Being 5 years out only makes it more obsolete.
Remember the USAF has announced they have first flown a 6th Gen Fighter already.
Sukhoi Su-57
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Being 5 years out only makes it more obsolete.
Remember the USAF has announced they have first flown a 6th Gen Fighter already.
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 ?
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
Jagdflieger
Senior Airman
- 580
- Mar 23, 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
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
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.
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.
That's putting it very nicely.
Jagdflieger
Senior Airman
- 580
- Mar 23, 2022
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
Last edited:
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
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.
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.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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
buffnut453
Captain
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.
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.
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.
buffnut453
Captain
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.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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.
Jagdflieger
Senior Airman
- 580
- Mar 23, 2022
Readings, measurements from the test-site at WTD 61 Manching clearly confirmed the considerable increase of RCS e.g. via oilstains.
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.
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.
True - but the West and e.g. China already have Stealth aircraft's which are being produced and fielded, unlike Russia
Agree
buffnut453
Captain
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).
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.
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.
Jagdflieger
Senior Airman
- 580
- Mar 23, 2022
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.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
