Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Su-57 News and Discussion -version_we_lost_count!-

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 5 (1 members and 4 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • moon_light
    Rank 5 Registered User

    Originally posted by panzerfeist1
    Ohh I have not forgotten the real question is why was the consideration of a 100km AESA not feasible? If radars on missiles can track aerial targets by themselves at a 28km range. While a T-14 radar which is bigger than a missile radar with more modules cannot track larger targets than certain aerial targets at a longer range. Yes but no one explained why it is impossible than simply saying size. While radar sizes on missiles can engage aerial targets at a 28km or more range especially bigger targets but yet complaints of a T-14 radar with more modules than a missile cant track a bigger target at 100km is absurd unless you have a reason it is not than this discussion is more than likely over.They have a different frequency? What is the frequency my only assumption is that its a fire control radar to engage aerial targets like it says it can do
    Others reasons apart from pathetic size? such as frequency, cooling ? or that first and foremost it is a sensor for active hard kill and will need to operate with extremely high PRF while a long range radar will use medium-low PRF?

    Originally posted by panzerfeist1
    Asking for an SRN-125 chart is bias now to? your acting like that question alone undermines the estimated RCS value of the F-117.
    SNR-125 chart was there already, asking for a chart isn't bias, what bias is your obvious opposite attitude when you receive information about F-117 rcs and Afghanit .Why didn't you ask yourself "Is there a legitimate source on the Afghanit radar that exactly states in its data sheet what RCS it detects at what range in? Or what the Afghanit itself can read in noise level and what range it receives that noise?".

    Comment

    • RALL
      Rank 4 Registered User

      Originally posted by Panzerfeist
      If radars on missiles can track aerial targets by themselves at a 28km range. While a T-14 radar which is bigger than a missile radar with more modules cannot track larger targets than certain aerial targets at a longer range.
      Are there some site with this kind of information? i think 28 kms are many kms for a litle radar of a missile. Maybe if missile is very big with a big radome it could be and RCS of the target is very big too. With normal size BVR missile and rcs of the target around 1 m2, i dont think it can track it around 28 kms...

      Irbis E PESA radar from Su-35 S is one of the best russian radars out there, it can track a 3m2 airplane from 200 kms in normal search. This is a very big radar inside a big radome. I do not see Armata radar size can track from 100 kms comparing size of the radar.
      http://www.uacrussia.ru/en/aircraft/...esign-features

      It is better wait for official figure from manufacture company.
      Last edited by RALL; 10th August 2018, 10:53.

      Comment

      • paralay
        Rank 5 Registered User

        Irbis E PESA radar from Su-35 S is one of the best russian radars out there, it can track a 3m2 airplane from 200 kms in normal search
        Calculated data of the radar "Irbis":
        maximum range of detection of air targets - 454 km
        light fighter without external weapons, RCS = 1 m2 - 304 km
        fighter F-22, RCS = 0.3 m2 - 225 km

        Comment

        • RALL
          Rank 4 Registered User

          Originally posted by paralay
          Calculated data of the radar "Irbis":
          maximum range of detection of air targets - 454 km
          light fighter without external weapons, RCS = 1 m2 - 304 km
          fighter F-22, RCS = 0.3 m2 - 225 km
          Yes, but it is not data in normal search.

          http://www.uacrussia.ru/en/aircraft/...esign-features

          The Irbis-E radar station with rotating phased antenna array designed by the V. Tikhomirov Research Institute of Instrumentation provides for the assured detection and acquisition of typical aerial targets at a range of up to 200 km (up to 170 km against ground background), and in a narrower field of view – up to 350-400 km.


          Data you attached (454 km) is for maximum range on a narrower field of view and maximum power not on a normal search. So for a normal search will be around 200 kms.

          And other data from Tikhomorov.


          https://web.archive.org/web/20170706...ie/rlsu-irbis/

          EPR mode, i think it is maximum power.

          Режим Воздух-Воздух:
          - дальность обнаружения целей с ЭПР = 3м2 – 350 км


          So it is clear, for a RCS 3 m2 (typical aerial target) in a normal search radar, track is around 200 kms, as first data from UAC told.

          *******
          RCS F-22 is around 0.0001 m2 not 0.3 m2. Officials have told this. it is not rumours.
          Last edited by RALL; 10th August 2018, 16:47.

          Comment

          • paralay
            Rank 5 Registered User

            RCS F-22 is around 0.0001 m2 not 0.3 m2. Officials have told this. it is not rumours
            These fictions can tell for grandchildren

            Comment

            • JSR
              JSR
              Rank 5 Registered User

              The Irbis-E radar station with rotating phased antenna array designed by the V. Tikhomirov Research Institute of Instrumentation provides for the assured detection and acquisition of typical aerial targets at a range of up to 200 km (up to 170 km against ground background), and in a narrower field of view up to 350-400 km.
              Those website figures are for export and hasn't been updated for a decade.

              Comment

              • RALL
                Rank 4 Registered User

                Originally posted by JSR
                Those website figures are for export and hasn't been updated for a decade.
                These figures are from IRBIS E from website of the manufacture company, and do not talk nothing about export radar, only talk about IRBIS E.

                If these figures was not updated, will be because do not need any update, otherwise company would do it because it is better for them to write better perfomance.

                If you have update numbers from manufacture company, you can attached it. I would happy to see it.

                Originally posted by paralay
                These fictions can tell for grandchildren
                This is not fiction, this is what officials told.

                And also the most important, if F-22 had a 0,3 m2 RCS could be detected from hundred kms. And it never happened in many exercises where the most important fighters of the west participated. EF-2000, Rafale or F-15 c with 3 generation Aesa could not detected F-22 from so far. So, it is not fiction, it is real numbers.


                This is RAAF’s Chief of Air Force, talking about his experience flying against the F-22 in Red Flag to the Australian parliament....

                http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A"committees%2Fcommjnt%2Ffb49a6a2-5080-4c72-a379-e4fd10cc710a%2F0002"
                Air Marshal Brown : I think if you have a look around on an F16 sometimes that is not wonderful either. But getting back to the situational awareness, the ability to actually have that data fusion that the aeroplane has makes an incredible difference to how you perform in combat. I saw it first hand on a Red Flag mission in an F15D against a series of fifth-generation F22s. We were actually in the red air. In five engagements we never knew who had hit us and we never even saw the other aeroplane at any one particular time. That is in a current fourth-generation aeroplane.

                The data fusion and the stealth makes such a difference to your overall situational awareness it is quite incredible. After that particular mission I went back and had a look at the tapes on the F22, and the difference in the situational awareness in our two cockpits was just so fundamentally different. That is the key to fifth-generation. That is where I have trouble with the APA analysis. They tend to go down particular paths in the aeroplane, whether it is turn rate performance or acceleration. These are all important factors, but it is a combination of what you have actually got in the jet and the situational awareness that is resident in the cockpit of a fifth-generation aeroplane that makes the fundamental difference.

                Comment

                • mig-31bm
                  Rank 5 Registered User

                  Originally posted by paralay
                  These fictions can tell for grandchildren
                  0.3 m2 number is fiction as it contradict with both anechoic chamber measurements and historical account of F-117.
                  https://forum.keypublishing.com/show...09#post2453909
                  Anechoic chamber measurements of F-117 metal model indicates RCS of -18 dBsm for frontal and tail aspect at frequency range from 400 Mhz-2 Ghz, what happens when you add RAM and raise frequency to 8Ghz?
                  In Serbia SNR-125 operates in X-band struggle to detect F-117 from 14 km, that mean F-117 real RCS as observed by SNR-125 was equal or less than -30dBsm (0.001m2).
                  P-18 detected F-117 from 23 km, so real F-117 RCS in VHF band was less than - 20dBsm.
                  F-22 made decades later by the same company will not be 300 times worse than F-117.

                  Originally posted by "Krivakapa
                  https://www.kurir.rs/vesti/drustvo/3...-bi-bio-oboren
                  Becuase Ancic (book writer) wasn't radar operator on P-18 radar, nor he was in command trailer when P-18 operator reported he have weak returns on +50 or +60km distance (Zoltan said 60-70km) so he asked to turn off radar because they returns they have are far away. P-18 would be use for short period same as P-15, because of HARM
                  According to this source, he was in the command trailer of P-18 radar cabin.
                  The fact that the F-117A was downgraded from the third attempt is unquestionable. The first and second attempts to find the target in the air by the Nishan radar were unsuccessful. Sitting in the PRG view point toward the P-18 observation radar at one time on the azimuth 195, I notice three targets, 23 kilometers away. The next circle on the observation radar clearly indicates that the plane is approaching us. I follow him in the next round of the distance is 18 km. The operator of the observation radar P-18, Ljubenkovic's guide through the GGS (voice-of-speech) reports that we have a goal. Obviously we are following the same situation in the air.
                  https://www.in4s.net/obaranje-f-117a...e-11/?lang=lat
                  It comes with a video as well
                  Last edited by mig-31bm; 13th August 2018, 15:18.

                  Comment

                  • Krivakapa
                    Rank 5 Registered User

                    Ancic WASN'T in trailer when they had four faint returens at 60-70km distance. He enter later, little before 23km detection. They turn on and off P-18 which is reason for gap between 60-70km and 23km and of course F-117 is stealth which makes things even worse.

                    SNR-125 range is 80km (instrumental) and that is probable for Tu-16 size target (because that is what Soviets use as measure standard back then) so that would be 80km for 20m2:
                    http://www.radartutorial.eu/19.karte...rte032.en.html
                    Last edited by Krivakapa; 13th August 2018, 17:34.

                    Comment

                    • panzerfeist1
                      Rank 3 Registered User

                      "Others reasons apart from pathetic size? such as frequency, cooling ? or that first and foremost it is a sensor for active hard kill and will need to operate with extremely high PRF while a long range radar will use medium-low PRF?"

                      Yes its a sensor for active hard kill. But there is a reason why Trophy and AMAP-APS have a very limited range one is doppler the other LADAR. The T-14 is built to be fitted with anti-aircraft guns and anti-aircraft missiles to do that you need a good decent firecontrol range to engage aerial targets.

                      "SNR-125 chart was there already, asking for a chart isn't bias, what bias is your obvious opposite attitude when you receive information about F-117 rcs and Afghanit"

                      Aus airpower? Really and you are getting upset with my source? Where did aus-airpower get that reference from? Even I got bashed before using them as a reference.

                      "Is there a legitimate source on the Afghanit radar that exactly states in its data sheet what RCS it detects at what range in?" Paralay gave a helicopter range will it be engaged.
                      http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2016...atest-mbt.html

                      "The tank is equipped with the 26,5–40 GHz Active electronically scanned array radar that has a range of 100 km, which is mainly used by the Active protection system. Up to 40 airborne or 25 ground targets up to 0.3 m in size can be tracked simultaneously. The tracking system provides an automatic firing solution to the destruction of the target, which can be then transferred to either the APS or the main gun control computers.

                      I guess not just one source says 100km.

                      @Rall

                      "Are there some site with this kind of information? i think 28 kms are many kms for a litle radar of a missile. Maybe if missile is very big with a big radome it could be and RCS of the target is very big too. With normal size BVR missile and rcs of the target around 1 m2, i dont think it can track it around 28 kms..."

                      GaN mmics are used, no one knows how many though. The source was provided way ba ck on this forum. "aviationweek.com/awin/japan-upgrading-60-f-2s-aam-4-japg-2

                      "“The crucial claim was that the AAM-4B could switch to autonomous guidance at a 40% greater range than either of the other two missiles and would similarly outperform what was expected to be the 2009 standard of the Russian R-77 (AA-12 Adder). In a 2010 paper, the ministry attributed the seeker's greater performance to the higher transmitting power available from the AESA.

                      The implication is that an F-2 firing AAM-4Bs can stop tracking the target for missile guidance much sooner than an unmodified F-2 can—and officials tell Aviation Week that the key aim of the project is indeed to increase the range at which an F-2 can turn away. “

                      And I already gave an example of the 20km range for the R-77 where it relies on its own host radar......Its up to you to believe this or not but I am not forcing anyone on anything based on their beliefs. My own opinion is that there are more modules on the afghanit than there is one a missile. Technology progresses fast. I believe Japan had to make a 20% size reduction but there newer modules would offer the same range or better range performance since some have to be removed for JNAAMs to fit on the F-35.

                      "it can track a 3m2 airplane from 200 kms in normal search. This is a very big radar inside a big radome." - Oh please the Ka-52 Katran can spot a 5m2 target at 200kms. No way the SU-35 is on par with their helis.



                      As everyone talking about the F-22 RCS? Did Noshir Gowadia try to sell any B-2 secrets to Russia? My opinion on who has better stealth material might definitely change depending if the 2018 army expo will expose an invisible Helmet where the US army in 2015 claimed was impossible. Only time will tell but I will not get my hopes up until the damn helmet is shown.

                      Comment

                      • LMFS
                        Rank 3 Registered User

                        @RALL:
                        The issue of the diverging RCS estimations has been already explained many times. The lowest value corresponds (if we are to believe that a plane maintained in field can keep such value) to a very concrete an optimized aspect of interest, while the bigger one corresponds to average RCS value. This has also been stated by officials and the chief designer of the Su-57, who are we to believe? Why are statements coming from US MIC to be taken at face value, when they have such an obvious interest in overstating the capacity of their armament?

                        As to those Red Flags:

                        > What were the vectors of approach of the F-22 to the F-15D? Where they outside of the angular radar coverage of the later? It is known that manoeuvring into that aspect while beyond the adversary's radar range is one of the main tactics of stealth fighters to take advantage of their low radar detectability and also the reason why new fighters are including AESA side radar arrays or frontal ones on an orientable dish.
                        > Did the F-22s activate their radars? If yes, then the RWR on the F-15Ds suck. If not and they were guided by AWACs, did the red air have the same support? Did they have low frequency radars or other means that would realistically represent the Russian assets on the European front (OTH, PCL, multi-band overlapping radars, advanced passive detectors, IRST, human intelligence etc? Or where they just blind waiting to receive an incoming missile alert?

                        All these considerations would be important to understand the value of those statements you know...
                        Last edited by LMFS; 13th August 2018, 22:33.

                        Comment

                        • RALL
                          Rank 4 Registered User

                          Originally posted by LMFS
                          @RALL:
                          The issue of the diverging RCS estimations has been already explained many times. The lowest value corresponds (if we are to believe that a plane maintained in field can keep such value) to a very concrete an optimized aspect of interest, while the bigger one corresponds to average RCS value. This has also been stated by officials and the chief designer of the Su-57, who are we to believe? Why are statements coming from US MIC to be taken at face value, when they have such an obvious interest on overstating the capacity of their armament?

                          As to those Red Flags:

                          > What were the vectors of approach of the F-22 to the F-15D? Where they outside of the angular radar coverage of the later? It is known that manoeuvring into that aspect while beyond the adversary's radar coverage is one of the main tactics of stealth fighters to take advantage of their low radar detectability and also the reason why new fighters are including AESA side radar arrays or frontal ones on an orientable dish.
                          > Did the F-22s activate their radars? If yes, then the RWR on the F-15Ds suck. If not and they were guided by AWACs, did the red air have the same support? Did they have low frequency radars or other means that would realistically represent the Russian assets on the European front (OTH, PCL, multi-band overlapping radars, advanced passive detectors, IRST, human intelligence etc? Or where they just blind waiting to receive an incoming missile alert?

                          All these considerations would be important to understand the value of those statements you know...
                          Hi LMFS.

                          I am agree, a given value of RCS is for a radar frequency "X" and for a given angle "Y". So, for each angle we will have usually different RCS...everybody writes here understand this.

                          USAF officials told this..

                          The U.S. Air Force, in it's effort to get money to build more F-22s, has revealed just how "stealthy" the F-22 is. It's RCS (Radar Cross Section) is the equivalent, for a radar, to a metal marble. The less stealthy (and much cheaper) F-35, is equal to a metal golf ball.

                          And the link.

                          https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/ht.../20051125.aspx

                          It is very clear, and from this everbody understand F-22 RCS is around 0,0001 m2 for frecuencies used in fire control radars. We can debate if that number is only for the frontal aspect of the airplane or it is the average RCS.

                          But it is clear that at least in critical angles such as the frontal, this aircraft has acquired an RCS no greater than 0.0001 m2.

                          The chief designer of the Su-57 will be an expert talking about the Su-57, and we must to read with attention things he tells about the aircraft, but he does not know "nothing" about the F-22 or the F-35. it is from Usaf officials or people from Lockheed Martin or Northrop who you need read for to know about american stealth fighters and bombers. They have decades designing, manufacturing, and flying these airplanes.


                          **********

                          Of course we do not know how was exactly on red flags exercises, but you need think. If somebody would have detected to some F-22 or F-35 from 100-200 kms, you would know this on next minute. It would be world news.

                          Other example.


                          https://www.military.com/daily-news/...1075741&rank=6

                          Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh on Tuesday sketched out a dramatic tale of a lone F-22 Raptor chasing off Iranian fighter jets over the Arabian Gulf


                          Welsh then displayed a picture of Sutterfield before a large audience of his fellow service members at the Air Force Association's Air & Space Conference and Technology Exposition on Tuesday.

                          "This is the guy that warned them off," he said. "He flew under their aircraft to check out their weapons load without them knowing that he was there, and then pulled up on their left wing and then called them and said ‘you really ought to go home.'"

                          The successful performance of the F-22 comes after the Air Force was forced to repeatedly halt F-22 flights because F-22 pilots repeatedly reported blacking out from problems breathing.

                          Comment

                          • mig-31bm
                            Rank 5 Registered User

                            Originally posted by Krivakapa
                            Ancic WASN'T in trailer when they had four faint returens at 60-70km distance. He enter later, little before 23km detection. They turn on and off P-18 which is reason for gap between 60-70km and 23km and of course F-117 is stealth which makes things even worse.
                            According to Zoltan Danny himself:

                            _At 8:31 Zoltan Danny explained that he used the lowest frequency setting L-1 at 140 Mhz to see F-117 clearly on radar screen
                            _ Between 18:32-19:09 Zoltan Danny explained that he received some intel (outsider information) from headquarters, on when to turn on his radar, as he had no target on his radar screen.
                            _ Between 19:43-20:02 Zoltan Danny said he detected several targets at distance 30 km and some are closer, but they are not inside engagement range. We are not sure if those targets are also F-117.
                            _ At 20:18, he talked about the exact time when the P-18 suddently acquire a clear track of one F-117 at azimuth 195 (as recorded by Djordje Anicic, this happened at 23 km away)

                            For P-18 detection range:
                            Click image for larger version

Name:	P-18 before modernization.PNG
Views:	1
Size:	29.1 KB
ID:	3681426Click image for larger version

Name:	P-18 radar.PNG
Views:	1
Size:	640.0 KB
ID:	3681427
                            http://progress.gov.ua/wp-content/up...-2016-2017.pdf
                            http://www.aerotechnica.ua/en/index....od=2&prodid=51
                            Originally posted by Krivakapa
                            SNR-125 range is 80km (instrumental) and that is probable for Tu-16 size target (because that is what Soviets use as measure standard back then) so that would be 80km for 20m2:
                            http://www.radartutorial.eu/19.karte...rte032.en.html
                            Instrumental range is independent from target RCS. Beside, there are information suggest that F-117 was openning its weapon bay when SNR-125 acquired it as well. Nevertheless, you already saw the anechoic chamber data, there is really no point argue against it.
                            Click image for larger version

Name:	instrumental range.PNG
Views:	1
Size:	57.5 KB
ID:	3681418
                            Last edited by mig-31bm; 14th August 2018, 09:09.

                            Comment

                            • stealthflanker
                              Rank 5 Registered User

                              Seriously. These are getting so old.

                              Some step for better discussions :

                              1.Stop leap of faith.
                              One need to stop comparing APS radar with missile seekers. two of which built for very different purpose and therefore having different design choices where one cannot take another's job. Let's take example of RVV-AE Seeker vs much larger ARGS-54 seeker.. They're from XXI Centuries Encyclopedia : Russia's Arms and Technology.

                              Click image for larger version

Name:	RVVAE.png
Views:	1
Size:	429.2 KB
ID:	3681421

                              Click image for larger version

Name:	ARGS-35.png
Views:	1
Size:	210.4 KB
ID:	3681422

                              Notice similar range despite the latter being bigger (and by logic can have bigger transmitter etc). Because they were handling different situation. A2A missile is expected to have mid course update, very narrow acquisition box and therefore less clutter so they could acquire at such range. Anti ship missile seeker ? it has sea states to contend with, clutter and the fact propagation is kinda unfavorable at low altitude.

                              APS Radar face same problem as the AsHM added with multipath which may force it to limit range and perhaps EMCON consideration that forces it to compromise frequency or power limitation that require it to operate at lower band thus sacrifice resolution


                              2.Quantify the claim.
                              We all know and aware of Raptor or JSF RCS BUT. one annoying problem is.. for what frequency. For some reason wavelength dependence on RCS is often neglected in anyone's argument which no one never bother to rectify. For some reason. It's pointless to say value without anything underlying it.

                              Comment

                              • moon_light
                                Rank 5 Registered User

                                Originally posted by LMFS
                                The issue of the diverging RCS estimations has been already explained many times. The lowest value corresponds (if we are to believe that a plane maintained in field can keep such value) to a very concrete an optimized aspect of interest, while the bigger one corresponds to average RCS value. This has also been stated by officials and the chief designer of the Su-57, who are we to believe? Why are statements coming from US MIC to be taken at face value, when they have such an obvious interest in overstating the capacity of their armament?
                                Neither the lowest RCS value nor the the average RCS will be very useful to estimate detection range.
                                Average number of the whole azimuth RCS will be totally useless, all stealth aircraft alike have spikes where their radar cross section can reach thounsand square meters, these spikes are often locate at the side aspect and have little effect on usual operation, however they will drive up the average number significantly. Therefore the need for scattering diagrams,
                                furthermore, if we don't take US rcs claims at face value then we shouldn't take Russian radar detection range claims at face value either, same standard
                                Click image for larger version

Name:	radar scattering.PNG
Views:	1
Size:	161.4 KB
ID:	3681423
                                Originally posted by LMFS
                                It is known that manoeuvring into that aspect while beyond the adversary's radar range is one of the main tactics of stealth fighters to take advantage of their low radar detectability
                                I have never heard of such tactic mentioned any where, in any official manual or documents
                                Last edited by moon_light; 14th August 2018, 08:30.

                                Comment

                                • moon_light
                                  Rank 5 Registered User

                                  Originally posted by panzerfeist1
                                  Yes its a sensor for active hard kill. But there is a reason why Trophy and AMAP-APS have a very limited range one is doppler the other LADAR. The T-14 is built to be fitted with anti-aircraft guns and anti-aircraft missiles to do that you need a good decent firecontrol range to engage aerial targets.
                                  Before you babbling can you spend sometime to understand what they really mean?Afghanit must have Doppler processing too, otherwise it can't measure speed of the KE or HEAT round that you want to intercept, without knowing speed, it can't intercept these projectiles.
                                  T-14 does not have dedicated anti aircraft cannon nor anti aircraft missiles, what it has is 12.7 mm cannon and ATGM that can be used against helicopter, this is not that much different from T-90 or Merkava.





                                  Originally posted by panzerfeist1
                                  Aus airpower? Really and you are getting upset with my source? Where did aus-airpower get that reference from? Even I got bashed before using them as a reference.
                                  Paralay gave a helicopter range will it be engaged. http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2016...atest-mbt.html I guess not just one source says 100km.
                                  He didn't use Ausairpower as his only source, he also use zoltan interview, anechoic chamber chart.
                                  Claims from random indian website and forum member like paralay are not a legitimate source, especially neither have solid data. Legitimate sources are stuff such as manufacturer data, operational manual, wind tunnel or anechoic chamber data

                                  Comment

                                  • YAK-28-BREWER
                                    Rank 5 Registered User

                                    Seriously, where are the mods? This thread is about the Su-57, not about stealth in general and the downing of the F-117.
                                    Why can't you guys take it to a new thread please.

                                    Comment

                                    • LMFS
                                      Rank 3 Registered User

                                      @RALL:
                                      to be clear, I generally do not believe statements from Russian and US officials or manufacturers are to be taken at face value. You don't give your potential rivals classified information for free to help countering your weapons systems... unless you know they already know or can estimate those values accurately. Sometimes it can even be misinformation or bluffing, who knows. So, those very low values stated by US officials are not "100% clear" to me. But imagine they are so for X band... advanced IADs do not illuminate the target from only one angle and are multi-band. Radars which are not even emitting can pick up scattering from another radar illuminating the target from convenient aspect. While signature management provokes RCS spikes that are theoretically limited to some angles, diffraction is going to happen and is going to scatter small portions of the radiation to the radars listening, even outside of those exact angles. So it is nice and good to have a very low frontal RCS and the correct thing IMHO to do in signature management but tactical reality is not limited to that, if your enemy has a decent, modern radar AD coverage. Also low frequency radars (which are today much more precise than normally claimed in the media) or even OTH radars illuminating targets from above can allow higher frequency ones to be cued to the right sector of the sky with the advantages this means for detection range.

                                      Regarding what the Russian scientists can know about the F-22, well the aircraft as any other object follows the laws of physics and as such there is the possibility of simulating its RCS. If the guys doing the simulation know all applicable phenomena and technological possibilities then they could in fact reach a realistic estimation. That is what justifies Western claims about lack of stealth on the Su-57 first of all. And Russians are, at least on the theoretical side of the story, well equipped as you know. They claim signature information from Syria (an issue about which USAF guys were not comfortable at all) confirmed their simulations. Again, we are left to guess if this makes sense or not but it should not be rejected without some analysis I think.

                                      BTW, I very much doubt a long range radar detection of a US VLO plane would be disclosed as you claim. This would be a very major blow to American credibility and military prestige and hence intrinsically harmful to national security and businesses. Where would the F-35 program go in that case for instance?

                                      As to the F-22 manoeuvring themselves into dead spots of Iranian aircraft, this is possible even with legacy fighters. Do not know or dispute the case you refer specifically but the notion that such feats prove any concrete level of stealth in a general way.

                                      @moon_light
                                      Agree, one single RCS value without scattering diagram is not saying much as discussed above. Also agree that no side should be believed blindly.

                                      In regards of manoeuvring into the dead spots of you rival, maybe it is not stated publicly but it is completely logical, do you see it differently?

                                      Comment

                                      • topspeed
                                        Get on uppah !

                                        YAK-28-Brewer,

                                        Here..they claim SU-57 is superior to the F-22 ( product of the 80-ies ).

                                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi4VN58C_6c

                                        Is that so ? If then...why ?
                                        If it looks good, it will fly good !
                                        -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


                                        http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

                                        Comment

                                        • YAK-28-BREWER
                                          Rank 5 Registered User

                                          Your point being? I'm well aware of previous discussion regarding Su-57 stealth in this thread, discussions that have been had ad infinitum in previous threads. It adds nothing new. However the past two pages have been about shooting down the F-117 and RCS in general. Very little discussion of the Su-57 as there has been little news of it of late. Personally think this should be closed.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X