Being 5 years out only makes it more obsolete.
Remember the USAF has announced they have first flown a 6th Gen Fighter already.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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 ?
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.
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
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.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.
It was certainly no looker!
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.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.
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 roleI 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.
A simple oil-stain-not to mention a damaged surface (down to a single 5mm) issue and bye bye to these theoretical radar signatures.
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.
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?
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
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.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.
Readings, measurements from the test-site at WTD 61 Manching clearly confirmed the considerable increase of RCS e.g. via oilstains.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.
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.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.
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.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.
True - but the West and e.g. China already have Stealth aircraft's which are being produced and fielded, unlike RussiaIt'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.
AgreeI will agree, however, that signature reduction is about far more than the RCS. The thermal signature is a biggie, as are EMS emissions.
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.
Absolutely - but you need to be able to pay for it - and Russia IMO simply don't have the $$ for that - so they need to go into another direction - which AFAIK they have beenMaybe it comes down to the fact that anything that gives you an advantage - gives you an advantage.
At the current rate that direction is down the gurgler. The Russian economy is the main problem for sure. It just isn't big enough to sustain what they areAbsolutely - but you need to be able to pay for it - and Russia IMO simply don't have the $$ for that - so they need to go into another direction - which AFAIK they have been
doing.
Regards
Jagdflieger