F-22 hundred of times more stealthy than Su-57?
- Thread starter Nodeo-Franvier
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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?
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Cool. I worked for a manufacturer of ultrasonic medical equipment for ophthalmic application. I learned how to spell ophthalmologist.
Admiral Beez
Captain
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.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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?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
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
NOPE.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.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
NOPE.
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
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
Captain
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
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And I'd bet dollars to donuts this aircraft is already in the process of being FAA and/ or EASA certificated.
Glider
Captain
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
Senior Airman
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!
Token
Senior Airman
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!
