By: exec
- 25th May 2010 at 08:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Till now, all people have done is cry - rather than provide any basis for their (baseless) arguments regarding things like RCS,
This is exactly what you do!
Look:
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.
And here again you demonstrate that you don’t have a clue about Flanker’s RCS and all you do is cry and shout “no I don’t believe that Flanker’s RCS might be so huge!”
As I said – when you look at the graph of Flanker’s RCS (which shows RCS values that are averaged over the range of angles ± 30 °), you’ll see that frontal sector RCS (+/- 30 from the nose) is closer to 18-20m2. I don’t know where did you get that 15 m2 from underside claim. I think it’s just your wishful thinking. And BTW: looking directly at the nose RCS peaks around 30 m2.
And by the way:
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.
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?!
I agree and I admit - my mistake. I forgot that Su-30MKI is a dual seater.
So Su-27/Su-27SM should have smaller RCS than Su-27UB/Su-30mKI and Su-35BM should have considerably smaller RCS than Su-27/Su-27SM.
By: dionis
- 25th May 2010 at 08:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This is exactly what you do!
Look:
And here again you demonstrate that you don’t have a clue about Flanker’s RCS and all you do is cry and shout “no I don’t believe that Flanker’s RCS might be so huge!”
As I said – when you look at the graph of Flanker’s RCS (which shows RCS values that are averaged over the range of angles ± 30 °), you’ll see that frontal sector RCS (+/- 30 from the nose) is closer to 18-20m2. I don’t know where did you get that 15 m2 from underside claim. I think it’s just your wishful thinking. And BTW: looking directly at the nose RCS peaks around 30 m2.
What I did was comment on what was said. I'm not taking any "out of the posterior" guesses. Twist it any way you like, but the initial claim didn't originate from me.
If you are referring at the Su-27 picture with db waves displayed - then what was the initial source for the testing? It escapes me.
By: wrightwing
- 25th May 2010 at 11:56Permalink- 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.
You're forgetting the huge tails, and direct view of the engines, which is a huge RCS booster.
The Su-35S has been reshaped and uses RAM, and has been quoted to be around 3m2 as far as I can recall.
That's a clean RCS figure though, just as the 15-20m2 figure is the clean figure for earlier variants, and 10m2 was the F-15's clean figure.
By: wrightwing
- 25th May 2010 at 12:05Permalink- 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.
There are areas that the T-50 will have advantages, but the question is whether or not the areas that the F-35 has advantages are more important areas. We know that the T-50 is faster, and has a longer range. The F-35 has a lower RCS(vs. the T-50 in its current form) and more advanced avionics. The F-35 will likely have a lower cost of ownership/easier to maintain.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 25th May 2010 at 13:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You're forgetting the huge tails, and direct view of the engines, which is a huge RCS booster.
Both F-22 and F-35 have huge tails. Much larger than T-50, and comparable to Su-27, for that matter, even if canted outwards.
By: djcross
- 25th May 2010 at 14:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F-22 and F-35 tails are RAM coated too. That cannot be said for the Flankers and the jury is still out for T-50's coatings suite.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 25th May 2010 at 14:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F-22 and F-35 tails are RAM coated too. That cannot be said for the Flankers and the jury is still out for T-50's coatings suite.
To coat them with RAM would be the smallest problem of all. For what we know, even Indian MiG-29K Navy Fulcrums have stencils pointing at "special paint" used - RAM ain't a big deal these days.
I don't think that T-50 has any RAM coatings at the moment. Could be wrong, though..
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 25th May 2010 at 14:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The angles matter, among other things.
Definitely.. But huge tails stay huge tails, even if canted.
By: djcross
- 25th May 2010 at 15:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The current T-50s are flying qualities demonstrators similar to F-22As #4001 and #4002. None have the LO coatings suite as it is not critical to their test objectives.
By: dionis
- 25th May 2010 at 17:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There are areas that the T-50 will have advantages, but the question is whether or not the areas that the F-35 has advantages are more important areas. We know that the T-50 is faster, and has a longer range. The F-35 has a lower RCS(vs. the T-50 in its current form)and more advanced avionics. The F-35 will likely have a lower cost of ownership/easier to maintain.
RCS - See, no, you don't know that. If you do, you better have a real good, scientifically derived report somewhere for everyone here.
Avionics - Based on what? A few extra toys? How about the far superior coverage of the 5 radars the T-50 will have?
The angles matter, among other things.
See I don't completely buy the "angle of the aircraft" type argument entirely.
What about the angle of the emitter? If you are level with a Flanker and hitting him with radar from the side, you get a good reflection.
If you hit the Raptor from the bottom, those tails will reflect directly at you. Maybe less so, but they will.
Makes sense why the T-50 went with such small tails for side stealth.
By: wrightwing
- 25th May 2010 at 19:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RCS - See, no, you don't know that. If you do, you better have a real good, scientifically derived report somewhere for everyone here.
Aside from youtube comments, I've yet to see any serious source that thinks that without major changes, the T-50 will be as stealthy much less stealthier than the F-35.
Avionics - Based on what? A few extra toys? How about the far superior coverage of the 5 radars the T-50 will have?
MMI
Latest Gen AESA(which has more advanced T/R modules)
EODAS
MADL
Spiral upgrades(i.e. NGJ, DIRCM, space for additional AESA arrays for even wider coverage, etc...)
See I don't completely buy the "angle of the aircraft" type argument entirely.
What about the angle of the emitter? If you are level with a Flanker and hitting him with radar from the side, you get a good reflection.
If you hit the Raptor from the bottom, those tails will reflect directly at you. Maybe less so, but they will.
Makes sense why the T-50 went with such small tails for side stealth.
It's the angles of the aircraft, moreso than the angle of the aircraft, as well as the coatings, and internal layouts, that help minimize returns. There are very few instances where an F-22 would be doing a verticle climb, while heading towards an enemy radar, so that's not a particularly realistic situation. In any event, the bottom of the Raptor would provide less return than a Flanker.
By: dionis
- 25th May 2010 at 19:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RCS isn't directly related to the size of the object.
2 stealthy tails - 1 bigger, 1 smaller. The smaller will have less reflection. (Please save me your Americans tails > Russian tails BS)
I'd say if they were able to achieve 3m2, then there were more than some "minor" modifications.
I see, in general, the same aircraft.
Aside from youtube comments, I've yet to see any serious source that thinks that without major changes, the T-50 will be as stealthy much less stealthier than the F-35.
So back to my point - there is no data whatsoever other than schmuck-talk online.
MMI
Latest Gen AESA(which has more advanced T/R modules)
EODAS
MADL
Spiral upgrades(i.e. NGJ, DIRCM, space for additional AESA arrays for even wider coverage, etc...)
MMI? Man-Machine Interface? The PAK-FA will have very advanced AI and will have autopilot features you probably won't find on any F-22 or F-35. That will certainly be part of "MMI" for the T-50's side.
Don't even start on pretending the American AESA will certainly be superior. That's the kind of BS that just doesn't stick. Size is gonna matter though, I promise. ;) ;)
EODAS will be compensated for with multiple radars and a solid IRST. Not to mention something more MAY be revealed later for the T-50.
MADL? What is so fancy about a data link? How can you even suggest the T-50 will not have something similar? Even more interesting, just how good will it be when L-band AESAs come around?
"Spiral upgrades" can be given to a T-50 too.
The current engine might be 34K - 35K lbs of thrust, but when the new engine is released - what are we going to see? A T-50 @ Mach 2 @ mil thrust?
New jammers, etc - all that can be installed there too.
It's the angles of the aircraft, moreso than the angle of the aircraft, as well as the coatings, and internal layouts, that help minimize returns. There are very few instances where an F-22 would be doing a verticle climb, while heading towards an enemy radar, so that's not a particularly realistic situation. In any event, the bottom of the Raptor would provide less return than a Flanker.
The F-22 could be flying forward, with the enemy radar emitting from slightly below in altitude from the side (from any aircraft) - getting a near perpendicular return.
By: wrightwing
- 25th May 2010 at 21:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I see, in general, the same aircraft.
You'll note(well now you will anyhow) that I said IF they achieved that, THEN there were more than "minor" changes made.
So back to my point - there is no data whatsoever other than schmuck-talk online.
The schmuck talk was what I was referring to. The serious sources being journals, colleagues, etc... that felt the RCS was competitive or superior.
MMI? Man-Machine Interface? The PAK-FA will have very advanced AI and will have autopilot features you probably won't find on any F-22 or F-35. That will certainly be part of "MMI" for the T-50's side.
Which remains to be seen in operationally representative form.
Don't even start on pretending the American AESA will certainly be superior. That's the kind of BS that just doesn't stick. Size is gonna matter though, I promise. ;) ;)
The US T/R modules are several generations more advanced, and that's not even taking the back end into consideration.
EODAS will be compensated for with multiple radars and a solid IRST. Not to mention something more MAY be revealed later for the T-50.
Not without some major redesigning, and if you're talking about the L band arrays, then I wouldn't hold my breath in terms of being used to detect aircraft.
MADL? What is so fancy about a data link? How can you even suggest the T-50 will not have something similar? Even more interesting, just how good will it be when L-band AESAs come around?
We'll have to wait and see, though the LPI datalink tech won't be frozen either.
"Spiral upgrades" can be given to a T-50 too.
Like the ones that previous Russian Air Force fighters have continuously received?:rolleyes:
The current engine might be 34K - 35K lbs of thrust, but when the new engine is released - what are we going to see? A T-50 @ Mach 2 @ mil thrust?
The numbers I've seen are M1.3 with the current engines, so M1.7-1.8 with the new ones is probably closer to the ball park.
New jammers, etc - all that can be installed there too.
That won't address every issue, as a larger RCS will have to be overcome.
The F-22 could be flying forward, with the enemy radar emitting from slightly below in altitude from the side (from any aircraft) - getting a near perpendicular return.
And I suppose that's why every US plane(including ones with AESA radars) have had so much success detecting F-22s, seeing as how they're so vulnerable from this aspect.
By: dionis
- 25th May 2010 at 23:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You'll note(well now you will anyhow) that I said IF they achieved that, THEN there were more than "minor" changes made.
Okay so you don't believe what you've heard about RCS - alright then...
The schmuck talk was what I was referring to. The serious sources being journals, colleagues, etc... that felt the RCS was competitive or superior.
I don't believe what I've heard either... journals, colleagues, etc - where are they pulling these numbers, other than their posterior? They certainly don't have a testing lab with T-50 scaled models do they?
Which remains to be seen in operationally representative form.
Yeah, the T-50 was vapor-material on Jan 1, 2010. Look what we have now?
The US T/R modules are several generations more advanced, and that's not even taking the back end into consideration.
Ah man, that good old argument. Certainly you must have some excellent data on those T/R modules to back up that baloney right?
Not without some major redesigning, and if you're talking about the L band arrays, then I wouldn't hold my breath in terms of being used to detect aircraft.
Yeah, the T-50 was vapor-material on Jan 1, 2010. Look what we have now?
x2
We'll have to wait and see, though the LPI datalink tech won't be frozen either.
Not sure I follow you here.
Like the ones that previous Russian Air Force fighters have continuously received?:rolleyes:
Yeah, since the budget permit it since about 2004, there have been swatches of new upgrades coming in for everything from MiG-29s and -31s, to Su-24/25/27 aircraft.
The numbers I've seen are M1.3 with the current engines, so M1.7-1.8 with the new ones is probably closer to the ball park.
I can't wait to see the source for those?! :D
That won't address every issue, as a larger RCS will have to be overcome.
Larger RCS of what? Jammers?!?
And I suppose that's why every US plane(including ones with AESA radars) have had so much success detecting F-22s, seeing as how they're so vulnerable from this aspect.
No one knows what angle they tracked them from, how many were trying to track, etc.
All sounds like the game "telephone" - you heard of it? :rolleyes:
Posts: 408
By: exec - 25th May 2010 at 08:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This is exactly what you do!
Look:
And here again you demonstrate that you don’t have a clue about Flanker’s RCS and all you do is cry and shout “no I don’t believe that Flanker’s RCS might be so huge!”
As I said – when you look at the graph of Flanker’s RCS (which shows RCS values that are averaged over the range of angles ± 30 °), you’ll see that frontal sector RCS (+/- 30 from the nose) is closer to 18-20m2. I don’t know where did you get that 15 m2 from underside claim. I think it’s just your wishful thinking. And BTW: looking directly at the nose RCS peaks around 30 m2.
And by the way:
I agree and I admit - my mistake. I forgot that Su-30MKI is a dual seater.
So Su-27/Su-27SM should have smaller RCS than Su-27UB/Su-30mKI and Su-35BM should have considerably smaller RCS than Su-27/Su-27SM.
Posts: 1,856
By: dionis - 25th May 2010 at 08:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What I did was comment on what was said. I'm not taking any "out of the posterior" guesses. Twist it any way you like, but the initial claim didn't originate from me.
If you are referring at the Su-27 picture with db waves displayed - then what was the initial source for the testing? It escapes me.
Posts: 408
By: exec - 25th May 2010 at 09:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't know who tested it, but if the article was made by Sukhoi Director that means something!
Posts: 4,042
By: wrightwing - 25th May 2010 at 11:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You're forgetting the huge tails, and direct view of the engines, which is a huge RCS booster.
That's a clean RCS figure though, just as the 15-20m2 figure is the clean figure for earlier variants, and 10m2 was the F-15's clean figure.
Posts: 4,042
By: wrightwing - 25th May 2010 at 12:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There are areas that the T-50 will have advantages, but the question is whether or not the areas that the F-35 has advantages are more important areas. We know that the T-50 is faster, and has a longer range. The F-35 has a lower RCS(vs. the T-50 in its current form) and more advanced avionics. The F-35 will likely have a lower cost of ownership/easier to maintain.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 25th May 2010 at 13:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Both F-22 and F-35 have huge tails. Much larger than T-50, and comparable to Su-27, for that matter, even if canted outwards.Posts: 4,042
By: wrightwing - 25th May 2010 at 14:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The angles matter, among other things.
Posts: 5,396
By: djcross - 25th May 2010 at 14:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F-22 and F-35 tails are RAM coated too. That cannot be said for the Flankers and the jury is still out for T-50's coatings suite.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 25th May 2010 at 14:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To coat them with RAM would be the smallest problem of all. For what we know, even Indian MiG-29K Navy Fulcrums have stencils pointing at "special paint" used - RAM ain't a big deal these days.I don't think that T-50 has any RAM coatings at the moment. Could be wrong, though..
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 25th May 2010 at 14:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Definitely.. But huge tails stay huge tails, even if canted.Posts: 5,396
By: djcross - 25th May 2010 at 15:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The current T-50s are flying qualities demonstrators similar to F-22As #4001 and #4002. None have the LO coatings suite as it is not critical to their test objectives.
Posts: 1,856
By: dionis - 25th May 2010 at 17:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How large is the reflection from the engine then? How could it possible be more than the total "squared" area of the actual intake?
So the minor modifications of the Su-35S took the Su-27 from 15m2 to 3m2?
Posts: 1,856
By: dionis - 25th May 2010 at 17:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RCS - See, no, you don't know that. If you do, you better have a real good, scientifically derived report somewhere for everyone here.
Avionics - Based on what? A few extra toys? How about the far superior coverage of the 5 radars the T-50 will have?
See I don't completely buy the "angle of the aircraft" type argument entirely.
What about the angle of the emitter? If you are level with a Flanker and hitting him with radar from the side, you get a good reflection.
If you hit the Raptor from the bottom, those tails will reflect directly at you. Maybe less so, but they will.
Makes sense why the T-50 went with such small tails for side stealth.
Posts: 4,042
By: wrightwing - 25th May 2010 at 18:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RCS isn't directly related to the size of the object.
I'd say if they were able to achieve 3m2, then there were more than some "minor" modifications.
Posts: 1,206
By: Cola1973 - 25th May 2010 at 18:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Oh, crap...and I thought it was. :D ...oh well, I guess you know better...
Posts: 4,042
By: wrightwing - 25th May 2010 at 19:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Aside from youtube comments, I've yet to see any serious source that thinks that without major changes, the T-50 will be as stealthy much less stealthier than the F-35.
MMI
Latest Gen AESA(which has more advanced T/R modules)
EODAS
MADL
Spiral upgrades(i.e. NGJ, DIRCM, space for additional AESA arrays for even wider coverage, etc...)
It's the angles of the aircraft, moreso than the angle of the aircraft, as well as the coatings, and internal layouts, that help minimize returns. There are very few instances where an F-22 would be doing a verticle climb, while heading towards an enemy radar, so that's not a particularly realistic situation. In any event, the bottom of the Raptor would provide less return than a Flanker.
Posts: 4,042
By: wrightwing - 25th May 2010 at 19:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
:rolleyes:So a B-2 should have a much larger RCS than a Cessna right?
Posts: 1,856
By: dionis - 25th May 2010 at 19:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
2 stealthy tails - 1 bigger, 1 smaller. The smaller will have less reflection. (Please save me your Americans tails > Russian tails BS)
I see, in general, the same aircraft.
So back to my point - there is no data whatsoever other than schmuck-talk online.
MMI? Man-Machine Interface? The PAK-FA will have very advanced AI and will have autopilot features you probably won't find on any F-22 or F-35. That will certainly be part of "MMI" for the T-50's side.
Don't even start on pretending the American AESA will certainly be superior. That's the kind of BS that just doesn't stick. Size is gonna matter though, I promise. ;) ;)
EODAS will be compensated for with multiple radars and a solid IRST. Not to mention something more MAY be revealed later for the T-50.
MADL? What is so fancy about a data link? How can you even suggest the T-50 will not have something similar? Even more interesting, just how good will it be when L-band AESAs come around?
"Spiral upgrades" can be given to a T-50 too.
The current engine might be 34K - 35K lbs of thrust, but when the new engine is released - what are we going to see? A T-50 @ Mach 2 @ mil thrust?
New jammers, etc - all that can be installed there too.
The F-22 could be flying forward, with the enemy radar emitting from slightly below in altitude from the side (from any aircraft) - getting a near perpendicular return.
Posts: 4,042
By: wrightwing - 25th May 2010 at 21:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You'll note(well now you will anyhow) that I said IF they achieved that, THEN there were more than "minor" changes made.
The schmuck talk was what I was referring to. The serious sources being journals, colleagues, etc... that felt the RCS was competitive or superior.Which remains to be seen in operationally representative form.
The US T/R modules are several generations more advanced, and that's not even taking the back end into consideration.
Not without some major redesigning, and if you're talking about the L band arrays, then I wouldn't hold my breath in terms of being used to detect aircraft.
We'll have to wait and see, though the LPI datalink tech won't be frozen either.
Like the ones that previous Russian Air Force fighters have continuously received?:rolleyes:
The numbers I've seen are M1.3 with the current engines, so M1.7-1.8 with the new ones is probably closer to the ball park.
That won't address every issue, as a larger RCS will have to be overcome.And I suppose that's why every US plane(including ones with AESA radars) have had so much success detecting F-22s, seeing as how they're so vulnerable from this aspect.
Posts: 1,856
By: dionis - 25th May 2010 at 23:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Okay so you don't believe what you've heard about RCS - alright then...
I don't believe what I've heard either... journals, colleagues, etc - where are they pulling these numbers, other than their posterior? They certainly don't have a testing lab with T-50 scaled models do they?
Yeah, the T-50 was vapor-material on Jan 1, 2010. Look what we have now?
Ah man, that good old argument. Certainly you must have some excellent data on those T/R modules to back up that baloney right?
Yeah, the T-50 was vapor-material on Jan 1, 2010. Look what we have now?
x2
Not sure I follow you here.
Yeah, since the budget permit it since about 2004, there have been swatches of new upgrades coming in for everything from MiG-29s and -31s, to Su-24/25/27 aircraft.
I can't wait to see the source for those?! :D
Larger RCS of what? Jammers?!?
No one knows what angle they tracked them from, how many were trying to track, etc.
All sounds like the game "telephone" - you heard of it? :rolleyes: