Technique of definition RCS «on a photo» 🙂

(The front view area / 2) * (quantity of aerodynamic elements / 6) * effect of absorbing materials * effect of the form of a glider * effect of plasma

The front view area undertakes under the drawing, in square metres.
The quantity of aerodynamic elements is compared to glider Су-27, these are wings, кили, stabilizers, forward horizontal plumage, and so on.
Effect of absorbing materials: 0.5
Effect of the form of a glider: 0.2 – 0.25
Effect of plasma: 0.5

Calculation RCS F-22:
Two wings, two stabilizers, two ??? – 6 consoles. The front view area – 9.25 square metres, effect of absorbing materials – 0.5, effect of the form of a glider – 0.2, effect of plasma – 1.
Minimum RCS – 0.3 square metres.
Maximum RCS – 4.3 square metres. The quantity of external knots – 4, minimum RSC and factor 0.5 is considered.

Calculation RCS for other planes can be looked here: http://paralay.com/paralay_tab.xls

That would seem to be a pretty imprecise way of calculating the figure, since there are way too many variables involved. I’d rather go by figures that were arrived at by supercomputer calculation, anechoic chamber/radar test pole, and calibrated radar ranges, but hey that’s just me.

I say give it time, let’s wait for the final design with final nacelles, final IRST, final production techniques, RAM etc. and then we can compare. Fair enough?

That’s fair. My problem is with folks claiming the superiority of the T-50, when all we have to go by is the pre-production version to judge, and just assuming how well the final product will work.

How exactly? That ALR-94 calculates emitter’s GPS, reprograms the SBD and then releases it? I don’t know how precise such operation would be from M1.7, SBD is mainly a penetration device with very focused explosion energy due to small warhead, it also requires a very small computing circular error in order to be effective. Plus it strictly works against a stationary target only. No matter how I look at it, doesn’t look very suited for anti-SAM work.. More like a step back from the specialized anti-radiation missiles..

Not to sound trite, but yes. SDBs are programmable on the fly. Obviously if the SAM site is on the move, this would be problematic using this method, but for a stationary target, it’d work just fine. Of course the SDB II(combined with the increment 3.1/3.2 upgrades) solves that problem.

It isn’t my air force, but if I had 180+ F-22As tasked with home defense and loads of F-35s and legacy fighters with nothing better to do, I would not send the Raptors for SEAD, not in this configuration.

Home defense doesn’t require every aircraft first of all. Secondly, were the US to find itself in a large war, where kicking down the air defenses quickly is a high priority, you can bet that a number of F-22s would be used precisely in this manner, to sanitize the airspace for legacy types.

all this stories about the super agile F-35 come from advertisement not from real aerodynamics, the T-50 is far more advanced than the F-35 and even F-22.

And you’ve arrived at this conclusion based upon what exactly?

so far the only visible not stealthy element are the nacelles.

All you need is one rivet, seam, screw, etc… to screw up your RCS. The RCS enhancer on the F-22 is very small(much smaller than 2 nacelles).

The RAM quality or mathematical calculations necesary for stealth are not inferior, first because the is no reason to say its inferior unless you can prove that mathematically, second you have no RAM material from the T-50 to say it is of less quality and third the T-50 is newer, it has benefited from more modern technologies at the time of its design, the F-22 is a 1990s aircraft it first flew in 1990 and in series production form in 1997, while the T-50 is a 2009 design and its materials have taken 20 years of advatage from the materials first used on the YF-22.

So you’re saying that LM hasn’t learned anything since the 90s, or incorporated improvements, but Sukhoi on their first attempt is going to make a product that is superior in every way? It’s not like they’ve had access to the F-22’s materials for the last 20yrs to study. Once again, the evidence that you’re using to state something as fact, is that I don’t have evidence to counter your claim.

@wrightwing

man with all the due respect, your claims are not at all correct, the T-50 at this moment looks pretty stealthy from a front view, its wings, tailplanes both vertical and horizontal too, the only things that do not look stealthy are the engine nacelles and jet nozzles which look pretty Su-27`s.

So in other words you’re saying it looks pretty stealthy, except for the unstealthy stuff? I think you also need to compare the large differences in the fit and finish of the 2 planes, as well as the overall shape of the plane, which will play a huge role in determining how low the RCS is. It’s those fine details that are important as you’re minimizing signal returns.

The quality of the RAM and mathematical calculations for the planforming are not inferior to the F-22.

You know this to be true, how exactly?

what the F-22 sacrified was thrust even with its flat nozzles it does not take advantage of the total yield of its engines, the T-50 has rounded nozzles but can use its thrust more efficiently.

I’d say by the performance of the F-22, that whatever thrust losses exist, aren’t pertinent. The production model T-50 will have 2D nozzles too, so apparently, the Russian feel that the benefits of increased signature reduction offset whatever gains would be present from 3D nozzles.

this can explain why with a heavy wing load, the F-35 has a rounded nozzle instead of a flat one being single engined with very conventional aerodynamics and an unimpressive top speed losses due to a flat nozzles probably were deemed too much of a sacrifice.

The top speed of a plane is less important that the useful combat speeds. You can go on and on about having M2+ dash speeds, but the fact of the matter is that with the exception of Mig-31s, no fighter is flying that fast with any sort of regularity. You also seem incapable to grasp the notion, that the F-35 is going to be a very quick and agile plane. It’s not going to be clubbed like a baby seal in terms of raw performance. This combined with superior situational awareness and survivability will more than make up for a few percentage points here or there in terms of speed or turning.

RCS figures could be calculated in different ways. I seriously can’t believe you people don’t even consider that.

American sources might yell “0.000001” but during modeling and testing in Russia it could have been “0.2 – 0.3” – who knows?

Hyperbole doesn’t help your argument. There’s never been a claim of .000001m^2. The frontal RCS of the F-22 has been verified to exceed the VLO requirements, and is better than -40db(.0001m^2). The Russian sources have claimed .5m^2 for the T-50(though they didn’t say if this was the average from any given angle, or from the best angle).

If you watch the video again, you’ll see that they say the world’s only 5th generation multi-role fighter.

Do they know what the thrust loss of the F-22’s 2D system is, for purposes of comparison though? Also, how will the design compare in terms of RCS/IR suppression, assuming that the F-22’s losses are as a result of those considerations? There’s a lot of what ifs, and not much info, so that starts getting into highly speculative realms.