Sukhoi Su-57

[Jagdflieger]

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

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

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

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

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

www.researchgate.net

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

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

View attachment 664086

View attachment 664087




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.

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

Regards
Jagdflieger

 

[Macandy]

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

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

 

[Macandy]

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

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

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

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

 

[buffnut453]

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

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

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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

The design started in 1983 IIRC

 

[Jagdflieger]

The design started in 1983 IIRC

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

Regards
Jagdflieger

 

[Jagdflieger]

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

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

Regards
Jagdflieger

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

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

Regards
Jagdflieger

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

 

[Jagdflieger]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards
Jagdflieger

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards
Jagdflieger

You're missing my point. "Size", and those size comparisons, is and are being used by most people precisely because we're not technical.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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

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

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

 

[Jagdflieger]

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

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

View attachment 664227

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

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

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

Regards
Jagdflieger

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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

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

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

Regards
Jagdflieger

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

 

[GTX]

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

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

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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

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

 

[buffnut453]

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

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

 

[Macandy]

The design started in 1983 IIRC

My bad, Tornado

 

[BiffF15]

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

Married life does that to you...

 

[Admiral Beez]

How does the Shenyang FC-31 compare?

 

[Jagdflieger]

How does the Shenyang FC-31 compare?

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

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