Maybe because detection of a two-stage rocket by a fighter is as tactically meaningless as it gets. Exactly what can the F-35 do about it, anyway? Dodge or intercept it?

Just because you are unable to see the significance, doesn’t mean that it’s tactically meaningless. If the mission is to search for POOs of ballistic missiles for defense purposes, this is hugely relevant. Using NCW, the likelihood of being able to either engage the TEL, or use NCADE/ABL to engage the weapon in boost phase(rather than in terminal phase), is a HUGE capability.

At what range can the DAS detect an incoming stealth fighter (say F-22A) at military thrust setting when head-on? Because this would be a tactically useful information to start with, observing rockets launches from distance is for PR. Funny that figures like this are classified, LM surely knows why.

Head on, the EOTS would be the system doing the detecting FWIW(which has a longer range than the DAS). As for why something is classified, it’s so that it’s more difficult for a foe to know, what they don’t know. Tactics are based around a general understanding of capabilities, so…..if you don’t telegraph your capabilities, then your foe is reactive rather than proactive.

I agree with you on one thing, the difference of fit and finish compared to T-50 is indeed pretty large, the T-50 wins hands down.

I’d say that regarding finish quality, the YF-23 looked more like a crashed school bus but I let you judge for yourself.. Let me remind you that this aircraft was still considered more stealthy of the two. So much for the rivets. :rolleyes:

How about a pic of a YF-23 that hadn’t been sitting out in the weather for 2 decades, if we’re interested in intellectual honesty.

Russia will offer Greece it’s 5th generation fighter

http://www.defencenet.gr/defence/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14136&Itemid=139

So are Russia and India supposed to get 250, 400, or 650 T-50s each?:rolleyes:
Every other article thus far has said ~200-250 ea., so these are pretty optimistic quantities.

Come on, are you serious? Visible rivets have precisely nothing at all to do with fit and finish here, since the only reason why they are visible on that T-50 photo in the first place is that the airframe is both unpainted and uncoated. If you look at supposedly immaculate US VLO aircraft in a similar state of completion, you will find the same exposed rivets and seams. In fact, it would be apples and oranges even if you were to compare this YF-23 with its RAM coatings and matt colour with the untreated T-50 in glossy show-room paint.

I’m getting so tired of his patently untenable fit-and-finish argument.

Even now that the T-50 is painted, you can still clearly see that the exterior finish is nowhere near being in the same league of refinement as the YF-23, much less production model F-22s(where every panel is aligned, every seam tight, every rivet flush, etc….) I’m not saying the T-50 won’t be an excellent aircraft, but come on, if you can’t see the difference, it’s because you don’t want to.

It’s not so much the range, as the resolution. A staring array can detect a hot target from a long range, but cooler targets won’t show up until much closer. An IRST that can focus, will be able to spot them at longer ranges, but at the expense of field of view. The point being- a missile will be seen long before a fighter(though, if a fighter is using A/B, then DAS may see it a considerable BVR distances).

What is the issue here? MiG-21 is very small and simple plane, and with proper treatment and no pilons there will be no problem to reach that figure.

The issue is that the other poster claimed that the Russians had said that the most optimistic RCS figure for a fighter aircraft was ~.3m^2, and that both the F-22 and T-50 were at least that high, or higher. I was just pointing out that they’d also said they’d gotten a Mig-21 to .25m^2, which would be better than the F-22 and T-50. So…… I guess what I’m saying is that either one of these groups of Russians is wrong, or the Mig-21 is the best stealth fighter yet.

Source of this equation – paralay 🙂
I have approached calculation to known data:
RCS Su-27 5 sq. m without the weapon / 15 sq. m with the weapon.

That’s a pretty optimistic RCS figure for an Su-27.

That’s impossible we all heared IR sensors must be cued and don’t offer any good range otherwise:diablo:;)

There’s a big difference between the field of view of an IRST, and DAS.