Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Su-57 News and Discussion -version_we_lost_count!-

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #81
    @ActionJackson

    http://amunt.tumblr.com/image/46877242821

    Huge surface discontinuity but no one doesn't say it isn't stealth
    You are aware that both the FLIR and DLIR had a wire mesh screen in front of them right?

    Comment


      #82
      "No, it more like you don't have a reasonable or logical argument so you can't convince others to agree with what you want to believe. "

      By stating what is stated there?

      "basically you implied that current variation Himalayas already uses GaN module while the source stated no such thing. Finished development of new technologies that can be used in future upgrades is one thing, transferring those technologies directly to current pre-planned production chain is another."

      2014 sources states where the GaN MMICs will be used since they are already created, later in 2015 they have GaN AESA present on their EW systems. So why do they have GaN MMICs present on their EW equipment(according to niip) while the only hinted EW to utilize GaN was on that Rostec PDF as a brand new feature. hmmm brand new feature using GaN, 2015 they say GaN is present on their EW systems. What does that tell you? Do you actually believe that they are not suggesting their 4 GaN MMIC types is present, but that they have other GaN MMICs that are present on their aircraft but not the ones mentioned on Rostec? pg17 of niip catalog, "Usually, solid-state gallium-arsenide and
      gallium-nitride amplifiers are used as active
      elements of active phased-array antennas of
      present-day EW equipment."

      "I haven't see the Feb 2015 edition and to be honest, it kinda hard for us to trust your words. Either way, unless they specifically said in Feb 2015 that Himalayas has Gan modules, I don't see how can you make the jump"

      You haven't seen yes this makes alot of sense at this rate. But the source states GaN present on AESA systems. Unless your going to argue that the GaN mmics that are present just dont happen to be on rostec which has only gave mentions of which equipment will have it.

      "these UHF modules was not created for Himalayas. As stated in rostec, they are part of development project" what the PDF states, "In 2014, research and development
      into
      4 types of solid, high-dynamic
      UHF amplifiers (the Odnotsvetnik-21
      project) was completed. The units will
      be used as components of advanced
      weapons"

      The developement project is already completed, says will be used.....UHF modules not created you say......"As part of a research
      and development project, four
      types of nitrite gallium UHF modules
      (М421364-1, М421364-2, М421374,
      and М421375) have been created"
      Than it goes onto say where 4 of these will be put into the other 4 systems.

      Well atleast the smartskin explanation you were helpful however ironically the Spectra I heard has happened to have GaN from another forum I visited. But I am not getting this thread derailed talking about a different subject not relating to the SU-57.

      "Same way I consider T-3, Hyfly to be experimental. It sort of a technology demonstrator. " Except they have the modules completed and will apply it to be used. Than some months later they say in another catalog we have GaN present on our EW systems.

      " It sounds to us that you saw they written "new modules X is 50% smaller than the old one" then you read somewhere that GaN modules is half as big then you leap to the conclusion that module X is GaN based" Same materials being used, same efficiency and size reduction claims. I am saying is it an indicator that the radio-optical radars would be developed on same based benefits.That is all.

      "but it does not help us estimates how good your eye sight is. " Like stating how good its by jamming AWACs at 700km and LEO satellites at 300km? Your probably meant the context of saying whats the jamming power and what state the jammed equipment will be in. But I was just stating a previous mentioned GaN EW system and other systems that have surpassed it in range.

      "Where did they said that "
      https://www.niip.ru/upload/iblock/4c...0b3fb41e86.pdf pg 20 pdf......At this rate do I have to hold your hand whenever I post something and even give page numbers prior like I already did?

      An important line of activity for KRET is the development of
      ultrabroadband antenna systems using the AESA active phased array
      radar. In the AESA, every element or group of elements has its own
      miniature microwave transmitter, working in the frequency band
      from 1 to 18 GHz.
      Powerful solid-state amplifiers, made of gallium-arsenide and
      gallium-nitride technologies, are used as AESA’s active elements in
      modern EW solution. Thanks to them, the equipment’s weight can be
      reduced by 1.5–2 times, raising reliability and efficiency by 2–3 times.

      Since you have stated broadband sucks and that narrow band is better at a gain. Can transceivers like this limit their broad frequency scope to a narrow frequency? Why I also hinted the fga-35 (3d) is that its weight reduction as a radar from a previous AESA radar got drastically reduced by 1.5-2 times similar to the weight of the EW systems that got reduced by 1.5-2 times smaller being based with the same LTCC MMICs.
      Last edited by panzerfeist1; 10th July 2018, 21:22.

      Comment


        #83
        That isn't what I am talking about, of course I know simultaneous bandwidth of radar is much narrower than their total operating bandwidth.
        I apologize, mig-31. It was my misunderstanding then.

        However, on your two points, I do still disagree in the notion that you "wouldn't want a radar that operate from 1hz and 100ghz because it affects others things like directivity, grating lobes ..etc"

        I do agree with you that directivity will be compromised on the low end of the frequency. I disagree that it is an issue though. The low frequency is really only useful for periodic scanning to see if there is a stealth platform *somewhere around*. Then, if it reveals the possibility of such, you can focus your scans within a generalized area and work through a very wide band of frequencies to find one that will work for a target lock. And directivity is not degraded along the great majority of ROFAR's bandwidth. There are only advantages from this.

        And element spacing is an engineering challenge. The bulk of what we know as a modern radar system will not exist as we know it in a LIDAR/ROFAR system. Right now, you can break up a radar system into two general sections: 1) a digital signal processing, control, and data acquisition system and 2) an analogue microelectronic system for up/down conversion and transmit/receive. In a LIDAR/ROFAR system that second part is all done photonicly. Getting that second part to be field ready is a long ways off, but it isn't a valid reason as to why you wouldn't want the capability.

        Comment


          #84
          Originally posted by LMFS
          Please explain, because I still don't understand, what elements of this mythical feature are absent in Su-35 or Su-57. To talk about this to Russians, who used the "network-centric warfare" (TM) with the MiG-31 like 30 years before knowing that it would make for such a good propaganda in Western hands, is a little absurd. By the way, the pilot of the F-35 can have a superb knowledge of their surroundings and still get his ass handed to him by a SAM shot (in full HD of course) since it cannot accelerate fast enough, fly fast enough or attack far enough to out-run it. To see this, take a look at how the Iraqi MiG-25s in the Gulf War engaged and disengaged almost at will with US air power only because they were freakin' fast. BVR missiles and all, engagement windows do depend very strongly on the relative dynamic capabilities of the target and the missile. So how fast and high a plane can fly does matter, much. And while avionics can be updated, the aerodynamic limitations can not, by far, be improved in the same way.

          IIRC, the old Russian TVC nozzles move as you depict. The newer on Su-35 and T-50 move independently in X and Z axis. Nevertheless, the ones you show can produce torque in both axis as well, though not so optimally or with so many degrees of freedom.

          As far as I understand, the supercruise limitation of the Su-35 to low supersonic speed comes rather from the dry power of its engines, clearly below that of a F-22, rather than from aerodynamics.

          Regarding the pressing need of 5G fighters for Russia... it simply does not exist in reality beyond industrial and prestige reasons. US has no basing capabilities to mount a reasonably dangerous conventional attack to Russian territory. And even then, the Russian IAD is simply way too powerful to be easily defeated due to advantages in radar coverage and interception means. Only to avoid radar detection through the integrated radar network and destruction by means of MiG-31 / R-37 would be already an achievement. So no big surprise, that they take their time deploying the Su-57.
          Why bring up MiG-25 or MiG-31? Those planes are purely for speed and go Mach 2.8 which is completely not applicable and irrelevant to F-22 and Su-57. What source even says Su-35 supercruise limitation is due to engines instead of aerodynamics? You eyeball that Su-35 has less supersonic drag than F-22 somehow??

          Originally posted by KGB
          That's great until you realize that the YF-23 has the same offset intake, non true S duct setup either, and has a little engine showing. Same deal with the Boeing X-32. There was some real doozies like the unpainted engine coweling. That was a serious critique until they got painted.
          KGB, the more you push Su-57 = F-23 the more retarded you look. Besides, YF-23 is prototype without all the stealth features. The actual EMD F-23 has a DSI and no splitter plate.

          @ActionJackson Dude stop using that picture of the F-35's edge, it's a result of anti-aliasing, not some magical pattern for VLO. Look at any other high quality picture or video of F-35 and the edge is straight.
          Last edited by RadDisconnect; 10th July 2018, 23:08.

          Comment


            #85
            Who knows the means of locating the F-22's or whether it was real time or after analysis of mission data...
            But your interpretation of that translation you keep putting out *alleges* it. It alleges that the Russians believed they may have been detected, and so it alleges that they either picked up a target lock on Himalayas or they picked up a search frequency at threat power levels and correlated it to its target. That's it. And so they gained useful info but the USAF didn't. I know that isn't what you were trying to say when you brought it up, but that is in fact what you did.

            Also, you might be way over your head in talking about stealth. If you don't mind, I can provide you with some light reading material. You may find it interesting.

            http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2012/ARL-TN-0490.pdf

            https://www.microwaves101.com/encycl...on%20(RCS).pdf

            http://martinshough.com/aerialphenomena/RCSsphere.pdf

            You cannot eyeball stealth. It just doesn't work that way. From the microwaves 101 link you can see that RCS is a function of projected cross section, reflectivity, and directivity. And so their is a materials factor in there. And the difference it makes can be huge!

            From the Radar Detection of Spherical Targets document, section 7i: "Solid spheres made of nonconductive materials will generally have an RCS of approximately
            zero. Such types of object would include neoprene or polyethylene balloons (neglecting
            payload equipment which may return an echo). However, balloons with metallised fabrics
            are sometimes used for radar callibration and similar purposes, and would return an efficient
            echo subject to all the considerations previously outlined. If an ordinary weather balloon
            should be wet, or iced in severe cold, then it too may acquire a small RCS."

            Weather balloons can be several meters in diameter, and they have a supposedly unstealthy spherical shape. And yet if they are made of polymer material or canvas then they have no discernable RCS. The Army Research Laboratory paper is a study for a 1m diameter sphere. A solid metallic object would have a RCS of about 1dBsm. But both simulated models provided results typically better than -50dBsm. That is a reduction by better than 100,000.

            So tell me about all of those features that you cited. What kind of contribution to RCS did you think they made? What if they are only in fact 1/100th of that? 1/1000th? 1/100,000th? Stealth isn't as simple as you think. The Russians say they aim to achieve around -25dBsm. I haven't seen anything to believe they can't do that. And that is a RCS smaller than that of an air to air missile.

            Comment


              #86
              Lets repeat that for ActionJackson

              From the Radar Detection of Spherical Targets document, section 7i: "Solid spheres made of nonconductive materials will generally have an RCS of approximately
              zero

              Comment


                #87
                @RadDisconnect:

                > I explained in a later post that I wanted to show how dynamic capabilities do matter and are hard facts, in contrast with undefined and rather vague avionics features that are used to sell 5G as not needing to stand out by their flight dynamics anymore but only in information technologies. But nevertheless, MiG-25 and 31 are interceptors and as such would matter a lot, especially the latter obviously, in case a hypothetical conflict between Russia and US would take place close to Russian borders. In fact, even limited numbers of R-37-loaded MiG-31 directed by the corresponding IAD and their low frequency radars would pose only by themselves a serious problem to attacking F-22s, since:

                - They can get the approximate location of the attacking planes from long distances by direct and indirect means
                - By means of those rough coordinates and using their high power radars illuminating from different angles have a high probability of detection and generation of targeting solution or simply direct their missiles to the last approximate position of the threat
                - Can attack them with a big number of extremely powerful, jamming resistant Mach 6 missiles from well outside the engagement range of the F-22
                - Due to their speed and supersonic range can engage and disengage at will and repeat the process until the threat is destroyed or repelled

                As far as I see it, this is not only relevant but by itself capable of directly stopping the F-22s or any other fighter not equipped to counter the approach above described from penetrating Russian air space with minimum guarantees of success.

                > Regarding the Su-35 supercruise: some forum member was himself "eyeballing" that the plane could not possibly supercruise due to the podded engine configuration. Then I replied that in my opinion there was no need for such statement given the dry thrust of the AL-41F1S being so clearly inferior to that of the F-119 (25% below or more). It is beyond me why you say I am eyeballing aerodynamics rather than him.

                @XB-70: good post, thanks!
                Last edited by LMFS; 11th July 2018, 03:09.

                Comment


                  #88

                  2 - surface discontinuity at a normal to the aircraft's axis causes diffraction return to the source radar

                  Last edited by KGB; 11th July 2018, 05:44.

                  Comment


                    #89
                    It's called a "Luneburg Lens" (2nd pic)... it's purpose is to make the RCS "bigger". They take them off for combat ops.

                    As far as the curved nose goes, it's perfectly fine.
                    Last edited by SpudmanWP; 11th July 2018, 05:08.
                    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

                    Comment


                      #90
                      The 2nd pic was meant to show the bi level step in the vertical stabilizer.

                      The point is, we can do this all day. But some of us are grownups.
                      Last edited by KGB; 11th July 2018, 05:46.

                      Comment


                        #91
                        You would have to be above looking down on the F-35 for that to ever be an issue.

                        Next.
                        "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

                        Comment


                          #92
                          Originally posted by panzerfeist1
                          By stating what is stated there?
                          No, by making various leaps of faith


                          Originally posted by panzerfeist1
                          2014 sources states where the GaN MMICs will be used since they are already created
                          In 2014 they states their development program finished and produced several kind of UHF GaN modules. Then those modules can be used to reduce dimensions and weight of some ESM system.

                          Originally posted by panzerfeist1
                          later in 2015 they have GaN AESA present on their EW systems.
                          where did they even mentioned the EW system is Himalayas like you are trying to imply?


                          Originally posted by panzerfeist1
                          So why do they have GaN MMICs present on their EW equipment(according to niip) while the only hinted EW to utilize GaN was on that Rostec PDF as a brand new feature. hmmm brand new feature using GaN, 2015 they say GaN is present on their EW systems. What does that tell you? Do you actually believe that they are not suggesting their 4 GaN MMIC types is present, but that they have other GaN MMICs that are present on their aircraft but not the ones mentioned on Rostec? pg17 of niip catalog "Usually, solid-state gallium-arsenide and
                          gallium-nitride amplifiers are used as active
                          elements of active phased-array antennas of
                          present-day EW equipment."
                          You haven't seen yes this makes alot of sense at this rate. But the source states GaN present on AESA systems. Unless your going to argue that the GaN mmics that are present just dont happen to be on rostec which has only gave mentions of which equipment will have it.
                          Click image for larger version

Name:	p1.png
Views:	1
Size:	303.4 KB
ID:	3681035Click image for larger version

Name:	2.png
Views:	1
Size:	437.0 KB
ID:	3681034
                          In short, in a paragraph about cutting edge technologies for EW material and developement, they said usually GaAs and GaN are used in present day EW equipment.What they said is totally correct because in the market at the moment there are many EW system using GaAs modules, and some uses GaN modules. They didn't say Their EW system uses GaN. Honestly, even if they did, there is no reason for us to believe that Himalayas is the EW system with GaN modules. For example: Northrop Grumman can correctly say " GaN T/R modules are used in radar system we produced " but that doesn't mean we should assume APG-77v1 and AGP-81 use GaN (at the moment we only know that TPS-80 has GaN element). Or BAE can correctly say "we produced EW system with GaN modules" but that doesn't mean we should assume AN/ASQ-239 use GaN, at the moment we only know EPAWSS uses GaN. My point is you making too many assumption and faith jump from vague information


                          Originally posted by panzerfeist1
                          The developement project is already completed, says will be used.....UHF modules not created you say......
                          You should read slower before you reply, i said those UHF elements weren't created specifically for Himalayas, like you can put a Sniper-XR pod on B-1 but Sniper-XR isn't created for B-1 only

                          Originally posted by panzerfeist1
                          TheWell atleast the smartskin explanation you were helpful however ironically the Spectra I heard has happened to have GaN from another forum I visited.
                          Spectra will have GaN in future batch, but it doesn't use GaN at the moment. Nevertheless, GaN is not a requirement for the so-called smart skin.


                          Originally posted by panzerfeist1
                          Same materials being used, same efficiency and size reduction claims.Why I also hinted the fga-35 (3d) is that its weight reduction as a radar from a previous AESA radar got drastically reduced by 1.5-2 times similar to the weight of the EW systems that got reduced by 1.5-2 times smaller being based with the same LTCC MMICs.
                          Size reduction and efficiency in form of percentage how do you know know they are the same without a base number?? What if the previous version is bucky?. Imagine someone said his house dog is half as big as her father, his house cat is half as big as her mother, then someone else concluded that the dog and cat are equal in size. Won't you think that will be a ridiculous assumption?


                          Originally posted by panzerfeist1
                          Like stating how good its by jamming AWACs at 700km and LEO satellites at 300km? Your probably meant the context of saying whats the jamming power and what state the jammed equipment will be in. But I was just stating a previous mentioned GaN EW system and other systems that have surpassed it in range
                          You have yet to give us the citation to these range
                          Eitherway these numbers are meaningless if you don't know the radar cross section of assets that you want to protect and their distance to radar. If they are very far from the radar then it should be easy because the return is weaker

                          beside jamming satellite is easy because they don't have high power


                          Originally posted by panzerfeist1
                          ...At this rate do I have to hold your hand whenever I post something and even give page numbers prior like I already did?

                          An important line of activity for KRET is the development of
                          ultrabroadband antenna systems using the AESA active phased array
                          radar. In the AESA, every element or group of elements has its own
                          miniature microwave transmitter, working in the frequency band
                          from 1 to 18 GHz.
                          Powerful solid-state amplifiers, made of gallium-arsenide and
                          gallium-nitride technologies, are used as AESAs active elements in modern EW solution. Thanks to them, the equipments weight can be
                          reduced by 1.52 times, raising reliability and efficiency by 23 times
                          No you don't have to hold my hand, but in any debate you are expected to back up your view with citations/links. Extraodinary claim need extraodinary evidence and all that. Anyway, individual microwave transmitter can transmit between 1 to 18 GHz doesn't mean the bandwidth of radar will be from 1-18 Ghz, this especially true for multi funcional array. Have a look at this pattern by Northrop Grumman Corp in 1987.
                          The transmit-receive cells are fully functional at broadband and narrow band radio frequencies. In the narrow band of 9.2 to 10.2 GHz, the active antenna system would operate as a radar system. In the broadband range of 2.0 GHz to 20.0 GHz the active antenna system is fully functional in electronic countermeasures and radio frequency jamming
                          https://patents.google.com/patent/US4823136

                          Comment


                            #93
                            Same Gutenev statements but on a different version, this time from Military Watch:

                            Regarding the cost of the Su-57, prominent Russian lawmaker Vladimir Gutenev, a member of State Duma's expert panel on the aviation industry, stated "The fifth generation fighter jets are undoubtedly competing with U.S. F-22s and F-35s, but it is considerably cheaper even though it has similar characteristics, while in some aspects, for example, manoeuvrability, it does better than the U.S. jets.” The lawmaker further stated regarding the fighters’ service in Syria: “The time our four Su-57 aircraft spent in Syria definitely allowed us to get additional information on this aircraft's ability to detect [using communications systems] U.S. F-22 and F-35 aircraft which are operating in the same airspace.” This was in reference to the United States’ deployment of Raptors and Israel’s deployment of its F-35I jets over Syrian airspace. Monitoring stealth fighters' transponders has long been a key means for U.S. adversaries to track its most advanced combat aircraft - an issue recently highlighted by the U.S. military.
                            http://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/70770

                            Comment


                              #94
                              @Spudman

                              You would have to be above looking down on the F-35 for that to ever be an issue.

                              Next.
                              Spud. You don't seem to think that Lockheed built stealth compromising features into the design of the F-35. Do you think Sukhoi would build stealth compromising features into the su 57 ?
                              Last edited by KGB; 11th July 2018, 15:42.

                              Comment


                                #95
                                Every fighter is a compromise in one way or another. What you have to determine is will the compromise affect the fighter in any significant way.

                                My point is that LM's experience with VLO gives them more knowledge on what they can do (and not do) with regards to how a feature will affect the RCS of the aircraft, especially in an operational & wartime environment. I am not saying that Sukhoi will not "eventually" gain the same level of knowledge, just that they do not have it now.
                                "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

                                Comment


                                  #96
                                  I am not saying that Sukhoi will not "eventually" gain the same level of knowledge, just that they do not have it now.
                                  That's a pretty bold statement, although I don't think you realize it. When we built HaveBlue and even the follow on F-117 we didn't have 3d printers, computers had very little processing power for simulations, computer aided design tools were in their infancy and not very reliable, and we were very limited in what we can do with composites. They don't have any of those problems today. Heck, they even got the radar absorbent materials we used on the F-117, and they have had almost 20 years to improve on them. So, although Sukhoi may not have the same level of knowledge (and experience) as LM now has, it is certainly sufficient.

                                  Comment


                                    #97
                                    Originally posted by ActionJackson
                                    Why wouldn't you? I believe you misunderstand how fire control radars work. They don't operate *simultaneously* throughout a 8-12 GHz range. Rather they have that bandwidth and *can* operate within that band on demand. Basically, they operate within a 10-20MHz band that hops around randomly throughout their bandwidth. It's this hopping ability that allows for low probability of intercept.

                                    A photonics radar would work the exact same. It is not simultaneously scanning the entire 1-100GHz band. It is operating in a 10-20MHz band that can randomly hop throughout that band. You do want this! It takes low probability of intercept to the next level and you can run an algorithm to periodically scan near the high 100GHz region of its bandwidth to find stealth aircraft while spending most time in in the 8-12 GHz region where there is less atmospheric absorption.

                                    But I do agree that the technology is a long way off.
                                    Quick reply to this message Reply
                                    10th July 2018, 12:06 #70 ActionJackson ActionJackson is offline
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    Join Date
                                    Oct 2010
                                    Posts
                                    213
                                    Quote Originally Posted by XB-70
                                    When you've obtained multiple bearings to a signal source from known locations over a short period of time then you have located the origin of the source - in real time to a small region of uncertainty.
                                    Who knows the means of locating the F-22's or whether it was real time or after analysis of mission data, it's largely irrelavent. For all we know they could have rolled a UHF radar up to the test area to track the F-22's movements and reactions.... simple fact is, in multiple translations on translation tools, we get this....

                                    "We were probably able to clarify a number of possible and accompanying data on the ability of the F-22 and F-35 to detect our aircraft in the short-term stay of our Su-57s in Syria in February this year - telemetry provided a significant reason for their improvement," - said V.Gutenev.

                                    to detect our aircraft - Unambiguous, nothing lost in translation
                                    telemetry provided a significant reason for their improvement - Same, also specific

                                    Then we get the full treatment in this thread of the typical deny, deny, discredit the source, deny, try to interpret it in 200 completely unrelated ways, deny, discredit...etc by the local bots. Enough to convince me it's right on the money and worthy of tipping to defence media to see if they want to run it.

                                    I've been saying it for a long time, "stealth" is not "just stealth". There's varying degrees of observability between LO to true VLO. The question of which aircraft would more often prevail in an encounter comes down to exploitation of the radar max range equation. If aircraft A has a lower RCS from operationally relevant angles (noticed some of the uneducated in the last thread were talking about the RCS of the very bottom of the aircraft... clueless) and a better radar than aircraft B then more often than not it's going to get the first shot in an encounter, immediately putting the opponent on the defensive where their SA and low RCS quickly disappear.

                                    At a certain point in stealth design, it comes down to tiny details to get to actual VLO. Turning of screws to a particular angle to prevent the most minute amount of specular return, removal of a canopy frame causing surface discontinuity diffraction, stealth shaping of the inside of the cockpit (as well as a small jammer built "inside" the cockpit at a concentration point), extreme sharpening of all leading edges, closing of airgaps, removal of cavities between the airframe and intakes, mm perfect laser directed application of ram strips to the skin to consistently achieve the highest level of effectiveness.

                                    Meanwhile....



                                    1 - surface discontinuity, corner reflector - causes both specular and diffraction return to source radar ... forget the ram, a recent video on Su-57 canopy treatment only stated a 60% reduction in RCS from the metalized treatment
                                    2 - surface discontinuity at a normal to the aircraft's axis causes diffraction return to the source radar
                                    3 - surface discontinuity at a normal to the aircraft's axis causes diffraction return to the source radar
                                    4 - HUD (inside) - specular return through canopy



                                    1 - cavity - causes resonance
                                    2 - cavity - causes resonance
                                    3 - cyclindrical pitots - massive specular return
                                    4 - large levcon cavity - causes resonance


                                    1 - cavity, surface discontinuity - causes diffraction and resonance - not blended with airframe
                                    2 - no sawtoothing and pinching of control surface edge, cavity - causes resonance
                                    3 - fat, rounded leading edges - causes high specular return compared to extremely sharp (1mm diameter) leading edges
                                    4 - cavity - causes resonance



                                    1 - Multiple sources of specular and surface discontinuity return - resonance depending on wavelength
                                    2 - massive surface discontinuity almost at normal to axis - the gaps in these areas are quite large, inches in size


                                    Almost forgot... radar disco ball/infrared headlamp
                                    Brilliant post.

                                    Comment


                                      #98
                                      Originally posted by XB-70
                                      That's a pretty bold statement, although I don't think you realize it. When we built HaveBlue and even the follow on F-117 we didn't have 3d printers, computers had very little processing power for simulations, computer aided design tools were in their infancy and not very reliable, and we were very limited in what we can do with composites. They don't have any of those problems today. Heck, they even got the radar absorbent materials we used on the F-117, and they have had almost 20 years to improve on them. So, although Sukhoi may not have the same level of knowledge (and experience) as LM now has, it is certainly sufficient.)
                                      Yeah, especially sufficient to avoid internet-enthusiast level of blunders against LO. The level of arrogance this discussion implies on the part of some people is simply amazing. One thing is not having all the experience in the manufacturing or maintenance aspects of LO, which is very logical and everybody would expect, and other completely different is not being capable of getting even extremely basic aspects of the design and shaping right... especially when you are the one formulating the theoretical basis that allowed LM to design stealth in the first place. This is simply ludicrous...

                                      Comment


                                        #99
                                        That's a pretty bold statement
                                        Looking at the Su-57 makes it self-evident and valid.
                                        "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

                                        Comment


                                          @Spud

                                          Every fighter is a compromise in one way or another. What you have to determine is will the compromise affect the fighter in any significant way.

                                          My point is that LM's experience with VLO gives them more knowledge on what they can do (and not do) with regards to how a feature will affect the RCS of the aircraft, especially in an operational & wartime environment. I am not saying that Sukhoi will not "eventually" gain the same level of knowledge, just that they do not have it now.
                                          You just cant give it up can you..

                                          @Rall
                                          Brilliant post.
                                          Brilliant alight. You are just the kind of guy that he is targeting to give credence to his blatant trolling.



                                          ^ That's some surface continuity right there.

                                          A round speedbump between the canopy and nose. And that's just the beginning of the stuff that would be brought up as problems with the design if there was Sukhoi on the serial plate.
                                          Last edited by KGB; 11th July 2018, 18:05.

                                          Comment


                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X