# F-22 hundred of times more stealthy than Su-57?



## Nodeo-Franvier (Jul 21, 2021)

According to this article F-22 radar cross section is less than 1% of Su-57.









Stealth Fighter Showdown: Russia's Su-57 vs. the F-22 Raptor (Who Wins?)


Evidence suggests that only a small quantity of PAK FAs will enter Russian service this decade—too few to alter the balance of airpower in the near term.




nationalinterest.org





Would this translate to Turkey shoot in an actual war?

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


----------



## ODonovan (Jul 27, 2021)

From what I've read, F-35s are going to be used as "spotters," sneaking into enemy airspace and "painting" (designating) targets for F-22s as well as for long range air to air "missile boats" such as F-15s and even B-52s. Since the Su-57 is NOT stealthy at all, except from the front, having an F-35 abreast of it or behind it would negate most of its stealth. We're going to be getting the F-15EX Eagle II pretty soon, which can carry a sh*t ton of air to air missiles. I don't even want to guess how many the B-52 can carry. So, should any hostilities occur, IF things go as planned, I would expect it soon to be raining Russian aircraft parts and for there to be a LOT of screaming and cursing in Russian. IF things go as planned...


-Irish


----------



## Token (Aug 21, 2021)

Nodeo-Franvier said:


> According to this article F-22 radar cross section is less than 1% of Su-57.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"Stealth" is always a relative term.

Looking at the Su-57 I see exposed rivet heads, I see what is probably a very reflective canopy bow and frame, I see straight and square panel edges, things like that. To me it looks like a design that was optimized for air superiority and the RCS was also reduced on specific aspect angles. For sure those thrust vector nozzles are purely performance designed, with no real nod given to RCS reduction.

I suspect that on the nose the RCS will be reduced significantly, and to beam and aft very much less well controlled.

Yes, I have no trouble at all believing the F-22 has an average RCS 20 dBsm, or more, below that of the Su-57 as it has been demonstrated. That does not seem a stretch to me at all.

As for who wins, first to see, first to kill. Overall I suspect that the Su-57 is at a disadvantage to both the F-22 and the F-35, although if you can get them into its fight, say in the phone booth, the Su-57 looks VERY capable. And the off-axis, high angle, queuing and launch will be tough to beat.

T!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 21, 2021)

Everybody's military observables are highly classified, at least by the US. Any US defense contractor which did an RCS analysis of something a bit incredibly non-exotic like, oh, the T-41 (a Cessna 172 with USAF markings), that analysis would get a "SECRET" stamp put on it.

Anyone who has reliable observables data on the Su-57, F-22, or F-35 isn't talking, either out of taking their vow of secrecy seriously or to avoid spending a very long time in a very small room which locks from the outside.

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


----------



## Token (Aug 21, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> Everybody's military observables are highly classified, at least by the US. Any US defense contractor which did an RCS analysis of something a bit incredibly non-exotic like, oh, the T-41 (a Cessna 172 with USAF markings), that analysis would get a "SECRET" stamp put on it.
> 
> *Anyone who has reliable observables data on the Su-57, F-22, or F-35 isn't talking*, either out of taking their vow of secrecy seriously or to avoid spending a very long time in a very small room which locks from the outside.



That is certainly true for actual RCS range measured data or intelligence assessments. However, shape analysis and an understanding of surface scatter and surface conduction modeling can get you in the ball park. There is a LOT of unclassified modeling and simulation out there to pull from. There is a lot of unclassified research work to pull from. And there are past examples that have been measured. There is a lot of unclassified information on paints, coatings and surface materials out there. It is possible to make some educated guesses.

As for "classified", the surface materials may be possible to protect from general knowledge, but the shapes are not. If you release a picture of it people can start to make educated, sometimes very close (in general terms), guesses. The interesting part there becomes surface materials and underlying shapes. You might be able to model surface shapes, but what if the surface is RF transparent (or absorptive), and the specifically shaped reflective surface is under the visible surface?

In your example, a hypothetical RCS analysis of a T-41, involving actual RCS range measurements, probably having a secret marking, that is possibly, probably even, correct. But, a person could do an unclassified analysis and measurement of a C-172 just fine, and it would not end up with such a classification marking on it...unless you did it on the DoD dime, in which case it still might end up classified.

The take away is that while it might be probable that anyone claiming to know the exact RCS's of various modern, front line, military aircraft, is either violating their security agreements or lying, if you have the right education or experience it is also very possible to make educated guesses that are not in the realm of the classified. RCS modeling and management is not rocket surgery, it is math and research.

T!

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


----------



## pbehn (Aug 21, 2021)

I havn't seen any definition of "stealthy", in most branches of the military being 100 times stronger means you have 100 times more of something. In stealth, with waves being reflected, one "hundred times" may or may not be a big deal.


----------



## Token (Aug 21, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I havn't seen any definition of "stealthy", in most branches of the military being 100 times stronger means you have 100 times more of something. In stealth, with waves being reflected, one "hundred times" may or may not be a big deal.



To the best of my knowledge there is no one numeric definition of "stealth", it is simply the result of intentionally reducing, by design, an objects detection signature. And although people tend to fixate on Radar Cross Section (RCS) reduction, stealth also includes other signature reduction, sound, IR, visual, etc

OK, lets put it in real world application. You will see that "one hundred times" is a big deal. I am not going to clutter things up with math, but if you want to do the calculations yourself you can use either the free space loss equation or the radar range equation.

Aircraft A has a forward aspect RCS of 0 dBsm, that is the equivalent of a target RCS of 1 square meter. Note that this is RCS, and not physical size, don't let the "square meter" thing twist you into physical size comparisons. Aircraft B is physically the same size but has a forward aspect RCS that is 1/100 of aircraft A, or an RCS of 0.01 square meters, this is expressed as -20 dBsm.

If both targets are head on and a given radar can just barely detect and track Aircraft A (the larger RCS target) at 100 km range, it will not be able to see and track Aircraft B (the 1/100 RCS target) until it is at 10 km.

The real world difference between the aircraft, one with 1/100 the RCS of the other, or a 20 dBsm difference in RCS, is that one (the larger RCS target) can be tracked, under identical conditions, 10 times as far away as the other.

That is a pretty significant difference.

T!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ARTESH (Aug 21, 2021)

Nodeo-Franvier said:


> According to this article F-22 radar cross section is less than 1% of Su-57.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



living in Iran, learnt that not anything written in "Sites or Books" are trustworthy! Specially News Agencies! one big reason is propaganda! the other big one, would be politics!


----------



## pbehn (Aug 21, 2021)

Token said:


> To the best of my knowledge there is no one numeric definition of "stealth", it is simply the result of intentionally reducing, by design, an objects detection signature. And although people tend to fixate on Radar Cross Section (RCS) reduction, stealth also includes other signature reduction, sound, IR, visual, etc
> 
> OK, lets put it in real world application. *You will see that "one hundred times" is a big deal*. I am not going to clutter things up with math, but if you want to do the calculations yourself you can use either the free space loss equation or the radar range equation.
> 
> ...


The thing is, I was a UT technician and discussion of 20dBisms and 5 dB isms dont phase me. What is your actual point. A drop of 20dB is a 90% drop in signal strength, which is why factors of "100 times" are misleading.


I was taught ultrasonics by C.J. Abrahams who pioneered the 20 dB drop sizing technique with MAPs. Signal response is entirely due to orientation, the difference between maximum and minimum response with a planar reflector is massively more than 100 times and attenuation, filtering frequency also have effects that are over 100 times.


If you could quote the energy of the transmitted signal and the energy of the received signal that would possibly show why "100 times" may not be any sort of deal at all. Like the possibility of me living to 125 being 100 times less than living to 124.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 21, 2021)

ODonovan said:


> From what I've read, F-35s are going to be used as "spotters," sneaking into enemy airspace and "painting" (designating) targets for F-22s as well as for long range air to air "missile boats" such as F-15s and even B-52s. Since the Su-57 is NOT stealthy at all, except from the front, having an F-35 abreast of it or behind it would negate most of its stealth. We're going to be getting the F-15EX Eagle II pretty soon, which can carry a sh*t ton of air to air missiles. I don't even want to guess how many the B-52 can carry. So, should any hostilities occur, IF things go as planned, I would expect it soon to be raining Russian aircraft parts and for there to be a LOT of screaming and cursing in Russian. IF things go as planned...
> 
> 
> -Irish


I don't know where you "read" this, but the F-35 and F-15EX are *STRIKE aircraft* - in layman's terms, they are bombers. The F-22 is a dedicated air-to-air fighter. The F-35 (and I'm talking F-35A) is basically a flying supercomputer that can fulfill several functions to include battlefield integration and AEW roles. The F-15EX carries "the bombs" but also has an outstanding air-to-air capability.


----------



## Token (Aug 21, 2021)

pbehn said:


> The thing is, I was a UT technician and discussion of 20dBisms and 5 dB isms dont phase me. *What is your actual point*. A drop of 20dB is a 90% drop in signal strength, which is why factors of "100 times" are misleading.



Not sure what you are trying to say here. The actual point, the most important point, of a 20 dB reduction (1/100) in RCS is that the 20 dBsm larger target can be tracked by radar, under identical conditions, 10 times as far away as the 20 dBsm smaller RCS target. That 10 times range relationship is the real number for a 1/100, or 20 dBsm reduced, RCS.

If, using a specific radar under specific conditions, the larger RCS target can just be tracked (maximum detection range for that radar with that target under those conditions) at or inside 100 km, then the smaller RCS target, 1/100 RCS, cannot be tracked, with that radar and under those conditions, until the aircraft is at or inside 10 km.

Every radar design has a specific maximum range at which it can track a given size (size in RCS, not physical size) target. That range is determined by many factors, things like the transmitted power, the antenna gain, the receiver sensitivity, etc, and one of these factors is the reflectivity of the target. We are defining that reflectivity when we define the RCS of the target.

In the radar world, a drop of 20 dB is not a 90% drop in signal strength. It is a 99% drop in signal strength, or 1/100 the signal. A 90% drop in signal strength would be 10 dB reduction, or 1/10.



pbehn said:


> I was taught ultrasonics by C.J. Abrahams who pioneered the 20 dB drop sizing technique with MAPs. Signal response is entirely due to orientation, the difference between maximum and minimum response with a planar reflector is massively more than 100 times and attenuation, filtering frequency also have effects that are over 100 times.
> 
> 
> If you could quote the energy of the transmitted signal and the energy of the received signal that would possibly show why "100 times" may not be any sort of deal at all. Like the possibility of me living to 125 being 100 times less than living to 124.



Hmmm... I am still not getting the question. Are you asking for this function as a probability of detection (PD)? If so you have to express that with a range also.

The maximum detection range, for a specific radar and with a given PD, is what changes with RCS changes.

Also, RCS cannot be expressed without also considering orientation. A target that is +2 dBsm in a nose on aspect may be +20 dBsm when viewed from abeam. But comparisons are typically done with equal aspects, i.e. aircraft A is 20 dBsm larger RCS head on than aircraft B is head on.

T!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 21, 2021)

Token said:


> That is certainly true for actual RCS range measured data or intelligence assessments. However, shape analysis and an understanding of surface scatter and surface conduction modeling can get you in the ball park. There is a LOT of unclassified modeling and simulation out there to pull from. There is a lot of unclassified research work to pull from. And there are past examples that have been measured. There is a lot of unclassified information on paints, coatings and surface materials out there. It is possible to make some educated guesses.
> 
> As for "classified", the surface materials may be possible to protect from general knowledge, but the shapes are not. If you release a picture of it people can start to make educated, sometimes very close (in general terms), guesses. The interesting part there becomes surface materials and underlying shapes. You might be able to model surface shapes, but what if the surface is RF transparent (or absorptive), and the specifically shaped reflective surface is under the visible surface?
> 
> ...



Reasonably accurate RCS modelling takes a fairly hefty computer, albeit not a supercomputer, and a good surface model, certainly much better than one can get from conventional photography. 

Quite a lot of the papers about RCS modeling that I got a chance to read when I was working in the field were translated from Russian, so it's certain that the physics are universally known (at least among the _cognescenti_, a group to which I most definitely do not belong -- it's been nearly 40 years since I had anything to do with RCS). Quite a lot of stealth is in pretty small details, which is one reason why the B-2 was insanely expensive to keep fully stealthed (for one, I've read the RAM coating was quickly degraded by rain), and a reason why fit-and-finish is very important to producing stealth.

I _suspect_ the Su-57 has a significantly larger cross section than the F-22 from tactically significant viewpoints, but I'd not put much of my money on it. On the other hand, I also suspect that the Su-57 has a superior RCS to the F-15, F-16, or F-18 (any model). I'd not bet much on that, either.


----------



## Token (Aug 21, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> Reasonably accurate RCS modelling takes a fairly hefty computer, albeit not a supercomputer, and a good surface model, certainly much better than one can get from conventional photography.



Sure, accuracy requires more detail, but starting estimates are possible (and done reasonably often) from things like imagery. Looking at things like the canopy construction and the access panel designs will tell you they did not put the effort into the details that the F-22 and F-35 have.



swampyankee said:


> I _suspect_ the Su-57 has a significantly larger cross section than the F-22 from tactically significant viewpoints, but I'd not put much of my money on it. On the other hand, I also suspect that the Su-57 has a superior RCS to the F-15, F-16, or F-18 (any model). I'd not bet much on that, either.



It depends on what you want to call a "significantly larger cross section" vs F-22. I would put a fair amount on there being a "significant" difference, I feel it is a safe bet. I consider things like 6 or 10 dB significant, that does equate to a real, and usable, detection range advantage. I would not bet a large sum on "1/100" though...unless you gave me good odds 

T!


----------



## Glider (Aug 22, 2021)

This article was written some time ago, not the phrase
_However, the United States finally deployed its own equivalent of the R-73, the AIM-9X, in 2004, and F-22s are finally planned to have the capability to use AIM-9Xs by 2017. Helmet-mounted sights should come in 2020_

Lets look at what has happened to the Su57. 
a) In 2018 India who had invested a lot into this programme walked away from it because it didn't believe that it met their requirements for stealth, combat avionics, radars and sensors. This is s serious problem for India as Pakistan its long term potential enemy is close to China who has its own program of this nature and the tensions between India and China are also ramping up.

b) Russia advised that the first two aircraft were to be delivered in 2019 its barely in service and with any complex aircraft there are going to be teething problems. 

c) I don't think it has won any contract for sales.

d) If it was advanced as the Russians say they would never export it to a country where the USA could get a look at it.

This is compared to the F22 an aircraft that has been designed, built, honed and finished production. Should the USA start developing a replacement for the F22 they have a raft of experience to build on.

Personally I don't think the Su57 is even close to the F22 or F35

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


----------



## pbehn (Aug 22, 2021)

Token said:


> Not sure what you are trying to say here. The actual point, the most important point, of a 20 dB reduction (1/100) in RCS is that the 20 dBsm larger target can be tracked by radar, under identical conditions, 10 times as far away as the 20 dBsm smaller RCS target. That 10 times range relationship is the real number for a 1/100, or 20 dBsm reduced, RCS.
> 
> If, using a specific radar under specific conditions, the larger RCS target can just be tracked (maximum detection range for that radar with that target under those conditions) at or inside 100 km, then the smaller RCS target, 1/100 RCS, cannot be tracked, with that radar and under those conditions, until the aircraft is at or inside 10 km.
> 
> ...


I was just discussing what "100 times" means. The differences are so huge that one hundred times may or may not mean anything. I just looked up the decibel and in power terms 20dB is 100, and in amplitude terms it is 10. My point was simply stating something is "one hundred times" more or less may or may not be important. Something 100 times bigger or heavier than a hydrogen atom still isnt big. If the sun is 100 times hotter or cooler it is still hot. The technicalities of your post are what the simple statement of "100 times more stealthy" dont address. It maybe that at a range of 100 miles the Su 57 returns 100 times more from a radar than an F22 does but is that important? Probability of detection is the only thing that matters, and the only way I can see that one is 100 times greater than the other is if they are both fantastically small, like the probability of being hit by an individual shell in a B-17 at 25,000ft.






Decibel - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Token (Aug 22, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I was just discussing what "100 times" means. The differences are so huge that one hundred times may or may not mean anything. I just looked up the decibel and in power terms 20dB is 100, and in amplitude terms it is 10. My point was simply stating something is "one hundred times" more or less may or may not be important. Something 100 times bigger or heavier than a hydrogen atom still isnt big. If the sun is 100 times hotter or cooler it is still hot. *The technicalities of your post are what the simple statement of "100 times more stealthy" dont address. It maybe that at a range of 100 miles the Su 57 returns 100 times more from a radar than an F22 does but is that important?* Probability of detection is the only thing that matters, and the only way I can see that one is 100 times greater than the other is if they are both fantastically small, like the probability of being hit by an individual shell in a B-17 at 25,000ft.



The technicalities in my post are exactly what "100 times more stealthy" means. By the way, "100 times" was introduced by the OP of this thread, not by the writers of the article in question. I don't think the article says anything like that, it uses real definitions of RCS in square meters. At all ranges (assuming the information is correct), not just a specific range, the ratio will remain the same. At 100 miles the Su-57 returns 100 times more radar energy, and at 5 miles the Su-57 returns 100 times as much radar energy. The total energy may be different, but the ratios of energy will not be.

Lets look at what the article says. It says the F-22 is believed to have an RCS of 0.0001 sm and that the Su-57 is claimed to have an RCS of 0.1 sm from the front aspect, and something less than 1 sm for all aspect. The RCS numbers used for the F-22 come from an Air Power Australia (APA) publication done several years ago, in general that source tends to be pretty good, but they are working in the unclassified realm, so there is no guarantee their numbers are correct. By the way, their guestimate on the front aspect of the Su-57 (or at least the PAK FA it derived from) is more along the lines of 0.01 sm in front aspect. The source for the Su-57 numbers in the National Interest article appears to be a combination of the APA paper and the patent papers associated with the Su-57.

You can see there is an order of magnitude error someplace in all of that, I don't know if that is a missed decimal point by either the National Interest article or the APA article. Since the National Interest article points to the APA paper as its source, I am assuming the "0.1 sm" used in the National Interest is the typo, and they really meant the "0.01 sm" in the original source. And, 0.01 sm is 100 times as large as 0.0001 sm

But the gist of it is that "100 times more stealthy" is generally taken to mean that one target has an RCS of 1/100 the other target. Or an RCS difference of 20 dB between the two, one target exhibits an RCS 20 dBsm larger than the other target, whatever the starting value is. If target A is said to be -30 dBsm (0.0001 sm) and target B is 20 dBsm larger (100 times larger expressed in square meters RCS), that means target B is -10 dBsm (0.01 sm).

Why this is important is what I addressed. The target that is 20 dBsm larger will *always* be able to be detected by radar at a longer maximum range under the same conditions, with the same probability of detection, simply by virtue of its larger RCS.

Using the radar range equation you can calculate the maximum distance a given radar (if you know all of its parameters) can possibly track a given size target. Part of the radar range equation does consider a probability of detection, generally a number of 80% or greater is used. Typically this range performance is quoted as the range to track a 0 dBsm (1.0 sq meter) target, but you can also calculate it for any other size, such as -10 dBsm or -30 dBsm.

Use a known radar example, say the FAA ASR-11 primary track radar. This radar has a specification of being able to track a 0 dBsm target, a 1 square meter RCS target, at 55 nm, or 102 km (Table 3.4-1, page 16, here http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/cttn9727.pdf ). At 102 km, or less, this radar has a greater than 80% probability of tracking a target with an RCS of 0 dBsm. It does not have the same probability of detection for a -10 dBsm target until the target gets within 32 km, and it will not have that same probability of detection with a -30 dBsm target until the target is within 3.2 km.

Using the real world, known, ASR-11 radar, and assuming the RCS numbers quoted in the Ausie Air Power paper are correct, we can calculate that the ASR-11 radar would not detect (with the standard 80% PD) the inbound (front aspect) Su-57 until the aircraft was inside 32 km, and it would not detect the inbound (front aspect) F-22 until the aircraft was inside 3.2 km.

Other radars will have similar tracking range disparities between the two aircraft. The exact tracking ranges will be different, but the ratio of detection ranges will remain similarly skewed. If the numbers presented in either article are correct, the Su-57 can be seen by radar 10 times as far away as the F-22 can, and I have given a real world radar example using those numbers.

That seems significant to me.

T!


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 22, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I was just discussing what "100 times" means. The differences are so huge that one hundred times may or may not mean anything. I just looked up the decibel and in power terms 20dB is 100, and in amplitude terms it is 10.



In trying to follow this conversation, when I see the term "dB" I'm thinking, as a musician, that radar -- and detection -- work on a logarithmic scale as well?


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 23, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> In trying to follow this conversation, when I see the term "dB" I'm thinking, as a musician, that radar -- and detection -- work on a logarithmic scale as well?


Just so.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 23, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> Just so.



Thank you, that helps me.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 23, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> In trying to follow this conversation, when I see the term "dB" I'm thinking, as a musician, that radar -- and detection -- work on a logarithmic scale as well?


They do, yes.

Of course, without a receiver/amplifier, the frequencies cannot be heard by the human ear, but they follow the same logic. Like that hum you get in your electric guitar is 60Hz, just out of human hearing range, but with an amp, becomes audible (I think around the B scale?).

The human hearing range is roughly 20Hz to 20kHz, most radar freqs operate in the high gigahertz range (like up to 36gHz).

But all can be justified with decibel logorithyms.

I am far from a math whiz, but hopefully this helps a little...

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


----------



## Token (Aug 23, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> In trying to follow this conversation, when I see the term "dB" I'm thinking, as a musician, that radar -- and detection -- work on a logarithmic scale as well?



They don't work on a log scale, but we often express and measure things related to them on a log scale.

For things like radar we don't have to use the dB scale, it is just convenient because of the large numbers and ratios involved.

For example, a radar might have a peak power of say 100,000 Watts. It might have an antenna gain factor (how much the antenna amplifies the signal) of 1258. It might have a feedline (feedline, be it waveguide or something else, takes the energy from the transmitter to the antenna) loss ratio of 2.2 (you put power in one end of the feedline and less power comes out the other end of it).

These are the total numbers I need to determine the radars Effective Radiated Power (ERP). ERP is one of the important factors in determining radar performance. To use these numbers to determine the ERP the process is the transmitter power divided by the feedline loss ratio, and multiplied by the antenna gain. Peak transmitter power divided by the feedline loss would be 100,000/2.2=45454.5 Watts at the antenna. Multiply that by the antenna gain, 45454.5x1258=57,181,761 Watts ERP.

But, doing it in dB it all becomes addition and subtraction, and working with much smaller numbers. The transmitter peak power (100,000 Watts) is +80 dBm, the feedline loss (the ratio of 2.2) is -3.4 dB, and the antenna gain (gain factor of 1258) is 31 dB (could be either dBi or dBd, not important for this discussion). I just take those numbers and add them up, 80+(-3.4)+31=107.6 dBm ERP. ERP is typically expressed in either dBm (dB based on 1 milliWatt) or dBW (dB based on 1 Watt). I have determined the ERP in dBm, to convert to dBW simply subtract 30, making the ERP 77.6 dBW.

Note that I did not carry any of the numbers in dB out past the tenths digit, and this has caused some rounding errors. I easily could have carried them out, for greater accuracy, but typically working to a tenth of a dB results in errors that are insignificant for normal operations. Such accuracy may be important for lab work, but typically not in the field. In this case the rounding errors have caused the 57,181,761 Watt ERP to become (converting 107.6 dBm back to Watts) 57,543,994 Watts, an error of under 0.1%. As I said, I could have maintained accuracy by not rounding.

But why all this converting back and forth, doing math, just to have easier math? Because we typically don't do that, instead we measure many things directly in dB to begin with, there is typically very little conversion to do.

Antenna gain is most often expressed in dB (either dBi or dBd), so the data on the antenna would say 31 dB of gain, not a gain factor of 1258.

Loss ratios can be, and normally are, directly measured in dB. It would be uncommon to call the feedline loss ratio 2.2, but would be very common to say the feedline has 3.4 dB of loss.

And power meters for radar and similar applications can be set to read out the power in dB, typically either dBm or dBW.

Everything (at least every numeric value or ratio) can be expressed in dB. $1 can become 0 dB$, so 1.3 trillion dollars would be 121.14 dB$, half of 1.3 trillion dollars would be 3 dB lower, or 118.14 dB$.

The one way space loss (how much the signal is reduced as it travels through space) of a 10 GHz radar tracking a target 50 km away is 1 / 438500000000000 what it was when it left the antenna. Or, using the ERP in our example at the top of my post, 57181761 Watts/ 438500000000000 space loss. This means the signal level at the target is .0000001304 Watts, or 0.0001304 milliWatts.

But that space loss, like any other number or ratio, can be expressed in dB also, and we end up with -146.42 dB (in fact, formulas can calculate it directly in dB, no need to calculate it and then convert). By doing it in dB, we start with the 107.6 dBm ERP above, subtract the space loss of 146.42, and end up with -38.82 dBm at the target. If you wanted to you could convert the -38.82 dBm to milliWatts (and find it is 0.000131 mW), but why do that when the rest of what you want to do is probably still in dB? For example, the receiver MDS, the smallest possible signal the radar can detect, will most often be expressed in dBm.

T!

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 23, 2021)

Token said:


> They don't work on a log scale, but we often express and measure things related to them on a log scale.
> 
> For things like radar we don't have to use the dB scale, it is just convenient because of the large numbers and ratios involved.
> 
> ...



Now that's a lot of arithmetickin' for a guy like me who struggled through college trig, but I think I'm following. To wit, a log is a specific ratio (right?), based on essentially compressing by a given log base as defined for the purpose of the equation being solved?

At any rate, I do understand it better now especially as I understand my guitar amp's wattage being converted into audio dBs. At least I think I do!



GrauGeist said:


> They do, yes.
> 
> Of course, without a receiver/amplifier, the frequencies cannot be heard by the human ear, but they follow the same logic. Like that hum you get in your electric guitar is 60Hz, just out of human hearing range, but with an amp, becomes audible (I think around the B scale?).



Oh, 60-cycle hum is very audible, especially on my home recordings before I learned how to use an EQ, lol.



GrauGeist said:


> The human hearing range is roughly 20Hz to 20kHz, most radar freqs operate in the high gigahertz range (like up to 36gHz).
> 
> But all can be justified with decibel logorithyms.



Understood, and thanks to you three who answered.



GrauGeist said:


> I am far from a math whiz, but hopefully this helps a little...



Indeed it does. I just didn't want to assume the term "dB" worked the same with electronics as it does with audible sound.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ODonovan (Aug 23, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I don't know where you "read" this, but the F-35 and F-15EX are *STRIKE aircraft* - in layman's terms, they are bombers. The F-22 is a dedicated air-to-air fighter. The F-35 (and I'm talking F-35A) is basically a flying supercomputer that can fulfill several functions to include battlefield integration and AEW roles. The F-15EX carries "the bombs" but also has an outstanding air-to-air capability.


I've read it in several reports. Here's one from Lockheed-Martin.








F-35 and Aegis Combat System Successfully Demonstrate Integration Potential in First Live Missile Test


Two pre-eminent weapon systems, the F-35 Lightning II and Aegis Weapon System, worked together for the first time during a live fire exercise. The joint Lockheed Martin, (NYSE: LMT) U.S. Navy and...




news.lockheedmartin.com





That's expanded upon in this article.








How the F-35 proved it can take enemy airspace without firing a shot


An F-35B carrie…




www.wearethemighty.com





And here's an article about the "AMBER" system on the F-15EX. It can carry up to 22 air to air missiles.








The King of America F-15EX is Back - Modern, Big, Ugly and More Formidable - Military-wiki


The US Air Force estimates the F-15EX has 70% of the same parts as the F-15C and F-15E that they replace. The F-15EX is said to be easier to fabricate.




military-wiki.com





There have been a number of others, but that covers the basics.


-Irish

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 23, 2021)

ODonovan said:


> I've read it in several reports. Here's one from Lockheed-Martin.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_"So now with this development, an F-35 can pass targeting data to the world’s most advanced missile defense system, an Aegis site, that would fire its own missile, likely a SM-6, to take out threats in the air, on land, or at sea."_

That's called "battlefield integration." The aircraft will still carry bombs and participate in strike roles.

No where does it mention anything about bomb carrying F-22s (if that's what you meant).

The AMBER rack is a feature that the F-15EX "can" carry if deployed to do so. It's primary mission is to drop bombs but it is a multirole aircraft

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ODonovan (Aug 23, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> _"So now with this development, an F-35 can pass targeting data to the world’s most advanced missile defense system, an Aegis site, that would fire its own missile, likely a SM-6, to take out threats in the air, on land, or at sea."_
> 
> That's called "battlefield integration." The aircraft will still carry bombs and participate in strike roles.
> 
> ...


I'm sure the F-35 WILL carry bombs and run strike missions, AFTER air superiority is gained. Doing so while enemy fighters are still in the mix puts them unnecessarily at risk. The situation I'm referring to happens in the very earliest part of the conflict. And, I never said ANYTHING about "bomb-carrying F-22s." The F-22s would be establishing air superiority and would vector toward the enemy aircraft, in many cases ones designated by the F-35s. The enemy aircraft would likely not even know the F-22s were there until it was too late. In most cases, missiles either from F-22s or long range "missile boats" would be able to knock out most enemy "stealth" fighters before they had the chance to respond.

Oh, and don't think "can" about the F-15EX and the AMBER system. That was a major selling point for the aircraft.


-Irish


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 23, 2021)

ODonovan said:


> I'm sure the F-35 WILL carry bombs and run strike missions, AFTER air superiority is gained. Doing so while enemy fighters are still in the mix puts them unnecessarily at risk. The situation I'm referring to happens in the very earliest part of the conflict.


OK, agree - it will carry weapons internally during the initial 


ODonovan said:


> And, I never said ANYTHING about "bomb-carrying F-22s."


My misunderstanding


ODonovan said:


> The F-22s would be establishing air superiority and would vector toward the enemy aircraft, in many cases ones designated by the F-35s. The enemy aircraft would likely not even know the F-22s were there until it was too late. In most cases, missiles either from F-22s or long range "missile boats" would be able to knock out most enemy "stealth" fighters before they had the chance to respond.


Agree


ODonovan said:


> Oh, and don't think "can" about the F-15EX and the AMBER system. That was a major selling point for the aircraft.
> 
> 
> -Irish


It was but that Amber rack can also deploy air to ground weapons from what I understand


----------



## ODonovan (Aug 23, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It was but that Amber rack can also deploy air to ground weapons.


And that makes me so very happy. 🥰 With the EXs ability to carry almost 30,000 lbs. of ordnance, there will be sh*t blowing up everywhere! Hey, what can I say? I like big booms and I can not lie. 😁


-Irish

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


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 23, 2021)

ODonovan said:


> I'm sure the F-35 WILL carry bombs and run strike missions, AFTER air superiority is gained. Doing so while enemy fighters are still in the mix puts them unnecessarily at risk. The situation I'm referring to happens in the very earliest part of the conflict.



Not sure I entirely agree. Air superiority is about more than just tackling enemy fighters. A key element involves neutralizing adversary ground-based air defences and for that you need bombs delivered by a stealthy platform. 

There's absolutely no point focusing on an adversary's fighter force if you can't operate 4th gen combat aircraft and non-combat types because of the SAM threat.

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


----------



## Token (Aug 24, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Not sure I entirely agree. Air superiority is about more than just tackling enemy fighters. A key element involves neutralizing adversary ground-based air defences and for that you need bombs delivered by a stealthy platform.
> 
> There's absolutely no point focusing on an adversary's fighter force if you can't operate 4th gen combat aircraft and non-combat types because of the SAM threat.



No doubt about it, the F-35 will be a major, maybe the major, SEAD / DEAD platform.

But I think maybe you and others are mixing thought processes. Air superiority itself vs an air superiority fighter. I have no argument about what you said, indeed I agree with it, but a fighter designed specifically for air superiority, like the F-22, might have a very limited ability for other tasking, like ground strike. Sure, it has the SDB, but really, what else would it do in a ground strike role? No modern or smart fight is a single platform doing it all. Among the other forces used, a few F-22's to scrape dedicated air defense aircraft off of them and something like the F-35 using only internals on day one of the fight to kill things on the ground, that is going to be a tough team to beat.

T!


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 24, 2021)

Token said:


> No doubt about it, the F-35 will be a major, maybe the major, SEAD / DEAD platform.
> 
> But I think maybe you and others are mixing thought processes. Air superiority itself vs an air superiority fighter. I have no argument about what you said, indeed I agree with it, but a fighter designed specifically for air superiority, like the F-22, might have a very limited ability for other tasking, like ground strike. Sure, it has the SBD, but really, what else would it do in a ground strike role? No modern or smart fight is a single platform doing it all. Among the other forces used, a few F-22's to scrape dedicated air defense aircraft off of them and something like the F-35 using only internals on day one of the fight to kill things on the ground, that is going to be a tough team to beat.
> 
> T!



No disagreement. I'm not saying the F-22 isn't important...it's absolutely critical. I simply objected to the characterization of air superiority as solely an air-to-air fight. For example, we could shoot down every Russian fighter that opposes us and yet not achieve air superiority because S-300, S-400 and (presumably, soon) S-500 SAM systems would significantly hinder our freedom of manoeuvre and ability to achieve operational objectives.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Token (Sep 3, 2021)

Token said:


> Why this is important is what I addressed. The target that is 20 dBsm larger will *always* be able to be detected by radar at a longer maximum range under the same conditions, with the same probability of detection, simply by virtue of its larger RCS.
> 
> Using the radar range equation you can calculate the maximum distance a given radar (if you know all of its parameters) can possibly track a given size target. Part of the radar range equation does consider a probability of detection, generally a number of 80% or greater is used. Typically this range performance is quoted as the range to track a 0 dBsm (1.0 sq meter) target, but you can also calculate it for any other size, such as -10 dBsm or -30 dBsm.
> 
> ...



OK, let this be a lesson, never do math in your head in public. If you are going to say something in numbers actually calculate the numbers, or don't be surprised if you mess it up.

The general statement I was making remains the same, the smaller RCS target will always be tracked at shorter maximum ranges, all other things being equal. But the specific numbers I used are incorrect. It appears that at the beginning of this thread I flipped a bit in my head (maybe used the approximate ratios for -40 dBsm instead of -20 dBsm reduction?), got that number stuck in there, and never cross checked after that.

Reading through this thread I see that I repeatedly said something along the lines of "a 20 dB reduction in RCS yields a detection range of 1/10 the original RCS detection range". This is an incorrect statement from the get-go. A 20 dBsm reduction would reduce the detection range by about 70%, not 90%. I even said "using the radar range equation you can calculate", and then I did not actually use that equation to calculate anything but instead I rounded things and guesstimated based on my original error. My bad.

The example I used was the ASR-11. It has a stated performance parameter of being able to detect and track a 0 dBsm target at 55 nm, or 102 km. And then I said that means it can track a -10 dBsm target at 32 km and a -30 dBsm target at 3.2 km. Those values I stated are wrong, even as rounded estimates. A more correct rounded estimate would be a -10 dBsm target at about 56 km, a -20 dBsm target at about 31 km, a -30 dBsm target at about 17 km, and a -40 dBsm target would be about 9 km.

Sorry about that, hope this clears up any bad take aways. But my basic point still stands, there is a significant detection range delta between the two aircraft.

T!

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


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 16, 2022)

Not going to start a new thread, but I love this picture. Taken at the Kaneohe Airshow in Hawaii last weekend.

A beautiful aircraft in an amazing photo op. Damn I love this plane.








More from the same airshow.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Aug 16, 2022)

I'm not a great jet "looks" fan as most seem to have a sameness about them but not that one. The first pic is a snorter.

Also, the SU-57 is going to be extremely hard to bring down as it is extremely hard to find, owing to the fact that there
are very few of them in the air. Ten, twelve, or even twenty per year isn't really enough at all when the rest of the system
isn't exactly (from what I've seen) up to scratch.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 16, 2022)

The looks are actually secondary for me.


----------



## WARSPITER (Aug 16, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The looks are actually secondary for me.


True. That is the best thing about the pic when you know it works even better than it looks.

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


----------



## Macandy (Aug 17, 2022)

WARSPITER said:


> I'm not a great jet "looks" fan as most seem to have a sameness about them but not that one. The first pic is a snorter.
> 
> Also, the SU-57 is going to be extremely hard to bring down as it is extremely hard to find, owing to the fact that there
> are very few of them in the air. Ten, twelve, or even twenty per year isn't really enough at all when the rest of the system
> isn't exactly (from what I've seen) up to scratch.




It's 12 years since its first flight… they've built 16, 10 test articles, and 6 notionally'delivery' airframes, and crashed 2.

Its a total bust of a programme they simply can't deliver. 
At best, its a slightly lower RCS SU-27 - and considering the SU-27's absolutely huge RCS, that's not a hard ask.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 20, 2022)

Isn’t the Su-57 at the level of the Armata MBT, essentially wunderwaffe that never get past the first trial batches? Is there a naval equivalent? I suppose the Lider class or Arcturus class?


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 20, 2022)

I bet few will get built while Russia is spending its brains out in Ukraine.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 20, 2022)

The Moskva class was supposed to be a carrier group killer.

We've all seen just how fearsome and invincible it turned out to be...


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 20, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I bet few will get built while Russia is spending its brains out in Ukraine.


I‘m somehow thinking the best Sukhoi’s are made in China. How does the Shenyang J-16 compare with the Sukhoi Su-35?


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 20, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> I‘m somehow thinking the best Sukhoi’s are made in China. How does the Shenyang J-16 compare with the Sukhoi Su-35?



I'm no expert but I'll look it up in the next day or two. Remind me if I space it, wont'cha?


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 20, 2022)

Nodeo-Franvier said:


> According to this article F-22 radar cross section is less than 1% of Su-57.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thoughts on the Sukhoi Su-75 Checkmate? First flight planned for 2024…. Yeah right.









Sukhoi Su-75 Checkmate - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 20, 2022)

Whew - that "checkmate" is so...amazing.

Almost as amazing as Iran's Qaher 313...

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


----------



## WARSPITER (Aug 21, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> The Moskva class was supposed to be a carrier group killer.
> 
> We've all seen just how fearsome and invincible it turned out to be...


So if the Ukrainians had fired an aircraft carrier at it the story may have been different ?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 21, 2022)

WARSPITER said:


> So if the Ukrainians had fired an aircraft carrier at it the story may have been different ?


Pretty much!


----------



## Glider (Aug 21, 2022)

This part caught my eye

In contrast, Russian analysts insist that ground-based low-bandwidth radars and long-range surface-to-air missiles such as the S-400 are a sure solution against stealth fighters. These tie the T-50 to operate closer to ground-based positions, which may be acceptable given Russia's security posture.

The confidence that the S-400 is a sure solution against Stealth fighters when they haven't been a sure solution against the Mig29, seems more than a little misplaced

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


----------



## Token (Aug 22, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> The Moskva class was supposed to be a carrier group killer.
> 
> We've all seen just how fearsome and invincible it turned out to be...



Errr, the Moskva class was an ASW platform. I don't remember it having any weapons that could attack a carrier. Well, I guess you could use the FRAS-1's to kill a carrier, if you could get close enough.

Or do you mean the (recently demised) ship renamed Moskva, a Slava class cruiser? Then yes, in the 1970's (when it was designed) and into the 1980's (commissioned in 1982) it was a threat to the carrier. I remember training exercises specifically modeled around a Slava centered attack group, in combination with Blinder and Backfire support. But, 40 years later, not so much. And any ship, caught asleep at the wheel or in limiting waters, is little more than a target, no matter how lethal it might be to other ships.

T!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 22, 2022)

Token said:


> Errr, the Moskva class was an ASW platform. I don't remember it having any weapons that could attack a carrier. Well, I guess you could use the FRAS-1's to kill a carrier, if you could get close enough.
> 
> Or do you mean the (recently demised) ship renamed Moskva, a Slava class cruiser? Then yes, in the 1970's (when it was designed) and into the 1980's (commissioned in 1982) it was a threat to the carrier. I remember training exercises specifically modeled around a Slava centered attack group, in combination with Blinder and Backfire support. But, 40 years later, not so much. And any ship, caught asleep at the wheel or in limiting waters, is little more than a target, no matter how lethal it might be to other ships.
> 
> T!



Yes, they are referring to the recent Cruiser converted to a Submarine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 22, 2022)

Should have read: "Moskva's class"

After fighting with this phone's  spell check, which insisted "Moskva" should be "Monica", I just left it as it was...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 22, 2022)

Most of us are aware of GrauGeist and his on going war with spell check.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 22, 2022)

Have I mentioned that I hate this f**king phone?




_Because I really do..._

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 22, 2022)

More than twice.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Aug 22, 2022)

GrauGeist
I like the Monica class of russian ships. Lighly armoured but fun to look at.

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


----------



## Buster01 (Aug 22, 2022)

Nodeo-Franvier said:


> According to this article F-22 radar cross section is less than 1% of Su-57.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is a picture of the upper wing surface of an SU-57. It almost looks like it was produced by a carpenter using wood screws. How stealthy could this be?


----------



## Token (Aug 22, 2022)

Buster01 said:


> This is a picture of the upper wing surface of an SU-57. It almost looks like it was produced by a carpenter using wood screws. How stealthy could this be?



Not particularly, every one of those screws and dimples is a corner reflector for RF energy, and they are all additive.

However, if they keep that kind of stuff only on the upper surfaces, with more attention to detail on the front and lower facing surfaces, it can still have quite a reduced RCS on the nose and with regards to anything it is facing / attacking.

My concern is more when I see things like this (not my image, random grab from web):





Those are obvious fasteners and panel seams below the waterline, and they also don't look very stealthy to me.

And I don't mean to imply that that panels being seen means anything bad, but that just looks ruff to me. Ruff means less smooth, less smooth generally means less stealthy.

Compare it to the fit and finish of panels on the F22 in a similar shot (not my image, random grab from web).






T!

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 22, 2022)

Token said:


> Errr, the Moskva class was an ASW platform. I don't remember it having any weapons that could attack a carrier. Well, I guess you could use the FRAS-1's to kill a carrier, if you could get close enough.
> 
> Or do you mean the (recently demised) ship renamed Moskva, a Slava class cruiser? Then yes, in the 1970's (when it was designed) and into the 1980's (commissioned in 1982) it was a threat to the carrier. I remember training exercises specifically modeled around a Slava centered attack group, in combination with Blinder and Backfire support. But, 40 years later, not so much. And any ship, caught asleep at the wheel or in limiting waters, is little more than a target, no matter how lethal it might be to other ships.
> 
> T!



It seemed clear to me he was talking about the _Moskva_ that was recently sunk. That was certainly designed to attack CAGs, with its loadout. I don't know how much ASW gear it had, but it's main-deck missile-racks speak to its mission. It also had what for the time was a healthy counter-air capability.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 22, 2022)

I look forward to seeing the BAE Tempest and Mitsubishi F-X in the next decade. The Russians just can’t compete.


----------



## Macandy (Aug 23, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> I‘m somehow thinking the best Sukhoi’s are made in China. How does the Shenyang J-16 compare with the Sukhoi Su-35?



China builds a much better quality product.
Sukhoi 'quality' can be very variable

Thats inside a brand new Sukhoi Superjet 100 wing

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 23, 2022)

Macandy said:


> China builds a much better quality product.
> Sukhoi 'quality' can be very variable
> 
> Thats inside a brand new Sukhoi Superjet 100 wing


And what are you showing us? Is this a crack verified by penetrant inspection? Is the paint flaking off prematurely? Is there a any other indication of failure?


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 23, 2022)

Macandy said:


> China builds a much better quality product.
> Sukhoi 'quality' can be very variable
> 
> Thats inside a brand new Sukhoi Superjet 100 wing


That’s why if it’s not Boeing, I ain’t going!

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 23, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> That’s why if it’s not Boeing, I ain’t going!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 23, 2022)

Token said:


> OK, let this be a lesson, never do math in your head in public. If you are going to say something in numbers actually calculate the numbers, or don't be surprised if you mess it up.
> 
> The general statement I was making remains the same, the smaller RCS target will always be tracked at shorter maximum ranges, all other things being equal. But the specific numbers I used are incorrect. It appears that at the beginning of this thread I flipped a bit in my head (maybe used the approximate ratios for -40 dBsm instead of -20 dBsm reduction?), got that number stuck in there, and never cross checked after that.
> 
> ...


I worked in ultrasonics for years so am familiar with decibels as a logarithmic unit of comparison is a "0 dB sm target" some sort of RADAR industry reference?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 23, 2022)

pbehn said:


> I worked in ultrasonics for years so am familiar with decibels as a logarithmic unit of comparison is a "0 dB sm target" some sort of RADAR industry reference?


Cool. I worked for a manufacturer of ultrasonic medical equipment for ophthalmic application. I learned how to spell ophthalmologist.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 23, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> That’s why if it’s not Boeing, I ain’t going!


So, you wouldn’t fly on a Comac C919 or CRAIC CR929 ?









China's answer to Boeing's 737 is finally, almost ready for take-off


The COMAC C919 has been in development for 14 years and cost the Chinese government as much as $72 billion.




fortune.com


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 23, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> So, you wouldn’t fly on a Comac C919 or CRAIC CR929 ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Aside from performance, reliability and revenue ability, I'm wondering (skeptically) if they have the ability to support it logistically and provide the training and product support that both Boeing and Airbus can do?


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 23, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> So, you wouldn’t fly on a Comac C919 or CRAIC CR929 ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


NOPE.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 23, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Aside from performance, reliability and revenue ability, I'm wondering (skeptically) if they have the ability to support it logistically and provide the training and product support that both Boeing and Airbus can do?


NOPE.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Aug 24, 2022)

Not yet anyway. But if we look at what some of the US, UK, and French aerospace companies have accomplished in the past when they considered time to implementation more important than some other aspects (cost to the developing nation for example), the time involved may be fairly short for that type of thing.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 24, 2022)

ThomasP said:


> Not yet anyway. But if we look at what some of the US, UK, and French aerospace companies have accomplished in the past when they considered time to implementation more important than some other aspects (cost to the developing nation for example), the time involved may be fairly short for that type of thing.


I can't imagine the FAA or EASA allowing the Comac C919 to fly within its airspace until it's well tested for safety. Mind you, the Sukhoi Superjet got okayed, and we're all seeing the quality of Russian kit.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 24, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> I can't imagine the FAA or EASA allowing the Comac C919 to fly within its airspace until it's well tested for safety. Mind you, the Sukhoi Superjet got okayed, and we're all seeing the quality of Russian kit.


And I'd bet dollars to donuts this aircraft is already in the process of being FAA and/ or EASA certificated.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Aug 26, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> I look forward to seeing the BAE Tempest and Mitsubishi F-X in the next decade. The Russians just can’t compete.


Its a good point. Russia are already way behind the curve in the research, development and build with regards to stealth. The above two project plus no doubt a follow on USA project will make the gap insurmountable


----------



## Token (Sep 4, 2022)

pbehn said:


> I worked in ultrasonics for years so am familiar with decibels as a logarithmic unit of comparison is a "0 dB sm target" some sort of RADAR industry reference?



Yes, detection range of a 0 dBsm target is a common and often quoted measurement of radar performance.

0 dBsm would be a 1 square meter RCS target (this is the Radar Cross Section value, not to be confused with the actual physical size of a target). One common measurement of radar performance is the range at which a 1 square meter RCS target (0 dBsm) can be detected with a defined probability of detection (often set at 80%). This detection range is identifiable and can be calculated using the radar range equation, assuming you know the key parameters of a given radar. All variables of a given radars performance, things like transmitter power, antenna gain, receiver noise figure, transmitted signal bandwidth, receiver filter bandwidth, etc, go into determining the detection range for a given size target.

T!

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Token (Sep 4, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> It seemed clear to me he was talking about the _Moskva_ that was recently sunk. That was certainly designed to attack CAGs, with its loadout. I don't know how much ASW gear it had, but it's main-deck missile-racks speak to its mission. It also had what for the time was a healthy counter-air capability.



The statement I was responding to was "The Moskva class was supposed to be a carrier group killer." The poster has clarified that he meant to say "The Moskva's class", but auto correct seemed to think he should be talking about something else.

The original statement was the reason for the second part of my question / comment. The words used in the statement I was responding too were about the "Moskva class" of ships. The Moskva, which was recently sunk, was. by definition, NOT a Moskva class ship, but rather a Slava class ship. The "Moskva class" of ships was a completely different critter.

The "Moskva" that the Ukrainians sank was originally named the "Slava", and she was the lead ship in the Slava class of cruisers. She was renamed the "Moskva" in 1995. This did lead to an odd situation, for an overlapping period of time (sort of) there were two ships named "Moskva" in the Russian Navy. But if I remember right, neither were operational during this overlap. One was the lead ship of the Moskva class helicopter ASW cruiser, and one was the renamed lead ship of the Slava class cruisers.

The Moskva (a Slava class ship) was indeed designed to oppose a carrier, at least as developed, not as much in todays world. The SS-N-12 Sandbox (originally 4K80 and later 3M70) was literally designed to kill carriers. But, how it would fair in todays Aegis world is a bit different from how it would have done in the mid 1970's (original P-500 Sandbox) and early 1980's (follow-on P-1000 Sandbox) world it was designed for. It only carried 16 of them, and todays Aegis based systems are better in a dense threat environment. And the S-300FM / SA-N-6 (sea going version of the S-300 / SA-10, but with a different radar) was arguably among the best SAM systems in the world at the time. The SA-N-4 was no slouch either, but not as cutting edge.

The Moskva class of ships, however, were primarily ASW platforms with no capability to take on a carrier.

T!

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


----------



## ThomasP (Sep 4, 2022)

re the COMAC C919

"https://simpleflying.com/comac-c919-certified-soon/"

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

