# Sukhoi Su-57



## Admiral Beez (Apr 5, 2022)

How does the Sukhoi Su-57 compare to the best of NATO? Presumably when this war is over the Russians, once again flush with oil dollars will need to replace a lot of kit, including rapid air force upgrades. 









Is Russia's Su-57 the worst stealth fighter on the planet?


Russia's Sukhoi Su-57 is one of only four operational 5th generation fighters anywhere on the planet, keeping the rare company of China's Chengdu J-20 and




www.sandboxx.us

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 5, 2022)

Flush with oil yuan will be more like it.


----------



## Macandy (Apr 5, 2022)

Its a joke of a plane, an SU-27 dressed up to look like an F-22 - and failing.
And its not 5th Gen, its barely 4th Gen on a good day

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 5, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Its a joke of a plane, an SU-27 dressed up to look like an F-22 - and failing.
> And its not 5th Gen, its barely 4th Gen on a good day



This is exactly what I have seen. It’s pretty much 5th Gen cosmetically only, and operationally it is not that great or advanced.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Apr 5, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> This is exactly what I have seen. It’s pretty much 5th Gen cosmetically only, and operationally it is not that great or advanced.




Nothing says massive RCS like these panel lines and screw heads

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
3 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 5, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Nothing says massive RCS like these panel lines and screw heads
> 
> View attachment 663776



Wow, I had not seen that pic, but yeah…

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Apr 5, 2022)

How its supposed to be done

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Apr 5, 2022)

The SU-57………

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 5, 2022)

Macandy said:


> How its supposed to be done
> 
> View attachment 663777



I agree, but I am probably biased for a very good reason.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Apr 5, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree, but I am probably biased for a very good reason.



30 years on, the F-22 still looks like the star turn in a Sci Fi movie.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 5, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree, but I am probably biased for a very good reason.


I saw this yesterday on the “coming attractions “ Second one down. Seems the winds have changed direction.


----------



## Macandy (Apr 5, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I saw this yesterday on the “coming attractions “ Second one down. Seems the winds have changed direction.




Software and electronics wise, the F-35 is two generations on from the F-22.
EOTS is just like science fiction.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 5, 2022)

Macandy said:


> 30 years on, the F-22 still looks like the star turn in a Sci Fi movie.



Every time I walk into the hangar…

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 5, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I saw this yesterday on the “coming attractions “ Second one down. Seems the winds have changed direction.



No they have not changed per se. The F-22 and F-35 have different roles. The 22 is also forbidden from export, however, the 22 is just as important and capable today as it was yesterday if not more.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 5, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No they have not changed per se. The F-22 and F-35 have different roles. The 22 is also forbidden from export, however, the 22 is just as important and capable today as it was yesterday if not more.


Gotcha' on that. 
What I meant was: I am now seeing YT vids on how great the F-35 is as opposed to the older YT vids saying it is crud.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 5, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Gotcha' on that.
> What I meant was: I am now seeing YT vids on how great the F-35 is as opposed to the older YT vids saying it is crud.



I still don’t like the F-35. It’s too obnoxiously loud damnit!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 5, 2022)

I don't like the F-35 'cause I hate admitting I was wrong. You would think by now I'd be used to it.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 5, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I still don’t like the F-35. It’s too obnoxiously loud damnit!



Tell me about it...although, after 6 months, I still enjoy hearing them in the circuit at Hill AFB. Didn't realize how much I missed the sound of freedom. 

I thought this was an interesting overview of the state of Russia's aviation industry prior to the invasion of Ukraine. 









Why do Russia’s Su-75 Checkmate and Su-57 have visible screws and rivets?


In 1990, the Russian aviation industry was divided into four agencies: Ministry of Aviation Industry, Ministry of Industries, State Committee of Defense Industries and Ministry of Defense Industrie…




www.globaldefensecorp.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 5, 2022)

buffnut453 said:


> Tell me about it...although, after 6 months, I still enjoy hearing them in the circuit at Hill AFB. Didn't realize how much I missed the sound of freedom.
> 
> I thought this was an interesting overview of the state of Russia's aviation industry prior to the invasion of Ukraine.
> 
> ...


I know what you mean. After the attack on 9/11 everything was grounded. I never realized how much I missed the sound.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 5, 2022)

buffnut453 said:


> Tell me about it...although, after 6 months, I still enjoy hearing them in the circuit at Hill AFB. Didn't realize how much I missed the sound of freedom.
> 
> I thought this was an interesting overview of the state of Russia's aviation industry prior to the invasion of Ukraine.
> 
> ...



Whenever I am at Hill we curse the 35 because it.

It is nice enjoying lunch at the Hill AFB Golf Couse Club House and seeing them fly around. The only thing cooler is sitting at the Club House at JB Hickam-Pearl Harbor watching the F-22s take off over the water while enjoying a club sandwich.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Apr 5, 2022)

buffnut453 said:


> Tell me about it...although, after 6 months, I still enjoy hearing them in the circuit at Hill AFB. Didn't realize how much I missed the sound of freedom.
> 
> I thought this was an interesting overview of the state of Russia's aviation industry prior to the invasion of Ukraine.
> 
> ...


Wow, what a POC.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 5, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Wow, what a POC.



I presume you mean the aircraft?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Apr 5, 2022)

buffnut453 said:


> I presume you mean the aircraft?


Ha, yes sir. That aircraft is a certified piece of crap.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 5, 2022)

Yeah, My understanding is that the -57 is low-observable from the front, but from the sides has a typical radar profile. Color me underwhelmed.

Chris at MAH has this video on the Russian air service which I generally agreed with.



It's from eight months ago so the opinions aren't colored by events in Ukraine. ETA: the Su-57 and stealth comes up at around 11:35.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 5, 2022)

Have you seen his video of his sound effects?


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 5, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Have you seen his video of his sound effects?



I have not. He uses software for his accent, right?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 5, 2022)

It’s the shortest video in his library. He’s also available for weddings and Bar Mitzvahs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 5, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> It’s the shortest video in his library. He’s also available for weddings and Bar Mitzvahs.



"I could not find anything in the RLM archives about Presbyterian wedding rites."

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Apr 5, 2022)

Horses for courses…

If you want an apex predator fighter that flies so high no other fighter can tangle with it, ready to shoot down anything from its loft perch, or come down and use its matchless kinetamtic performance to close and kill anything with wings … F-22

If you want the best ground pounder money can buy, a Skyborg that can fly through any air defence system and kill it at source… F-35

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Apr 5, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Yeah, My understanding is that the -57 is low-observable from the front, but from the sides has a typical radar profile. Color me underwhelmed.
> 
> Chris at MAH has this video on the Russian air service which I generally agreed with.
> 
> ...





Their 'best' strike aircraft - and it primarily strikes targets with sticks of dumb bombs dropped by Mk 1 eyeball

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Apr 5, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I still don’t like the F-35. It’s too obnoxiously loud damnit!




I wasn't a fan of the X-32 - you got vertigo sitting in that damn cockpit!


----------



## Admiral Beez (Apr 5, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Their 'best' strike aircraft - and it primarily strikes targets with sticks of dumb bombs dropped by Mk 1 eyeball


Indeed. The Su-2 could do that, and with an internal weapons bay that the Su-34’s designers forgot.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 5, 2022)

Macandy said:


> I wasn't a fan of the X-32 - you got vertigo sitting in that damn cockpit!



I was talking to a guy at the office the other day who was on the X-32 program back in the day. I’m glad I was never on that program.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 5, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I was talking to a guy at the office the other day who was on the X-32 program back in the day. I’m glad I was never on that program.



It's the happiest whale you've ever seen in your life.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 6, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> It's the happiest whale you've ever seen in your life.
> 
> View attachment 663843



So ugly it deserves to be French.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## wlewisiii (Apr 6, 2022)

buffnut453 said:


> So ugly it deserves to be French.


Hey now, the French aircraft are better than that!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 6, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> It's the happiest whale you've ever seen in your life.
> 
> View attachment 663843



Only because they didn't have any mirrors in the house where it grew up.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Apr 6, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> It's the happiest whale you've ever seen in your life.
> 
> View attachment 663843


Grandson of

Reactions: Funny Funny:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 6, 2022)

buffnut453 said:


> Only because they didn't have any mirrors in the house where it grew up.


That’s why it’s smiling.


----------



## WARSPITER (Apr 6, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Whenever I am at Hill we curse the 35 because it.
> 
> It is nice enjoying lunch at the Hill AFB Golf Couse Club House and seeing them fly around. The only thing cooler is sitting at the Club House at JB Hickam-Pearl Harbor watching the F-22s take off over the water while enjoying a club sandwich.


Club sandwich ? Wood or iron ?

The Su-57 is still not an operational aircraft and is said to have another 5 years of development required. 2027 is a long way off if they are wanted now.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2022)

WARSPITER said:


> Club sandwich ? Wood or iron ?
> 
> The Su-57 is still not an operational aircraft and is said to have another 5 years of development required. 2027 is a long way off if they are wanted now.



Being 5 years out only makes it more obsolete. 

Remember the USAF has announced they have first flown a 6th Gen Fighter already.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Apr 7, 2022)

A 6th gen ? Does it have a name yet ?

Also, as I remember it, India was asked to help fund the 57 at one stage but on testing it they declined due to poor detection equipment
and what they said was not a good power plant (reliability and design). Not enough funds available for the Russian developers ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2022)

WARSPITER said:


> A 6th gen ? Does it have a name yet ?
> 
> Also, as I remember it, India was asked to help fund the 57 at one stage but on testing it they declined due to poor detection equipment
> and what they said was not a good power plant (reliability and design). Not enough funds available for the Russian developers ?



Nope, no name given. Its a full scale prototype.









The US Air Force has built and flown a mysterious full-scale prototype of its future fighter jet


Does this give the Next Generation Air Dominance program more momentum, or does it open it up to more scrutiny?




www.defensenews.com

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jagdflieger (Apr 7, 2022)

Reading, following up on stealth detecting technology, I think one has to decide as towards whom Stealth aircraft's are to be directed against, and as such also a decision towards 
quantities actually needed. No doubt very/extremely useful towards military underdogs -but very questionable in regards to other high-tech capable countries in 10 years from now
on. 
If the Czar is still around in 10 years and can in the meanwhile decide onto Russia's air-force future - I don't think it's going to be much in regards to developing own stealth aircraft, but buying it from others. (or license production). Russia's economy IMO is simply not able to finance the production of such aircraft's by themselves. And always referring as a last straw
towards his/Russia's nuke capability won't help in the long run. just my 5 cents.

Regards
Jagdflieger

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Apr 7, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I was talking to a guy at the office the other day who was on the X-32 program back in the day. I’m glad I was never on that program.




It was certainly no looker!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Apr 7, 2022)

Jagdflieger said:


> Reading, following up on stealth detecting technology, I think one has to decide as towards whom Stealth aircraft's are to be directed against, and as such also a decision towards
> quantities actually needed. No doubt very/extremely useful towards military underdogs -but very questionable in regards to other high-tech capable countries in 10 years from now
> on.
> If the Czar is still around in 10 years and can in the meanwhile decide onto Russia's air-force future - I don't think it's going to be much in regards to developing own stealth aircraft, but buying it from others. (or license production). Russia's economy IMO is simply not able to finance the production of such aircraft's by themselves. And always referring as a last straw
> ...




Stealth, or more correctly, Low Observability, is not about having a Romulan invisibility cloak.
Its about reducing the range at which the other guy can target you.

Par example: The much vaunted Russian S-400

It can target large aircraft out to 400NM - very good, but if that 'large aircraft' reduces its RCS by a factor of 10, it can now only target it at 40NM, well within the range of the bombers stand off bombs who will have killed the S-400 from 70NM out.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Apr 7, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Stealth, or more correctly, Low Observability, is not about having a Romulan invisibility cloak.
> Its about reducing the range at which the other guy can target you.
> 
> Par example: The much vaunted Russian S-400
> ...


That's exactly the point. Modern stealth aircraft also have very good detection equipment and can 'see' a target up to 60km before being spotted themselves so I've read.
That being the case they can fire before the other guy knows they are even there and then turn away. A huge advantage as even a miss is going to put the opposition off
as they won't know who fired it, where they were, or where they are now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2022)

Macandy said:


> It was certainly no looker!



That’s putting it very nicely.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jagdflieger (Apr 7, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Stealth, or more correctly, Low Observability, is not about having a Romulan invisibility cloak.
> Its about reducing the range at which the other guy can target you.
> 
> Par example: The much vaunted Russian S-400
> ...


It's about reducing the Radar Cross Signature by as much as possible. Added to this "enhancement" is the reduction or total clouding of the aircraft's antenna emission and heat-reduction/detection measures. All this requires a load of money, skill and utmost reliability in regards to maintenance - ensuring even measuring if these "theoretical" factors are actually existing on a respective aircraft that is to go into action. A simple oil-stain-not to mention a damaged surface (down to a single 5mm) issue and bye bye to these theoretical radar signatures.

Radars and electronic emission detecting systems are extremely sophisticated and have rapidly progressed especially in the last 10 years. Specially enhanced Panavia Tornados
of the Luftwaffe emit an RCS area the size of a Golf-ball at a distance of 50km. If it's IFF is deactivated or running on a SIFF system this S-400 might not even be able to pick it up
or rather sort it out from other detected objects. Until today no algorithm has been developed to identify an RCS measurement as to belonging to what aircraft. Once this algorithm
exists - (enabling ATR) stealth is a feature of the past if it comes to facing high-tech countries.

So a 5-6 generation stealth aircraft is an extremely expensive attribute which isn't even necessary in combating 95% of the worlds air-forces. But off-course if one has the $$ - why not
since no one would mind added security or an advantage. But I do not see Russia having those $$ and this is what this thread is about - right?

Regards
Jagdflieger

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Apr 7, 2022)

Unless you get supplied by another country, you will almost certainly fight the next world war/high intensity with what you have at the start. There most likely will not be time to develop new technology to any significant degree. And quite possibly not enough time to manufacture significant numbers of replacement airframes. So if you want a 6th generation capability at some point in the future when it might be necessary, you should start development as soon as possible, and get production underway.

The best example I can think of in recent years is the F-35. It took how many years to mature to the point where we can call it operational in large enough numbers that it would be a significant factor in a war that starts tomorrow - 20 years or more?

During "full scale" exercises in 2006-2012, in which the F-22 was used as it is intended to be used, it proved itself to be ~9x as effective as the next best airframes in the US inventory - the F-15, F-16, etc.

I do not know how the F-35 compares to the F-22 in the air superiority role, but it is supposed to be formidable - and equally so or more so in its other intended roles.

If a 6th generation airframe were comparable in gain in capability vs 5th generation aircraft, then we need to pursue the technology as soon as reasonably possible. History has proven that we should not count on the potential opposition to be any less smart than ourselves.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 7, 2022)

ThomasP said:


> I do not know how the F-35 compares to the F-22 in the air superiority role, but it is supposed to be formidable - and equally so or more so in its other intended roles.


The USAF may have the F-35 "play" with the F-22 on occasions, but the F-35 is a "Strike" aircraft and IMO doesn't belong in an air superiority role

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 7, 2022)

Jagdflieger said:


> A simple oil-stain-not to mention a damaged surface (down to a single 5mm) issue and bye bye to these theoretical radar signatures.



I agree that a damaged surface would increase RCS but I disagree that an oil stain would have any appreciable effect....unless it impacted a surface coating to reduce RCS. Note that the F-35 doesn't have RCS-reducing "coatings", rather the radar absorbency is baked into the composite material. Thus any radar energy would pass through the oil stain (because it's non-metallic) and be dispersed by the aircraft surface, just as it would if the stain wasn't present.




Jagdflieger said:


> Specially enhanced Panavia Tornados of the Luftwaffe emit an RCS area the size of a Golf-ball at a distance of 50km. If it's IFF is deactivated or running on a SIFF system this S-400 might not even be able to pick it up or rather sort it out from other detected objects.



What's the configuration of those Tornados? I'll guarantee you that if they're carrying fuel tanks and/or weapons, then the RCS will be a LOT larger than a golf ball. Even without the weapons, the Tonka always was a rather loud aircraft from an RCS perspective. Yes, you can apply RAM to reduce the RCS but, at the end of the day, the aircraft was designed with a ton of nice angles that are tailor-made to reflect radar energy back to a receiver. You can't fix that with coatings or materials...it would take a fundamental redesign of the aircraft and I haven't seen much evidence of that on Luftwaffe Tonkas.

Also, interesting hypothetical comment about the S-400 not picking up the Tornado from other clutter....but I'd love to know at what range. If the S-400 can engage the Tonka at a range that's longer than that of the Tonka's weapons, then it's goodnight for the Tonka crew.




Jagdflieger said:


> So a 5-6 generation stealth aircraft is an extremely expensive attribute which isn't even necessary in combating 95% of the worlds air-forces. But off-course if one has the $$ - why not
> since no one would mind added security or an advantage. But I do not see Russia having those $$ and this is what this thread is about - right?



It's not just about the air forces but also the air defence forces. You mentioned the S-400 but that's just one part of Russia's layered SAM defences which go all the way down to the regimental level. As others have pointed out, given the time it takes to develop and field new technologies, it would be foolish of any front-running military to simply stop development of advanced concepts because, by the time you find you need a new capability, it may be too late.

I will agree, however, that signature reduction is about far more than the RCS. The thermal signature is a biggie, as are EMS emissions.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 7, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The USAF may have the F-35 "play" with the F-22 on occasions, but the F-35 is a "Strike" aircraft and IMO doesn't belong in an air superiority role



Except for those air forces that can't afford a separate air defence fighter. In fairness, most F-35 operators are relying on Eurofighter/Typhoon or other 4th gen aircraft for air defence because stealth isn't that big of a deal for the DCA role. For OCA, however, I reckon the F-35 will still get a look-in, including by the USAF, because there aren't enough F-22s to go round.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 7, 2022)

buffnut453 said:


> Except for those air forces that can't afford a separate air defence fighter. In fairness, most F-35 operators are relying on Eurofighter/Typhoon or other 4th gen aircraft for air defence because stealth isn't that big of a deal for the DCA role. For OCA, however, I reckon the F-35 will still get a look-in, including by the USAF, because there aren't enough F-22s to go round.


Agree on all points but I think with regards to US operations, it will all depend on the scenario. IIRC I believe there are 180~ F-22s operational, although don't sound like a lot, but I don't think you'll need that many depending who you're fighting against.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 8, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Agree on all points but I think with regards to US operations, it will all depend on the scenario. IIRC I believe there are 180~ F-22s operational, although don't sound like a lot, but I don't think you'll need that many depending who you're fighting against.



The F-22 is a true force multiplier.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jagdflieger (Apr 8, 2022)

buffnut453 said:


> I agree that a damaged surface would increase RCS but I disagree that an oil stain would have any appreciable effect....unless it impacted a surface coating to reduce RCS. Note that the F-35 doesn't have RCS-reducing "coatings", rather the radar absorbency is baked into the composite material. Thus any radar energy would pass through the oil stain (because it's non-metallic) and be dispersed by the aircraft surface, just as it would if the stain wasn't present.


Readings, measurements from the test-site at WTD 61 Manching clearly confirmed the considerable increase of RCS e.g. via oilstains.


buffnut453 said:


> What's the configuration of those Tornados? I'll guarantee you that if they're carrying fuel tanks and/or weapons, then the RCS will be a LOT larger than a golf ball. Even without the weapons, the Tonka always was a rather loud aircraft from an RCS perspective. Yes, you can apply RAM to reduce the RCS but, at the end of the day, the aircraft was designed with a ton of nice angles that are tailor-made to reflect radar energy back to a receiver. You can't fix that with coatings or materials...it would take a fundamental redesign of the aircraft and I haven't seen much evidence of that on Luftwaffe Tonkas.


The initial measurement configuration is a net - then different results analyzed in regards to weapon carrying assortments - as such finding the most suitable assortment in regards to RCS and EMS - the application of additional radar-absorbent materials - right down to cockpit-canopy-reflecting issues was therefore tested and partially applied. 


buffnut453 said:


> Also, interesting hypothetical comment about the S-400 not picking up the Tornado from other clutter....but I'd love to know at what range. If the S-400 can engage the Tonka at a range that's longer than that of the Tonka's weapons, then it's goodnight for the Tonka crew.


That is logical ain't it. The reality is however that an absolute positive Ident. is only given if the entire airspace and movements of all (including own and civilian) aircraft's is known. 
And that is the Russian or Syrian problem towards the IAF.


buffnut453 said:


> It's not just about the air forces but also the air defence forces. You mentioned the S-400 but that's just one part of Russia's layered SAM defences which go all the way down to the regimental level. As others have pointed out, given the time it takes to develop and field new technologies, it would be foolish of any front-running military to simply stop development of advanced concepts because, by the time you find you need a new capability, it may be too late.


True - but the West and e.g. China already have Stealth aircraft's which are being produced and fielded, unlike Russia


buffnut453 said:


> I will agree, however, that signature reduction is about far more than the RCS. The thermal signature is a biggie, as are EMS emissions.


Agree


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 8, 2022)

Jagdflieger said:


> Readings, measurements from the test-site at WTD 61 Manching clearly confirmed the considerable increase of RCS e.g. via oilstains.



What year was the test conducted (i.e. was it at a time when RAM coatings were prevalent)? What was the frequency of the radar (radar frequency can have a huge impact on returns)? What aircraft was being tested with what RAM surfaces? Just because oil stains on one surface may increase RCS does not mean that they increase on all surfaces. It would also be good to know by how much the RCS changed (did it increase by 25% or by 0.00025%...if the latter then I'm not sure it matters).




Jagdflieger said:


> The initial measurement configuration is a net - then different results analyzed in regards to weapon carrying assortments - as such finding the most suitable assortment in regards to RCS and EMS - the application of additional radar-absorbent materials - right down to cockpit-canopy-reflecting issues was therefore tested and partially applied.



Well, you can alter cockpit canopy reflection, put RAM inside the air intakes and take all sorts of other measures....but you're still fighting the geometry of the aircraft design. Every angle between the intakes and the wings, between the wings and the pylons, between the underfuselage and pylons, between the pylons and the stores...they all MASSIVELY increase RCS and I'm afraid you're never going to eradicate that with RAM and cockpit coatings. Under operational conditions, carrying a combat load, there's no way on earth the Tonka has the RCS of a golf ball. Sorry, I just don't buy that. 















Jagdflieger said:


> That is logical ain't it. The reality is however that an absolute positive Ident. is only given if the entire airspace and movements of all (including own and civilian) aircraft's is known.
> And that is the Russian or Syrian problem towards the IAF.



If we're in a crisis situation, then you won't typically have civilian airliners flying within SAM MEZs. And even if they do, I'm not sure the Russians would care. They'd shoot first and ask questions later. Now, that likely means the Russian SAMs would result in shooting down some of their own aircraft, indeed there are reports that such things have happened in Ukraine. Again, I'm not sure the Russian military cares very much.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Apr 8, 2022)

Maybe it comes down to the fact that anything that gives you an advantage - gives you an advantage.


----------



## Jagdflieger (Apr 8, 2022)

WARSPITER said:


> Maybe it comes down to the fact that anything that gives you an advantage - gives you an advantage.


Absolutely - but you need to be able to pay for it - and Russia IMO simply don't have the $$ for that - so they need to go into another direction - which AFAIK they have been
doing.

Regards
Jagdflieger

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Apr 8, 2022)

Jagdflieger said:


> Absolutely - but you need to be able to pay for it - and Russia IMO simply don't have the $$ for that - so they need to go into another direction - which AFAIK they have been
> doing.
> 
> Regards
> Jagdflieger


At the current rate that direction is down the gurgler. The Russian economy is the main problem for sure. It just isn't big enough to sustain what they are
trying to do - keeping up with the rest so to speak. One of the main reasons for the split of the USSR was the economy. They were basically broke and when
the 'Star Wars' initiative was announced it was just something they could not match.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jagdflieger (Apr 8, 2022)

buffnut453 said:


> What year was the test conducted (i.e. was it at a time when RAM coatings were prevalent)? What was the frequency of the radar (radar frequency can have a huge impact on returns)? What aircraft was being tested with what RAM surfaces? Just because oil stains on one surface may increase RCS does not mean that they increase on all surfaces. It would also be good to know by how much the RCS changed (did it increase by 25% or by 0.00025%...if the latter then I'm not sure it matters).


These tests regarding RaSigma 2 and RaSigma 3 were conducted from 1993 to 2011 most of it's data and knowledge acquired went then into the Typhoon program.
Objects tested included Tornado, Alpha-Jet, F-4, F-16 and others and diverse helicopters, civilian aircraft's, military vehicles and even water-vessels. the F-4's were then accordingly "extensively" retrofitted before being delivered to other NATO partners. 

From RaSigma 4 onward a very different approach towards the measuring technique obtaining of measurements/data was introduced and is still in use. I was partially involved in 
this matter from 1993 - 2008. As for data (APR or what exact FR e.g. from xMHz to xGHz) used for obtaining these data or the precise probe positioning data - no company involved 
in such sensitive matters will publicize these openly - But see a small overview:









(PDF) Antenna Pattern Measurements of Full-Size Air Vehicles with an Airborne Near-field Test Facility (ANTF)*


PDF | The paper starts with an overview on types of state-of-the-art antenna test facilities suitable to accurately measure the performance of installed... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate




www.researchgate.net







buffnut453 said:


> Well, you can alter cockpit canopy reflection, put RAM inside the air intakes and take all sorts of other measures....but you're still fighting the geometry of the aircraft design. Every angle between the intakes and the wings, between the wings and the pylons, between the underfuselage and pylons, between the pylons and the stores...they all MASSIVELY increase RCS and I'm afraid you're never going to eradicate that with RAM and cockpit coatings. Under operational conditions, carrying a combat load, there's no way on earth the Tonka has the RCS of a golf ball. Sorry, I just don't buy that.


Off course you can't compare the e.g. RCS of a specifically modified Tornado or Typhoon with a "pure" stealth aircraft with an enclosed weapons-bay. But certainly with non modified
4 or 4/5 generation aircraft's - which constitute 90% of the present NATO forces.


buffnut453 said:


> View attachment 664086
> 
> 
> View attachment 664087
> ...


That is why civilian airliners as such are banned from operating in hot zones. The IAF and many others however use the existence of civilian aircraft's to strike targets that are not
banning civilian airliners in their airspace - without having declared a war. And certainly the Russian or any other military is concerned/worried about downing their own military
aircraft's. As you already mentioned the Stealth or any other military aircraft is just a part in a whole concept - and Russia doesn't have the money to cope with such a concept or to
develop/incorporate a similar concept and all it's necessary components. Not even to mention Stealth fighters/aircraft's as such.

Regards
Jagdflieger

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Apr 8, 2022)

ThomasP said:


> I do not know how the F-35 compares to the F-22 in the air superiority role, but it is supposed to be formidable - and equally so or more so in its other intended roles.



The F-35 can overmatch any 4th Gen fighter, but nothing can take on an F-22 fighting on its terms - nothing.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Apr 8, 2022)

buffnut453 said:


> Also, interesting hypothetical comment about the S-400 not picking up the Tornado from other clutter....but I'd love to know at what range. If the S-400 can engage the Tonka at a range that's longer than that of the Tonka's weapons, then it's goodnight for the Tonka crew.



The Typhoon has an RCS the size of a small truck, its an unavoidable fact of its 1960's design - starting with those non shielded fan faces

As regards the S-400 - the Turks found its performance wasn't all that. Its much touted '400NM' range required a plane the size of a commercial airliner - and against an F-16, it was distinctly pedestrian. 

A better metric of the S-400 is that as well as its much vaunted '200NM' range SAMS, it also has a 25NM range SAM it fires with an EO seeker. So you have to ask yourself, why does an alleged strategic range SAM system need to kit itself out with point defence missiles to protect itself.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 8, 2022)

Macandy said:


> The Typhoon has an RCS the size of a small truck, its an unavoidable fact of its 1960's design - starting with those non shielded fan faces



How do you figure the Typhoon is a 1960s design?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 8, 2022)

Macandy said:


> The Typhoon has an RCS the size of a small truck, its an unavoidable fact of its 1960's design


The design started in 1983 IIRC

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jagdflieger (Apr 8, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The design started in 1983 IIRC


I figure that he meant the Tornado which got underway in the early 70's.

Regards
Jagdflieger


----------



## Jagdflieger (Apr 8, 2022)

Macandy said:


> The Typhoon has an RCS the size of a small truck, its an unavoidable fact of its 1960's design - starting with those non shielded fan faces


An RCS does not have the size or shape of a golf ball or a small truck - "golf ball" is a figure of speech in regards to its possible emitting surface area.
In the attachment you can see what an RCS readout looks like before applying the respective algorithm

Regards
Jagdflieger


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 8, 2022)

Jagdflieger said:


> An RCS does not have the size or shape of a golf ball or a small truck - "golf ball" is a figure of speech in regards to its possible emitting surface area.
> In the attachment you can see what an RCS readout looks like before applying the respective algorithm
> 
> Regards
> Jagdflieger



I think the term "size" is being used as a stand-in for "equivalent to" the RCS the compared object would deliver.


----------



## Jagdflieger (Apr 9, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I think the term "size" is being used as a stand-in for "equivalent to" the RCS the compared object would deliver.


Yes and no, since it depends on it's entire surface measured resonance, and depends on the surface structure e.g. dents, cavities, hubs and spikes.
As such the RCS measured from a theoretical 0 can be e.g. from 0.2m2-3m2. So in general figure of speech a "golf-ball" is seen as a measurement within that range.
Unmodified generation 4 fighters have an RCS of no less then 4m2 - depending on armament configurations, surface structure and impacts this can go to 10m2 and more
Modified generation 4 fighters have an RCS of no less then 2m2
Modified generation 4/5 fighters have an RCS of no less then 0.5m2

All these measurements however depend on the resonance angle of the aircraft in flight - so a huge force multiplier is involved depending on the flight angle and it's exposed
surfaces at each respective degree in change.

So yes one can say the F-35 has an RCS of e.g. 0.4 but depending on the in flight angle this can also be 0.7 even 1.0 and more.
Meaning the RCS of an F-35 isn't worth the money of this aircraft compared to an e.g. modified Typhoon or F-18 (e.g. silent F-18)

I am not an avionics expert or pilot - but the general view of pilots and it's air-forces is that the "strength" of the F-35 isn't its RCS but it's very enhanced "IT" package and antenna package. However this could also be placed into an existing aircraft such as an F-18, F-15 or a Typhoon with a far better strike/weapon capability. Since e.g. the Russian air-defence
capability is nowhere near to it's propagated capability.
How much such an F-35 enhanced F-15 or Typhoon would cost - I wouldn't know since it "officially" hasn't been evaluated.

But the present price for an F-35 e.g. the ones now the Luftwaffe has ordered - to me personally sound nuts. But never-mind the actual reason for this purchase are known anyway.

So back to the thread - IMO Russia doesn't even have the $$ and technical capability to match a Typhoon - not to mention fielding stealth or even a generation 6 aircraft.

Regards
Jagdflieger


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 9, 2022)

Jagdflieger said:


> Yes and no, since it depends on it's entire surface measured resonance, and depends on the surface structure e.g. dents, cavities, hubs and spikes.
> As such the RCS measured from a theoretical 0 can be e.g. from 0.2m2-3m2. So in general figure of speech a "golf-ball" is seen as a measurement within that range.
> Unmodified generation 4 fighters have an RCS of no less then 4m2 - depending on armament configurations, surface structure and impacts this can go to 10m2 and more
> Modified generation 4 fighters have an RCS of no less then 2m2
> ...



You're missing my point. "Size", and those size comparisons, is and are being used by most people precisely because we're _not_ technical.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 9, 2022)

Jagdflieger said:


> So yes one can say the F-35 has an RCS of e.g. 0.4 but depending on the in flight angle this can also be 0.7 even 1.0 and more.
> Meaning the RCS of an F-35 isn't worth the money of this aircraft compared to an e.g. modified Typhoon or F-18 (e.g. silent F-18)


You're guessing - no one really knows what the F-35's RCS really is BUT it's rumored to be as low as 0.0015 sqm.



http://faculty.nps.edu/jenn/ec4630/rcsredux.pdf

Reactions: Informative Informative:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jagdflieger (Apr 9, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You're guessing - no one really knows what the F-35's RCS really is BUT it's rumored to be as low as 0.0015 sqm.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes - unless measured on the Manching test-site - no one knows - but I am sure those results will soon slip through to the press due to the internal political twist in Germany
and its Media regarding the controversy of the F-35.
The RCS you forwarded for the F-35 is a frontal RCS of a non moving object - in practical use of an aircraft it's an irrelevant value.

The first public slip of the tongue was by the Canadian deputy minister, stating the F-35 has a RCS of* 0.5m2 *which off course is ......
Realistic 360 degree measurement known to the more military related insiders are publicly within this circle stated to be 0,08m2 - 0.3m2 and for RCS it's always the
worst value that matters.
So in regards to 0,00015m2 to 0,3m2 one needs to keep in mind that the detection range is proportional to the 4th root of an RCS, or a 1,000 times bigger RCS equates to
5.6 times greater detection range.

BTW the Su -57 is "rumored" to have an RCS of 0.2 - 1,5 which is more then that of a clean F-18

Regards
Jagdflieger

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 9, 2022)

Jagdflieger said:


> Yes - unless measured on the Manching test-site - no one knows - but I am sure those results will soon slip through to the press due to the internal political twist in Germany
> and its Media regarding the controversy of the F-35.
> The RCS you forwarded for the F-35 is a frontal RCS of a non moving object - in practical use of an aircraft it's an irrelevant value.
> 
> ...


Well even at 0.5m2 combined with ECMs and some "other" goodies the F-35 has, it still makes it a cut above anything flying today, but as you stated it comes at a cost.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GTX (Apr 9, 2022)

Jagdflieger said:


> I am not an avionics expert or pilot - but the general view of pilots and it's air-forces is that the "strength" of the F-35 isn't its RCS but it's very enhanced "IT" package and antenna package. However this could also be placed into an existing aircraft such as an F-18, F-15 or a Typhoon with a far better strike/weapon capability. Since e.g. the Russian air-defence
> capability is nowhere near to it's propagated capability.


Yes the Avionics suite/data fusion etc is outstanding and often unseen but the RCS is also extremely good and arguably a generation better than the F-22 as well. As for the contention of it being able to be "placed into an existing aircraft such as an F-18, F-15 or a Typhoon with a far better strike/weapon capability" - utter garbage!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 9, 2022)

GTX said:


> Yes the Avionics suite/data fusion etc is outstanding and often unseen but the RCS is also extremely good and arguably a generation better than the F-22 as well. As for the contention of it being able to be "placed into an existing aircraft such as an F-18, F-15 or a Typhoon with a far better strike/weapon capability" - utter garbage!


Agree. Many of the F-35s "goodies" are built in.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 9, 2022)

Jagdflieger said:


> I am not an avionics expert or pilot - but the general view of pilots and it's air-forces is that the "strength" of the F-35 isn't its RCS but it's very enhanced "IT" package and antenna package.



It rather depends on the mission. The capabilities of the F-35 as a tactical "quarterback" have been discussed and are game-changers for the application of airpower. However, the low observability is key for certain missions...and those missions can't be completed by any other platform currently in the NATO inventory. The F-35 is an incredibly capable package and will be key to operational success in combat with a near peer adversary (although heaven forbid such a thing occurs) .

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Apr 12, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The design started in 1983 IIRC




My bad, Tornado


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 14, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I don't like the F-35 'cause I hate admitting I was wrong. You would think by now I'd be used to it.


Married life does that to you...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (May 19, 2022)

How does the Shenyang FC-31 compare?


----------



## Jagdflieger (May 19, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> How does the Shenyang FC-31 compare?


Since China doesn't openly display or state respective data's - one can only assume that it is in the same league as the F-35

However the real deal IMO is the Chengdu J-20, which is already serving actively in respectable numbers.


----------



## Macandy (May 20, 2022)

FC-31 and J-20?

Good 4th gen on a good day, defo not 5th gen

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (May 20, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Good 4th gen on a good day, defo not 5th gen


Two 5th gens I hope to see are the BAE Tempest and Mitsubishi F-X. Or are these sixth Gen?


----------



## Admiral Beez (May 24, 2022)

Macandy said:


> FC-31 and J-20?
> 
> Good 4th gen on a good day, defo not 5th gen











China’s ‘Engine Problems’: Despite New Tech For J-20 Fighters, Beijing Remains Heavily Reliant On Russia -- US Experts


Russia’s war with Ukraine is likely to impact the Chinese military, especially its fighters jets, due to its over-dependence on Moscow. On May 17, experts at the China Aerospace Studies Institute conference predicted that Russia wouldn’t service or provide engines and components for up to 40% of...




eurasiantimes.com

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jagdflieger (May 24, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> China’s ‘Engine Problems’: Despite New Tech For J-20 Fighters, Beijing Remains Heavily Reliant On Russia -- US Experts
> 
> 
> Russia’s war with Ukraine is likely to impact the Chinese military, especially its fighters jets, due to its over-dependence on Moscow. On May 17, experts at the China Aerospace Studies Institute conference predicted that Russia wouldn’t service or provide engines and components for up to 40% of...
> ...


This article in the link is a paste copy article, originally dating from 2014. to 2015 to 2017......to 2022

But what I like most is:
_*According to the Chinese state media *– CCTV, the WS-15 seems to have a low bypass ratio and thrust vector control. _


----------



## fiveseven (May 25, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Nothing says massive RCS like these panel lines and screw heads
> 
> View attachment 663776


I like this photo:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jagdflieger (May 25, 2022)

fiveseven said:


> I like this photo:


I like this one much more - the second pilot isn't a trainee, but responsible to pilot the "loyalty" wing-mans

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fiveseven (May 25, 2022)

Some more photos (without "second pilot"):

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2022)

fiveseven said:


> Some more photos (without "second pilot"):
> View attachment 670742
> 
> View attachment 670743
> ...



That is an F-22 and there are no two seat F-22s anyhow.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jagdflieger (May 25, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That is an F-22 and there are no two seat F-22s anyhow.


----------



## Admiral Beez (May 25, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That is an F-22 and there are no two seat F-22s anyhow.


Yep.









These Images Of An F-22 Raptor's Crumbling Radar Absorbent Skin Are Fascinating


The photos are a reminder of just how much work goes into keeping the F-22's skin ready for combat and the amazing science behind its stealthy design.




www.thedrive.com


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Yep.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The article makes me laugh a lil…lol

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 25, 2022)

Hmmmm, let's see...

So we have some photos of the F-22 with RAM erosion which I'm sure was within limits or the aircraft wouldn't be flying. 195 F-22s built, 187 operational. Between September 2014 and July 2015, F-22s flew 204 sorties over Syria, dropping 270 bombs at some 60 locations. 

Although the F-22 has a poor MC rate (a little over 50%) that still means there's about 92 of them operational at any given time...

Su-57, *15 built*, 5 operational? first flight 2010. "Rumors" one was seen over Ukraine. I'm sure it's really making a difference.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 25, 2022)

It's kinda old making comparisons between F-22s and Su-57s and J-20s, simply because there's one thing that the USA has that those countries, with the possible exception of China, don't have and that's money to deal with issues as they arise. The US leads the world in the size of its defence (or defense) budget. The US currently leads the world in arms supply to the rest of the world. These things mean something when it comes to R+D. They mean something when making comparisons between US and foreign military types.

The Russian defence budget is nowhere near as big as America's. The PAK-FA was supposed to be a family of stealth oriented aircraft, but the emphasis on stealth was not necessarily the sole driving factor behind the design of the Su-57. Yes, it had to incorporate stealth - it has RAM and passive stealth elements in its design, but the emphasis is on its radar signature from the front aspect only. It has been designed as a multirole strike fighter of advanced design and performance by using modern construction and avionics to remain competitive. In any other description it is an excellent fighter and the biggest fault of the aircraft lies not in its design but the political machine that produced it. It's too expensive for the Russian defence budget. Russian armed forces are falling behind technologically and modernisation is taking longer than expected because of the cost of doing so. This "Special Operation" in Ukraine can't be doing much to help, on the plus side however, what it is doing is revealing flaws in Russian military strategy and tactics, so the lesson is there for Russia to learn, but that's a different story for a different thread.

The J-20 is an impressive feat of engineering and to what degree its stealth elements work can only be hinted at. The Chinese are notoriously cagey about its capabilities, weapons fit, electronics etc, so little is known about this aircraft it's hard to make a credible assessment of it from a technology and capability perspective. We do know that the engines fitted to production examples are sub-standard (the trusty Lyulka Saturn) to what the Chinese are developing for it and we know that their intended powerplant (WS-15) is suffering teething troubles, but beyond that we can only surmise based on photographs and scraps of information that observers bring back from China. The wiki page is detailed without revealing a whole lot - read it carefully and it tells you a lot about its shape and characteristics, and there's a lot of "it could carry these missiles, it could have EOTS type sensors, it might have this performance" etc, but verifiable hard currency is few and far between.









Chengdu J-20 - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





So, where does this leave us? That's up to the beholder. As someone who reads this stuff because I have to, it's a part of my aviation news reporting hat, I find the many comparisons between the jets found within the press meaningless in context. The aircraft are the products of the services that created them and their respective characteristics and being from environments with different aims and objectives, it's very difficult to make meaningful comparisons. I'll leave that to the armchair experts who write this stuff...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Jun 7, 2022)

There is a reason for the RAM degradation on the F-22, its a known issue with that generation of RAM coating.

But being as how an F-22 flies FAR higher than its prey, they wont be seeing that bit of the airframe.


----------



## Torch (Jun 7, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Hmmmm, let's see...
> 
> So we have some photos of the F-22 with RAM erosion which I'm sure was within limits or the aircraft wouldn't be flying. 195 F-22s built, 187 operational. Between September 2014 and July 2015, F-22s flew 204 sorties over Syria, dropping 270 bombs at some 60 locations.
> 
> ...


Theres 2 less, Maverick shot them down

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 8, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> The Russian defence budget is nowhere near as big as America's.


I think we forget just how small the Russian economy and GDP is. My thinly populated country, Canada is eighth in nominal GDP. With more than 3.5X the population, Russia is eleventh. Russia spends over 4% of that GDP on its military, and has shoddy results to show for itself.

Canada spends less than 1.5% of its GDP on military. Imagine what Canada's military would look like if we spent 4%. A far sight better than Russia's I hope. 150 x F-35s, a dozen new Type 26 frigates, two Canberra-class LHDs, six AIP SSKs and two squadrons of long distance arctic recon drones would be a nice start.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Jun 9, 2022)

Russias GDP is about the same as Spains


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jun 9, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> We do know that the engines fitted to production examples are sub-standard (the trusty Lyulka Saturn) to what the Chinese are developing for it and we know that their intended powerplant (WS-15) is *suffering teething troubles, *



More than just teething problems.

WS-15 development has been ongoing for better than 20 years, during which time it has (publically at least) undergone two sets of substantial redesigns. The engine definitely failed qualification testing in 2019 and likely did again so in late 2021.

As of March this year, I believe there was one engine undergoing flying testing on a modified Y-20 and maybe 10 undergoing bench or ground testing. EDIT: There's unconfirmed reports of a J-20 undergoing testing with a single WS-15 as well, no indication whether these are flight or ground tests though.

Chinese state media is suggesting the WS-15 would be 'mature' enough for deployment in 2024. However, the engine has been "one to two years away" since about 2015, so don't hold your breath.

China has successfully gotten a handful of prototype engines working to specification (delivering 16 to 18 tonnes of thrust), but even the limited pre-production examples are a different story. The single-crystal style fan blades are (still) repeatedly failing below max design loads, to the point where in 2021 there was talk of completely revising the materials used. There was another 2021 report that the pre-production engines were giving only 14 tonnes of thrust, attributed to issues with the 2007-2008 redesign of the engine's hot section.

It's one thing to hit design goals with a prototype. It's another thing entirely to mature that engine to the point where it can hit the same targets in service.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------

