , Optics , etc , it will result in a very long post)

the logic that states that the su57 is inferior in stealth to things like F-22 / 35 also implies that the F-35 is less stealthy than the F-117. The F35 has many rounded up shapes , such as the back of the engine , the massive cylinder where the gun lays, the countless lumps and bumps on its underside , by any means , the extremely faceted F-117 should be stealthier , but the F-35 actually is stealthier than.
Firstly, the F-35 is certainly stealthier than the F-117 simply because the computer used to design the 117 filled the basement of an entire building and it still could not process radar returns of triangles smaller than what are visible on the aircraft. In both cases the same effort was put into construction (Sukhoi certainly stepped up their effort in fit and finish as both I and others have mentioned). The F-35 is simply billions of infinitely small triangles coupled together to form a round shape - such is the power of modern computers.

Secondly, the only source of aircraft specifications I trust less than propaganda outlets are manufacturers specifications they release publicly. Why would they smear their own product compared to its competitors in a public arena? The only reliable source would be an independent country evaluating say Su-57 and F-35 for acquisition. The bids handed to that selection committee will be the most accurate and they are also not public knowledge hence we can only speculate.

Thirdly, if Sukhoi managed to find such simple solutions to RCS issues using only coatings why didn't LM pick them up on F-35 and why are the Chinese putting such effort into "Western" style details like faceted covers instead of just coating round shapes for optical sensors etc? Like with nearly all LO details it is the combination of coatings and shape that give the end result. Ben Rich stated 60% air frame and 40% coatings for LO on the 117. The ratio undoubtedly has changed by today with advances in both RCS design and coatings but certainly not fully to either direction or we would see multiple solutions converging to simply using coatings and sealants. Instead we still see effort being put into both shape and coatings. If anything the big advance would have been in air frame design being able to calculate RCS for ever more complex objects instead of just for faceted objects.

These are the details pointing to Sukhoi being willing to accept less "stealth" which means their requirements were not "F-22 levels". Perhaps we could see changes when Su-57M with the new engines start production in a similar way to how the Chinese continually iterate their J-20.
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
367
Reaction score
145
>blocker vs S-Duct : irrelevant for su-57 , it uses both S- ducts and blockers with only about 10 percent of the disk face showing , blown out of proportion by the internet to make it look like the entire face is showing. Sukhoi knows that the blades are a radar disco ball. Its obvious. Anaechoic chambers know that too. Thus , its just what kind of solution they picked to meet the requirment , if RAM on the walls plus mostly serpentine duct plus a blocker is good enough for the attenuation to be _at least_ F-22 level , (which is the requirment , the official requirment, the only official one , in vast contrast to the widely popular yet unsubstansed claim of "the russians only aimed for semi-stealth//frontal stealth//watered down stealth , and Su-57 *passed* the trials dedicated to display that, thus , checked the requirment of _at least_ F-22 level of RCS), perhaps capitalising on 10 years of advancement in materials science, then you can shave off the extra weight of that extra volume that would've been existed. Theres evzn The idea of using that weight elsewhere , such as thicker RAM ,which in return gives off less radiance.
As long as no detailed, structured , well backed up research , with test chamber data from multiple angles comes in , the whole su-57 stealth flaw story simply has no grounds. It does make for some nice clickbait there's a good reason why it was enviwaged that even anaechoic chambers would take more than 72 continuous hours of testing to assess the RCS.
It is very flawed and irrealistic to think that a people with extensive academic and practical activity in the field of radio physics and materials science , process engineering and mathematical modeling ,will commit an giant oopsie. Just like mike from downtown will never convince anyone that his garage concotion will defeat the corona virus while thousands of well established companies pulled tooth and nail to acheive some progress , internet articles about the round IRST/KS-0 bad and poor panel work will never school actual professionals.
BAE systems are not morons and they went for putting a a round IRST on TAI-TFX, sukhoi are not morons for having faceted IRST on mig-25 then ditching just it , and being as extreme as to make faceted tiny engine bumps but forgetting about the mandarine in front of the cockpit, or purposefully edging panels and leaving others , the fact that they did it in certain parts and not others means they are fully aware of the principle . Mikoyan too , look at mikoyans keel-less stealth heavy fighter concept of the 90s . They perfectly grasp the principles of stealth. the fact that We dont know what solution they picked doesn't mean su-57 isnt syealthy or inferiorly stealthy to F-22/35.
As for the Criticism of the T-50 prototype then it was wrong from start. You can apply the same logic to USA's T-50's (YF-22/X-32/35 ) and the same will happen. Bottom line: requirment is at lezst F-22 level of stealth , stated by academian davidenko , Su-57 passed trials,confirmed characterstics , thats official. By elimination, it meets the goal.


Su-57 doesn't use S-duct to hide the blade, at best you can call it a extremely slightly curved duct, but the curve is negligible, the front part that might be mistaken with the curve is the inlet ramp used for pressure recovery, technically speaking, it can be used as a form of blocker to reduce the amount of radar wave hitting the turbine blade, but it isn't as good as an S-duct because the ramp is a discontinuity so there are some surface wave traveling back when they hit the gap
v2-8ceedbba5e339d54f5da81a9e539e5a7_hd.jpg
A true S-duct look more like this:


While the advance on material science can help you make RAM with better absorbing capability, an S-duct is still better than a blocker from the signature perspective because it makes radar wave bounce multiple time and therefore accumulate the radar absorbing rating of the radar absorbing material (absorbing rating of 10 dB can be accumulate to 60 dB)





The requirement of Su-57 isn't "at least F-22 level". What A.Davidenko said is " we have similar visual requirement" which can mean many things. For example: if the requirement is to have RCS lower than -20 dBsm and Su-57 has RCS value of -30 dBsm while F-22 has RCS value of -40 dBsm, then they both satisfy the requirement and they both have the same requirement, yet their RCS is still not the same. Or their requirement can be something like "able to get within X distance from a specific radar system without being detected" then they can still have very different RCS and still the similar requirement. And to what extend can we count as similar? is the different of 5-10 dB still count as similar?
Secondly, just because Su-57 has higher RCS than F-22 and F-35 doesn't mean it is a flawed fighter . Because Russian and USA have different doctrine and different requirements for their fighter, as their force structure are very different. For example: S-duct is better for signature but take up more space and heavier, while blocker are not as good for signature but much lighter and allow a lighter aircraft and more space for fuel. But USA has many more aircraft carrier and tankers compared to Russia, so USA combat radius requirement doesn't need to be as high as Russia. In that case F-22, F-35 can scarify some fuel space for S-duct while Su-57 might opted to use a blocker because it must satisfy the range requirement as well. In the field of engineering, "best" is the enemy of "good enough", let say the investor set 5 requirements for your aircraft, it is better to pass all 5 requirements, than to pass one at very high score and fall all the other 4.


F-35 is far bumpier than the extremely faceted F-117 , but guess which one is an order of a magnitude stealthier?
the logic that states that the su57 is inferior in stealth to things like F-22 / 35 also implies that the F-35 is less stealthy than the F-117. The F35 has many rounded up shapes , such as the back of the engine , the massive cylinder where the gun lays, the countless lumps and bumps on its underside , by any means , the extremely faceted F-117 should be stealthier , but the F-35 actually is stealthier than F-117
The F-35 isn't randomly bumpier than F-117, it has the blended edges, the shape are still faceted but the edge where the facets connect are blended in a curve , it is done that way to reduce edge diffraction, which is an issue especially at low frequency. All stealth aircraft after F-117 use this sort of blended facets design so that their design can be VLO over a wider range of frequency.
1.PNG





But don't confuse a blended facets which make up of facets and only blended at the edge with circular or tube body, because a tube or spherical will lead to creeping wave return travel back to the source and it also have much wider specular lobes
 
Last edited:

GARGEAN

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
487
Reaction score
198
If you believe the RCS requirement for F-22 was 0.3-0.4 sq m, then you may be interested in an investment opportunity in Nigeria I recently received in my email.
At what aspect? At what frequency? With which emitting pattern?

Please, stop sticking to all those 0.0001m^2. You are a sane man after all! Thing has CANOPY. Huge perfect reflector visible from by far most relevant hemispheres. Yeah, metal coating, fancy material and what not, but it is NOT radar absorbant. It is a perfectly reflecting shape with quite huge forward profile and defined by basic reflection laws RCS. It alone is much bigger that all those numbers full of zeros.
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
367
Reaction score
145
At what aspect? At what frequency? With which emitting pattern?

Please, stop sticking to all those 0.0001m^2. You are a sane man after all! Thing has CANOPY. Huge perfect reflector visible from by far most relevant hemispheres. Yeah, metal coating, fancy material and what not, but it is NOT radar absorbant. It is a perfectly reflecting shape with quite huge forward profile and defined by basic reflection laws RCS. It alone is much bigger that all those numbers full of zeros.
technically speaking, there are transparent RAM
 

LMFS

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
110
Reaction score
129
The short answer is frequency selective radomes. Which are very difficult to get right.

Yes I am aware, they in the end are band pass filters with certain attenuation characteristics. For example:
Sensitivity-of-the-frequency-response-of-the-FSS-radome-to-the-variations-in-structural.png
Obviously they need to be transparent to X band, which is the frequency in which the radars of other fighters also work, so this "getting them right" so that the diffracted field created by 2,000 antennas is not visible outside of the radome looks tricky indeed.

The pitot tubes in both F-22 and F-35 are already similar in dimensions to the RCS given for the whole plane. I wonder why such values are not questioned but the Su-57 is.

I dont know about F-35(although im sure they do have a solution.) but the Su-57 is going to have an easy time giving the fact that it has a flat antenna tilted upwards.

I wouldnt get too carried away with the 0.0001 sqm idea , Lockheed is right about anything they specefy about their plane , but Lockheed states that as a frontal value. They never said anything regarding other angles.

Imagine any stealth airplane irradiated by enemies from above , like six different angles from the sides , possibly ground radars from below , all networked , one may understand why sukhoi likes to use more pragmatic values during their interviews. Im sure lockheed is just as knowledgable , the only entity blowing things out of proportion is the internet.

The Su-57 antenna will have the same potential issues, it is very similar to that on the APG-77 and 81 and tilted the same way, the radiating elements seem a bit different but that's it. I don't see how the diffracted backscatter from so many wedges as the radiating elements in the antenna is eliminated, that is why the values from Davydenko don't seem so crazy to me. He and Lockheed can be referring to different things when giving values.

Averaging the RCS in every possible direction isn't meaningful because the stealth aircraft RCS has large spikes in certain specific directions. Any radar energy not absorbed by RAM/RAS must reflect somewhere!

How wide are those spikes? Considering the (many) curves on planes like the F-35, the width of the illuminating beams and the effects of frequency, it seems to me they can be many tens of degrees wide, but feel free to correct me.
 
Last edited:

haavarla

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
53
Reaction score
35
If you believe the RCS requirement for F-22 was 0.3-0.4 sq m, then you may be interested in an investment opportunity in Nigeria I recently received in my email.
If you believe that RCS is a single value then then you might be interested in a post as a janitor in my recently built company over at Nigeria

Of course it’s not a single value. However stealth only works with reductions in RCS of multiple orders of magnitude. Reducing RCS from 10 sq m (F-15) to 0.4 sq m would not be tactically very significant.

Averaging the RCS in every possible direction isn't meaningful because the stealth aircraft RCS has large spikes in certain specific directions. Any radar energy not absorbed by RAM/RAS must reflect somewhere!

The art of stealth design is arranging the spikes in the least useful direction for the enemy, and also planning your flight to minimise the chance of your "spikes" pointing in tactically useful directions.

If you imagine a stealth aircraft with a large spike pointing directly down to the ground - this isn't tactically very useful to its opponent as you won't detect it until it passes directly overhead - and that assumes the radar even has a useable elevation capability of 90 degrees.

Every air-air fight is going to start at a certain geometry (roughly equal heights, heading at each other) which means frontal RCS is very important.

A frontal RCS of 0.3 to 0.4 sq m would be less ambitious than Typhoon or later model F-16/18 and result in no useful stealth capability at all.
Ehem.. Why did US reduce its RCS of F-18 intakes and HAVE BLUE on F-16's?
Ofc every reduction of RCS have its reasoning and value.
Pls stop being hyperbolic about stealth. That is what Fanboys does all the time on every Forum.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
1,041
Reaction score
373
And evolving variations on “stealth’s not that important” becoming “stealth’s maybe important, but our stealth’s better than yours anyway, even though it might not appear to be...” also seen from predictable sections of “fanboys” on such forums.
Please bring back “plasma stealth” claims and we all can really get nostalgic....
All designs are a trade-off and only time and some actual objective information will tell where exactly that trade off for the Su-57 was made re: “stealth” aspects.
I would note that, very unlike the Cold War pattern for such programs, none of the new generation US or European fighter programs appear to be particularly flagging the Su-57 as a threat or as justification and/ or basis for these programs (re: the US programs some references made to the J-20 in the Pacific).
 

Evgeniy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 30, 2020
Messages
76
Reaction score
76
Now, if we talk really, then what one could cling to in terms of visibility in relation to the Su-57 is two KS-O balls from the bottom and top of the cockpit. Well, to the partition on the glazing.
With the air intake, I think everyone already understands everything (although this was not secretly before).
The serial view of the nozzles of the second stage, as it were, is known, it remains to wait for the sawtooth surface in the places where the nozzle itself sticks out of the airframe.
 

Evgeniy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 30, 2020
Messages
76
Reaction score
76
The whole emotional incident in relation to the Su-57 RCS is connected with the fact that it is not matched with any specific aircraft, but with a "marble ball".
It is clear that Davidenko's figures are clearly not real either, because then he would have simply declassified the RKS PAK-FA.
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
367
Reaction score
145
Reducing RCS from 10 sq m (F-15) to 0.4 sq m would not be tactically very significant.
Reducing RCS by 16 times decrease detection range by 2 times. Isn't it tactically significant when you can detect your enemy at a distance twice greater than that he detects you at?!
But that only applied when you compared to big fighter with already very big RCS such as F-15 and Su-35
When we take the 0.4 m2 value and compared that with fighter which has small RCS such as F-16 or F-18 at 1 m2 , then the value gain isn't very significant, only about 20% in detection range. The 0.3-0.4 m2 value is even more illogical when we take into account fighter with moderate RCS reduction such as F-18E/F. F=18E/F is said to reduce RCS an order of magnitude compared to F-18 C/D, if F-18 C/D RCS is 3 m2, that put F-18 E/F RCS at 0.3 m2. In short, F-22, F-35, Su-57, J-20 have no stealth advantage over the vanilla F-18 E/F?
F-18 E.PNG
F-18 E (b).PNG
F-18 E (c).PNG
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,563
Reaction score
3,845
I'm sorry, but all these posts are just so many variants of argument from personal incredulity. "It doesn't make sense to me so it can't be true." Unless you are an RCS engineer, this isn't helpful.

Tactically meaningful stealth requires reducing RCS by a factor of 100 or 1000. No-one is going to call a 50% reduction in radar range revolutionionary.. Helpful, maybe, but no game changer.

If you don't believe achieving an RCS of say 0.01 sq m or lower in specific directions is possible, then you are simply saying "I don't believe stealth is possible".

The corollary of this is you believe multiple US corporations have committed industrial fraud on a massive scale for 30+ years and got away with it.

Whether Russia aimed to achieve "stealth" levels comparable to US aircraft is still up for discussion, but Davidenko's comment suggests not, to me. However, I'm not an RCS engineer either.
 

AGS-1787

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 4, 2020
Messages
31
Reaction score
25
Well, lets just all of us pitch some money to buy one, and then we can test it to end the discussion :)
 

Scar

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Apr 25, 2019
Messages
26
Reaction score
14
When we take the 0.4 m2 value and compared that with fighter which has small RCS such as F-16 or F-18 at 1 m2
No way F-16 or any other 4,5gen will have 1m2 with EFT's and missiles. Impossible.
 

1635yankee

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
40
Reaction score
30
If you believe the RCS requirement for F-22 was 0.3-0.4 sq m, then you may be interested in an investment opportunity in Nigeria I recently received in my email.
If you believe that RCS is a single value then then you might be interested in a post as a janitor in my recently built company over at Nigeria
Do you have a dental plan?

In the name of complete personal autonomy and libertarianism, self-service dental instruments will be supplied at a reasonable fee.
 

framige

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Aug 9, 2020
Messages
2
Reaction score
1
Hi everybody,

I do not know if Su-57 is less, equally or more stealthy than F-22 and nobody knows really except its conceptors and the RuAF. However, as long back as 2009 (even before the first prototype took to the sky) at the MAKS aviasalon, M.Pogossian - at that time in charge of the project - said :
PAK-FA will incorporate many stealth features BUT NOT TO THE EXPENSE OF SPEED AND MANEUVERABILITY. In other words, the RuAF considered stealth a valuable asset but not the most important. And everyone having seen the flight demos of this plane knows that it is a very highly maneuverable machine.
So IMHO should the Su-57 turn out to be less stealthy than its US counterparts it would clearly be the result of a trade off and not to the Russians unability to build a stealth fighter.
Also keep in mind that this plane is a true multirole which the Raptor is not.

Just my little non technical pinch of salt in the debate. Sorry if it spoils...

Keep debating, it is very interesting.
 

1635yankee

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
40
Reaction score
30
In a more serious vein.

First, I was involved in LO analysis for the LHX project, in the early 1980s. I was not involved in F-117, B-2, A-X, F-22, or F-35 programs or their competitors, so my perspective is fairly narrow. My information is also about 35 years out of date, and any comments I make are solely based on public sources (which may include that long-term gift to foreign intelligence services, Aviation Week). Second, my LHX work was mostly on acoustic detectability, which is significant for helicopters, but completely irrelevant for high-speed aircraft.

The shape of small aircraft, like the F-117, makes very little difference to the longer-wavelength radars. A friend, who ended his USN career as a destroyer captain, said that the F-117's detectability by USN AAW radars was little different from any other current combat aircraft. This means that the B-2, despite being much larger probably has a lower RCS in some frequency ranges. Stealth is also not an invisibility cloak: many of the techniques to reduce RCS do not work against multistatic radars, exhaust streams are significantly hotter than the ambient air, and most engine combustion processes produce particulates.

As for the RCS of the Su-57 vs the F-22? Since the RCS values of both aircraft are closely guarded[1], it's not unlikely that nobody knows enough of about both aircraft to make a valid comparison.


[1] actually, the RCS of any serving US military aircraft is classified, or at least it was when I was working on LO. This meant that even an LO analysis of the T-41, essentially a Cessna 172 dressed up in USAF blue, was secret. We did a lot of analyses of the OH-57 (the same aircraft as the Bell JetRanger) and the OH-6 (same aircraft as the Hughes 500) that were classified as soon as they were run.
 

Scar

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Apr 25, 2019
Messages
26
Reaction score
14
I don't think canopy of stealth fighter have better transmissivity than 60-70%
And i don't think you're right in your assumption. After all, studying transmissivity by photos is practically the same level of "expertise" as studying RCS.
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
367
Reaction score
145
When we take the 0.4 m2 value and compared that with fighter which has small RCS such as F-16 or F-18 at 1 m2
No way F-16 or any other 4,5gen will have 1 m2 RCS with EFTs and missiles
I don't see why that would be impossible, air to air missiles have tiny RCS, especially one with tiny fin such as AIM-120. EFT have greater RCS values but they aren't always carried and can be dropped.
Keep in mind that stealth fighter are stealthy enough that they need to carry luneberg lens in peace time so that air traffic control can keep track of them whereas F-16 and F-18 even in clean configuration never have to carry these things.
3E1AE914-1179-4110-B936-313BBA37E8DB.jpeg
 
Last edited:

haavarla

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
53
Reaction score
35
When we take the 0.4 m2 value and compared that with fighter which has small RCS such as F-16 or F-18 at 1 m2
No way F-16 or any other 4,5gen will have 1 m2 RCS with EFTs and missiles
I don't see why that would be impossible, air to air missiles have tiny RCS, especially one with tiny fin such as AIM-120. EFT have greater RCS values but they aren't always carried and can be dropped.
Keep in mind that stealth fighter are stealthy enough that they need to carry luneberg lens in peace time so that air traffic control can keep track of them whereas F-16 and F-18 even in clean configuration never have to carry these things.
View attachment 647436
omg...why don't Someone post that F-18 with its missile/hardpoint tilted in a akward angle, and then proclaim its a 1m2 rcs
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
367
Reaction score
145
In a more serious vein.

First, I was involved in LO analysis for the LHX project, in the early 1980s. I was not involved in F-117, B-2, A-X, F-22, or F-35 programs or their competitors, so my perspective is fairly narrow. My information is also about 35 years out of date, and any comments I make are solely based on public sources (which may include that long-term gift to foreign intelligence services, Aviation Week). Second, my LHX work was mostly on acoustic detectability, which is significant for helicopters, but completely irrelevant for high-speed aircraft.
You talking about LHX remind me of the RHA-66 comanche. Detection range reduction over AH-64 is 80%, that equal to around 3 order of magnitude smaller RCS.
One famous story of F-117 that I have heard is when they put it outdoor on the RCS test pole, they thought they failed, turn out a little bird landed on the model and the radar picked up the bird instead of the aircraft.
8B7FCEEB-4A54-4425-9C4D-EBBCA5D06C6A.jpeg

C630F475-368E-469C-A6C2-E08A11C58228.gif

The shape of small aircraft, like the F-117, makes very little difference to the longer-wavelength radars. A friend, who ended his USN career as a destroyer captain, said that the F-117's detectability by USN AAW radars was little different from any other current combat aircraft. This means that the B-2, despite being much larger probably has a lower RCS in some frequency ranges.
That partly due to F-117 smaller size but also party because it is fully faceted and lack the low frequency RCS reduction features that later generation of stealth aircraft has such as the blended edges and the trailing/leading edge treatment.





As a matter of fact, Northrop's XST (the competitor to Lockheed Martin's XST for F-117 program) actually have much lower RCS than Lockhead Martin design at low frequency, on the order of 20-30 dB (100-1000 times) even though their size are similar. Because Lockheed Martin F-117 pay no attention to low frequency
1314658633645373797.jpg
1.PNG 2.PNG

Stealth is also not an invisibility cloak: many of the techniques to reduce RCS do not work against multistatic radars, exhaust streams are significantly hotter than the ambient air, and most engine combustion processes produce particulates.
I don't think there are any multi static fire control radar yet, even now. The only multi static radar I can think of are these OTH radar, which too inaccurate to guide missile and are also a stationary station that is several km in length. Exhaust stream are hotter than ambient air but most stealth aircraft try to hide this stream from view by using engine with longer tube or serrated/square nozzle to create turbulent that mixed the stream with ambient air faster.
I don't think the unburned particles in combustion process will create much problem unless there are a massive amount of unburn particles such as in case of SR-71
 
Last edited:

Scar

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Apr 25, 2019
Messages
26
Reaction score
14
I don't see why that would be impossible, air to air missiles have tiny RCS,
If their RCS wasn't a critical factor no one would hide them inside the fuselage. Even being tiny, they may produce huge parasite re-reflections, refraction and so being a "bright point".

EFT have greater RCS values but they aren't always carried and can be dropped.
Forget about the range, then. Especially on the Western fighter jets, they all relying on EFTs.
 

Scar

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Apr 25, 2019
Messages
26
Reaction score
14
Keep in mind that stealth fighter are stealthy enough that they need to carry luneberg lens in peace time so that air traffic control can keep track of them
And?... By how much times, do you think, Luneberg lense can increase the RCS?
 
Last edited:

Levsha

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jul 11, 2019
Messages
12
Reaction score
6
I don't see why that would be impossible, air to air missiles have tiny RCS,
If their RCS wasn't a critical factor no one would hide them inside the fuselage. Even being tiny, they may produce huge parasite re-reflections, refraction and so being a "bright point".

EFT have greater RCS values but they aren't always carried and can be dropped.
Forget about the range, then. Especially on the Western fighter jets, they all relying on EFTs.
Neither the F-22, F-35, or the F-117 for that matter, rely on EFTs

That's quite a lot of aircraft.
 

LMFS

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
110
Reaction score
129
As for the RCS of the Su-57 vs the F-22? Since the RCS values of both aircraft are closely guarded[1], it's not unlikely that nobody knows enough of about both aircraft to make a valid comparison.
Appreciated dose of reality and common sense...
 
Top