By: haavarla
- 24th May 2010 at 20:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
USAF measured the Flankers they bought from Belarus in 1994. We can guess that those measurements established a baseline for RCS estimates of Flanker upgrades.
uumph.. Now hold it sister!
There sould be a significant difference in the Frontal and overall RCS on a MKI/Su-27UB vs Su-27/Su-27SM/35S and every other one crew flanker version out there...
Now which Flanker did USAF get from Belarus in 1994?;)
By: jessmo24
- 24th May 2010 at 20:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So the Indian MoD quoted the US figures?
Who is to say they are accurate - upon what has been released that is.
Dionis How old are you? your not contributing to this board at all by just complaining and being insanely negative. Are you trying to troll? are you trying to start a flame war? I'm sure I'm not the only one to notice.
By: Erkokite
- 24th May 2010 at 21:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ok it's the jurno was told by Indian MoD official who was told by a PAK-FA technician
i'm sure it wont be the last quote for its rcs and as i said red flag or indian exercises will give everyone an idea
russia wanted to sell the su-30 to australia, ya never know, we may buy the PAK
PAK-FA for Australia- now that would be quite a sight. :) Unfortunately, I think Russia would be concerned about the US getting to peak at their latest hardware, but one can dream, eh?
By: Levsha
- 24th May 2010 at 21:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
little correction, you should say:
"the operational costs is expected to be less".. for now, the only thing certain is that the aircraft is late and costlier than expected... how much it will cost and how it will perform is just speculations for now, as it's still in development stages
So how much does the T-50 'cost'?
New
Posts: 1,741
By: jackjack
- 24th May 2010 at 21:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
nar, aussies are pretty respected as far as protecting IP goes, as opposed to japan israel and france who dont get hold of the good toys any more
By: Wanderlei
- 24th May 2010 at 21:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Originally Posted by Wanderlei View Post
DIONIS,
why so hostile ? Its not nice to try to shut this thread every step of the way just cause you don't like it.
This thread is a joke. The facts are clear. The speculation is worthless.
But you pretend to know it? Give me a break.
speculations based on existing data can be educated guesses. Thats what makes forums fun in general.
DIONIS
It is very annoying to have a ball of negativity trying to shut this thread. You are disruptive, and aren't very smart if you keep coming back to thread you find worthless. Why don't you just stop responding. Aren't you wasting your time here? ..not to mention annoying as hell.
By: exec
- 24th May 2010 at 21:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
T
But you pretend to know it? Give me a break.
So: you don't know it, and you can't even imagine that someone else knows! That's why you're so angry!
There was an article written by Pogosyan (Sukhoi director) about stealth fighters. In this article there was a graph showing the RCS of the Flanker. Also, he wrote there that Eagle's RCS is 10 m2 (few days ago I posted here, on KP, that it's 15m2, but today I checked the article and it says 10 m2 - my mistake).
uumph.. Now hold it sister!
There sould be a significant difference in the Frontal and overall RCS on a MKI/Su-27UB vs Su-27/Su-27SM/35S and every other one crew flanker version out there...
Ok, Su-27UB probably has bigger RCS than Su-27, but why would there be a significant difference between RCS of Su-27, Su-27SM or Su-30MKI? It's the same airframe(ok Su-30MKI has canards). Su-35BM is a different story and probably has lower RCS.
By: haavarla
- 24th May 2010 at 21:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So: you don't know it, and you can't even imagine that someone else knows! That's why you're so angry!
There was an article written by Pogosyan (Sukhoi director) about stealth fighters. In this article there was a graph showing the RCS of the Flanker. Also, he wrote there that Eagle's RCS is 10 m2 (few days ago I posted here, on KP, that it's 15m2, but today I checked the article and it says 10 m2 - my mistake).
Ok, Su-27UB probably has bigger RCS than Su-27, but why would there be a significant difference between RCS of Su-27, Su-27SM or Su-30MKI? It's the same airframe(ok Su-30MKI has canards). Su-35BM is a different story and probably has lower RCS.
Ah.. gotcha exec:)
One crew VS two crew station.
From both frontal, side and aft the two crew station Flanker would have SIGNIFICANT higher airframe(Canopy)=more RCS.
By: Levsha
- 24th May 2010 at 22:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nobody in Sukhoi knows what the RCS of the T-50 is.
It could be several years of flight testing before they have an accurate idea. At the moment they have nothing but computer modelling projections and estimates to offer as an RCS figure.
I'm curious to know how many flight hours and years passed before anyone in the USAF and Lockheed Martin had any idea of the RCS of the YF-22 or its successers?:confused:
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 24th May 2010 at 22:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
MAWS detects incoming missiles, not radar signals(that's RWR and ESM). If we assume parity/identical capabilities, then all sorts of claims can be made about either radars, or RWRs. Seeing as how both of these are sensitive technologies, where not much is known in terms of the true capabilities/limitations, I would be hesistant to assume parity exists.
As for LPI, yes RWR detects signals, but you're ignoring the fact that it also filters signals. Whether or not the filter correctly identifies the LPI signals is another matter, and if so under what conditions/with what degree of probability/what degree of accuracy.
OK, I meant ESM/RWR, sorry.
You raise some fair points, we don't know much to what degree parity exists. I am also aware of the fact that contrary to radar, RWR doesn't exactly know what signal pattern to look for. That explains frantic effort of all sides to detect and record opponent's radar signals, as well as reluctance of respective Air Forces to switch on radars during exercises.
By: dionis
- 25th May 2010 at 02:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So: you don't know it, and you can't even imagine that someone else knows! That's why you're so angry!
There was an article written by Pogosyan (Sukhoi director) about stealth fighters. In this article there was a graph showing the RCS of the Flanker. Also, he wrote there that Eagle's RCS is 10 m2 (few days ago I posted here, on KP, that it's 15m2, but today I checked the article and it says 10 m2 - my mistake).
I'm just rather irritated that some forum schmucks, who are now very upset, even bother trying to figure out the "real" RCS of anything stealthy when no one will tell them any real or, more importantly, COMPARABLE figure.
15m2 for a Flanker sounds reasonable at a "medium reflectivity" angle with full on-board stores.
Either way, even 15m2 of directly reflecting surface is a LOT of reflection. I would imagine the Flanker would have to reflect with its underside to get that kind of reflection of radar signals.
Ok, Su-27UB probably has bigger RCS than Su-27, but why would there be a significant difference between RCS of Su-27, Su-27SM or Su-30MKI? It's the same airframe(ok Su-30MKI has canards). Su-35BM is a different story and probably has lower RCS.
Su-27UB and Su-30MKI have more in common due to dual-seating with one another than the Su-27UB and Su-27SM. So not sure what your point there is?!
The Su-35S has been reshaped and uses RAM, and has been quoted to be around 3m2 as far as I can recall.
By: dionis
- 25th May 2010 at 03:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
speculations based on existing data can be educated guesses. Thats what makes forums fun in general.
DIONIS
It is very annoying to have a ball of negativity trying to shut this thread. You are disruptive, and aren't very smart if you keep coming back to thread you find worthless. Why don't you just stop responding. Aren't you wasting your time here? ..not to mention annoying as hell.
Cry me a river, ignore me if you like. I know you dislike being told that 99.99% of the speculations are - just as I said - worthless.
From what is clear and undeniable, there's no one in their right mind who would suggest the F-35 is a better overall aircraft than the T-50.
By: jessmo24
- 25th May 2010 at 03:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Where is the report button mods? we have an out of controll troll here!
New
Posts: 1,426
By: pfcem
- 25th May 2010 at 04:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nobody in Sukhoi knows what the RCS of the T-50 is.
It could be several years of flight testing before they have an accurate idea. At the moment they have nothing but computer modelling projections and estimates to offer as an RCS figure.
So the people at Sukhoi have no clue what they are doing. :eek:
I'm curious to know how many flight hours and years passed before anyone in the USAF and Lockheed Martin had any idea of the RCS of the YF-22 or its successers?:confused:
They knew even before they started building it. Aircraft are designed & built to specifications (as well as built & flown virtually long before the 1st part of the 1st airframe is ordered much less actually built) - they do not just build something that they think looks good & hope somehow magically performs to the desired specifications.
By the way RCS is not verified through flight testing...
By: djcross
- 25th May 2010 at 04:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
uumph.. Now hold it sister!
There sould be a significant difference in the Frontal and overall RCS on a MKI/Su-27UB vs Su-27/Su-27SM/35S and every other one crew flanker version out there...
Now which Flanker did USAF get from Belarus in 1994?;)
Thanks
USAF bought a couple single seat Flankers. I don't know which sub-variant. Someone on this website posted a picture of one of them sitting in a hangar between test flights a few years ago.
When the Soviet Union dissolved, the USG went on a weapons buying spree. They bought airplanes, helos, tanks, artillery, APCs, radar systems and missiles. They were not purchased to be used as door stops or paper weights. All underwent thorough comparative testing.
Once you have measured a real example, you create computer models of it. Those models becomes the basis for assessing weapon system performance as product improvements are incorporated. Knowing what improvements were incorporated, their material compositions and dimensions is easy as they are displayed at MAKS or other weaponry expositions.
New
Posts: 328
By: JSTCVW09CD
- 25th May 2010 at 04:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Cry me a river, ignore me if you like. I know you dislike being told that 99.99% of the speculations are - just as I said - worthless.
From what is clear and undeniable, there's no one in their right mind who would suggest the F-35 is a better overall aircraft than the T-50.
Agree. T-50 is just in the prototying phase.
Can not figure out why people, basing on fuzzy contour of T-50, consider F-35 overall better than T-50?
More technical characteristics will not be released until 2012, end of RAF's evaluation.
By: djcross
- 25th May 2010 at 04:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nobody in Sukhoi knows what the RCS of the T-50 is.
It could be several years of flight testing before they have an accurate idea. At the moment they have nothing but computer modelling projections and estimates to offer as an RCS figure.
I'm curious to know how many flight hours and years passed before anyone in the USAF and Lockheed Martin had any idea of the RCS of the YF-22 or its successers?:confused:
I would bet guys at Boeing, Northrop, Lockheed and a couple USG agencies have spent their own time during lunch breaks to pour over T-50 photos and build Catia mesh models that can be used for RCS assessments. And an experienced RCS modeler can easily get within 3% of actual RCS values.
Lockheed gave USAF their RCS computer model predictions and measurements from the full scale RCS pole model in 1992. F-22A #4006, the first "all up" Raptor, was flight tested against the radar range in the summer and fall of 2001. 4006 performed better than the RCS requirement by a respectable margin.
By: jessmo24
- 25th May 2010 at 05:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Agree. T-50 is just in the prototying phase.
Can not figure out why people, basing on fuzzy contour of T-50, consider F-35 overall better than T-50?
More technical characteristics will not be released until 2012, end of RAF's evaluation.
its because
1. The first pictures of the T-50 showed a bottow with odvious open vents and bumps that do not say stealthy in any way shape or form. Im assuming that there is more than 1 prototype with 1 T-50 with a cleaner bottom.
2. The T-50 is using a legacy engine ATM which we seriously DOUBT has been treated for any LO. We know from press releases that the new F-35 builds have treated tail feathers.
3. The canopy it self doesnt lend itself to stealth it doesnt look stealthy
its not a gold transparency like the Raptors its not a single peice like the F-35
"Because the F-22's archless canopy is a lot thicker. The F-35 went to a thinner canopy and added a composite arch support on the inside (the coated transparency is still one piece for stealth purposes). This allows the det-cord system to be used.
One of the reasons they went with this system is that it is lighter, but another is that it is faster than the traditional US practice of using a 2-step ejection system that first jettisons the canopy then firing the seat. Because of the necessity to wait for the canopy to tumble clear from the ejection path, the ejection seat has to wait a second or so before firing. This is a second or so which the pilot of a STOVL aircraft like the the F-35B doesn't have if there was a sudden loss of hover thrust."
Add to that the rumors of the F-35 using a special material instead of stealth paint, the reported eletrical charges inbetween panels, and the U.S. 20+ year lead in stealth and the odds of the T-50 being superior in RCs get slim
Again Imformed guesses. If the Plane has visible engine blades bumps and vents then its Not goign to be stealthy. The T-50 i saw had all of these.
By: dionis
- 25th May 2010 at 05:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Where is the report button mods? we have an out of controll troll here!
I don't think you have any idea what a "troll" is - do you?
Questioning the underlying, fundamental validity of the posts here is not trolling, so good luck brushing it off as such. :rolleyes: Till now, all people have done is cry - rather than provide any basis for their (baseless) arguments regarding things like RCS, avionics integration, and whatever else there was...
By: dionis
- 25th May 2010 at 05:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
its because
1. The first pictures of the T-50 showed a bottow with odvious open vents and bumps that do not say stealthy in any way shape or form. Im assuming that there is more than 1 prototype with 1 T-50 with a cleaner bottom.
2. The T-50 is using a legacy engine ATM which we seriously DOUBT has been treated for any LO. We know from press releases that the new F-35 builds have treated tail feathers.
3. The canopy it self doesnt lend itself to stealth it doesnt look stealthy
its not a gold transparency like the Raptors its not a single peice like the F-35
You seriously don't have a clue - and you wonder why informed people get irritated over you posting nonsense like this? It's meaningless!
1) Look at the build quality of the 2nd Su-35S and the latest Su-34s - that's "production variant" quality construction!
2) That legacy engine already produced 15.5T of thrust and one of the bureaus is designining a MORE efficient 'flat' TVC nozzle for it than that of the F-22. That was old news.
3) The RuAF requirement is a frame-less canopy. It is in the work and you will see it on production models.
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 24th May 2010 at 20:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
uumph.. Now hold it sister!
There sould be a significant difference in the Frontal and overall RCS on a MKI/Su-27UB vs Su-27/Su-27SM/35S and every other one crew flanker version out there...
Now which Flanker did USAF get from Belarus in 1994?;)
Thanks
Posts: 643
By: jessmo24 - 24th May 2010 at 20:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Dionis How old are you? your not contributing to this board at all by just complaining and being insanely negative. Are you trying to troll? are you trying to start a flame war? I'm sure I'm not the only one to notice.
Posts: 567
By: Erkokite - 24th May 2010 at 21:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
PAK-FA for Australia- now that would be quite a sight. :) Unfortunately, I think Russia would be concerned about the US getting to peak at their latest hardware, but one can dream, eh?
Posts: 2,814
By: Levsha - 24th May 2010 at 21:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So how much does the T-50 'cost'?
Posts: 1,741
By: jackjack - 24th May 2010 at 21:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
nar, aussies are pretty respected as far as protecting IP goes, as opposed to japan israel and france who dont get hold of the good toys any more
Posts: 480
By: Wanderlei - 24th May 2010 at 21:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
speculations based on existing data can be educated guesses. Thats what makes forums fun in general.
DIONIS
It is very annoying to have a ball of negativity trying to shut this thread. You are disruptive, and aren't very smart if you keep coming back to thread you find worthless. Why don't you just stop responding. Aren't you wasting your time here? ..not to mention annoying as hell.
Posts: 408
By: exec - 24th May 2010 at 21:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So: you don't know it, and you can't even imagine that someone else knows! That's why you're so angry!
There was an article written by Pogosyan (Sukhoi director) about stealth fighters. In this article there was a graph showing the RCS of the Flanker. Also, he wrote there that Eagle's RCS is 10 m2 (few days ago I posted here, on KP, that it's 15m2, but today I checked the article and it says 10 m2 - my mistake).
Ok, Su-27UB probably has bigger RCS than Su-27, but why would there be a significant difference between RCS of Su-27, Su-27SM or Su-30MKI? It's the same airframe(ok Su-30MKI has canards). Su-35BM is a different story and probably has lower RCS.
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 24th May 2010 at 21:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ah.. gotcha exec:)
One crew VS two crew station.
From both frontal, side and aft the two crew station Flanker would have SIGNIFICANT higher airframe(Canopy)=more RCS.
Thanks
Posts: 2,814
By: Levsha - 24th May 2010 at 22:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nobody in Sukhoi knows what the RCS of the T-50 is.
It could be several years of flight testing before they have an accurate idea. At the moment they have nothing but computer modelling projections and estimates to offer as an RCS figure.
I'm curious to know how many flight hours and years passed before anyone in the USAF and Lockheed Martin had any idea of the RCS of the YF-22 or its successers?:confused:
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 24th May 2010 at 22:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
OK, I meant ESM/RWR, sorry.
You raise some fair points, we don't know much to what degree parity exists. I am also aware of the fact that contrary to radar, RWR doesn't exactly know what signal pattern to look for. That explains frantic effort of all sides to detect and record opponent's radar signals, as well as reluctance of respective Air Forces to switch on radars during exercises.
Posts: 1,856
By: dionis - 25th May 2010 at 02:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm just rather irritated that some forum schmucks, who are now very upset, even bother trying to figure out the "real" RCS of anything stealthy when no one will tell them any real or, more importantly, COMPARABLE figure.
15m2 for a Flanker sounds reasonable at a "medium reflectivity" angle with full on-board stores.
Either way, even 15m2 of directly reflecting surface is a LOT of reflection. I would imagine the Flanker would have to reflect with its underside to get that kind of reflection of radar signals.
Su-27UB and Su-30MKI have more in common due to dual-seating with one another than the Su-27UB and Su-27SM. So not sure what your point there is?!
The Su-35S has been reshaped and uses RAM, and has been quoted to be around 3m2 as far as I can recall.
Posts: 1,856
By: dionis - 25th May 2010 at 03:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Cry me a river, ignore me if you like. I know you dislike being told that 99.99% of the speculations are - just as I said - worthless.
From what is clear and undeniable, there's no one in their right mind who would suggest the F-35 is a better overall aircraft than the T-50.
Posts: 643
By: jessmo24 - 25th May 2010 at 03:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Where is the report button mods? we have an out of controll troll here!
Posts: 1,426
By: pfcem - 25th May 2010 at 04:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So the people at Sukhoi have no clue what they are doing. :eek:
They knew even before they started building it. Aircraft are designed & built to specifications (as well as built & flown virtually long before the 1st part of the 1st airframe is ordered much less actually built) - they do not just build something that they think looks good & hope somehow magically performs to the desired specifications.
By the way RCS is not verified through flight testing...
Posts: 5,396
By: djcross - 25th May 2010 at 04:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
USAF bought a couple single seat Flankers. I don't know which sub-variant. Someone on this website posted a picture of one of them sitting in a hangar between test flights a few years ago.
When the Soviet Union dissolved, the USG went on a weapons buying spree. They bought airplanes, helos, tanks, artillery, APCs, radar systems and missiles. They were not purchased to be used as door stops or paper weights. All underwent thorough comparative testing.
Once you have measured a real example, you create computer models of it. Those models becomes the basis for assessing weapon system performance as product improvements are incorporated. Knowing what improvements were incorporated, their material compositions and dimensions is easy as they are displayed at MAKS or other weaponry expositions.
Posts: 328
By: JSTCVW09CD - 25th May 2010 at 04:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Agree. T-50 is just in the prototying phase.
Can not figure out why people, basing on fuzzy contour of T-50, consider F-35 overall better than T-50?
More technical characteristics will not be released until 2012, end of RAF's evaluation.
Posts: 5,396
By: djcross - 25th May 2010 at 04:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I would bet guys at Boeing, Northrop, Lockheed and a couple USG agencies have spent their own time during lunch breaks to pour over T-50 photos and build Catia mesh models that can be used for RCS assessments. And an experienced RCS modeler can easily get within 3% of actual RCS values.
Lockheed gave USAF their RCS computer model predictions and measurements from the full scale RCS pole model in 1992. F-22A #4006, the first "all up" Raptor, was flight tested against the radar range in the summer and fall of 2001. 4006 performed better than the RCS requirement by a respectable margin.
Posts: 643
By: jessmo24 - 25th May 2010 at 05:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
its because
1. The first pictures of the T-50 showed a bottow with odvious open vents and bumps that do not say stealthy in any way shape or form. Im assuming that there is more than 1 prototype with 1 T-50 with a cleaner bottom.
2. The T-50 is using a legacy engine ATM which we seriously DOUBT has been treated for any LO. We know from press releases that the new F-35 builds have treated tail feathers.
3. The canopy it self doesnt lend itself to stealth it doesnt look stealthy
its not a gold transparency like the Raptors its not a single peice like the F-35
"Because the F-22's archless canopy is a lot thicker. The F-35 went to a thinner canopy and added a composite arch support on the inside (the coated transparency is still one piece for stealth purposes). This allows the det-cord system to be used.
One of the reasons they went with this system is that it is lighter, but another is that it is faster than the traditional US practice of using a 2-step ejection system that first jettisons the canopy then firing the seat. Because of the necessity to wait for the canopy to tumble clear from the ejection path, the ejection seat has to wait a second or so before firing. This is a second or so which the pilot of a STOVL aircraft like the the F-35B doesn't have if there was a sudden loss of hover thrust."
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-10923.html
Add to that the rumors of the F-35 using a special material instead of stealth paint, the reported eletrical charges inbetween panels, and the U.S. 20+ year lead in stealth and the odds of the T-50 being superior in RCs get slim
Again Imformed guesses. If the Plane has visible engine blades bumps and vents then its Not goign to be stealthy. The T-50 i saw had all of these.
Posts: 1,856
By: dionis - 25th May 2010 at 05:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't think you have any idea what a "troll" is - do you?
Questioning the underlying, fundamental validity of the posts here is not trolling, so good luck brushing it off as such. :rolleyes: Till now, all people have done is cry - rather than provide any basis for their (baseless) arguments regarding things like RCS, avionics integration, and whatever else there was...
Posts: 1,856
By: dionis - 25th May 2010 at 05:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You seriously don't have a clue - and you wonder why informed people get irritated over you posting nonsense like this? It's meaningless!
1) Look at the build quality of the 2nd Su-35S and the latest Su-34s - that's "production variant" quality construction!
2) That legacy engine already produced 15.5T of thrust and one of the bureaus is designining a MORE efficient 'flat' TVC nozzle for it than that of the F-22. That was old news.
3) The RuAF requirement is a frame-less canopy. It is in the work and you will see it on production models.