The MKM is still the most boootiful Su-30 MK variant as far as cammo goes!!

I like all the weird foreign gear that is on the MKM too. But yeah good looking for sure.

Lets not forget that RCS is wavelength dependant. What is marble sized RCS for a, lets say, an amraam’s seeker, is not marble sized for a fighter’s radar. It is further still bigger for a radar on an awacs and bigger still on a large ground based air surveillance radar. We don’t know which wavelength the marble sized RCS was tied with.

We do know that USAF required Lockeed Martin to produce a fighter whose RCS, on average, was one thousand times smaller than what F-15 had. There are various figures thrown around for F-15’s RCS but most widely used is one of 11 m2. So, at Raptor’s RCS (but, again, we don’t know for which wavelength!) is at least 0.01 m2. Marble as a reference is again not the most precise thing, as marbles come in various sizes. Still, unless we’re talking about an unusually tiny marble, at best that RCS is little under 0.0008 m2. (that is for a marble just 1cm in diameter)

F-22 0.0001 m2 @ -40 db F-117 and B-2 are similar but have an older generation of L.O. that is more maintenance intensive and of course the latter two were night time preferred because they didn’t have speed or real A2A resources to help them out of a negative stealth event. Of course those are best case situations. As many here know there are a ton of variables, many of them negative. When the F-117 was shot down in Allied Force, 1999, LM stated- “Even a standard turning maneuver could increase the aircraft’s radar cross section by a factor of 100 or more”. Also consider that support jamming with a standoff or even escort jammer quality aircraft is helpful to get those lower frequencies a low observable “stealth” aircraft can’t handle and to reduce the effectiveness of the higher freq radars that while they may have trouble with stealth aircraft, power output and distance matter for something too. Poor jamming support coordination was a lesser finding to that shoot down.

Engineers that design stealth aircraft look at the 1~20 GHz frequency range. That is about the best that can be hoped for. As you need trades in performance of the jet and cost targets; guess what? That will help with dealing with some of the weaponeering radars ( stuff that guides weapons and kills you ) and air to air intercept radars, but starts to leave some openings for some of the newer lower “S band” radars in the newer bigger area SAMs and stuff found on some warships. Then of course the really big surveillance radars are going to pick something up regardless, here it depends if the IADS is sophisticated enough to do something with that information.

Then you have things like the JSF. You did want the low price didn’t you? And however much stealth quality an export customer gets depending on how much risk they are to tech bleed will be the big question. U.S., ABC’s (Australia, Britain, Canada), and everyone else. That may mean there are three levels of stealth quality for this jet. How survivable will these various tiers be against various threats? There is enough public consumption stuff out there ( AV Week, Universities, et al ) to state that the JSF will be around 0.001 m2 @ -30dB. What will the lower tier JSFs be? ABC= 0.01 m2 @ -20db ?? Non-US/non- ABC, 0.1 m2 @ -10 dB ??? Also consider it is probably at it’s best nose-on and is more of a design to work against X-band/Ku band. Some of the reasons USAF states F-22 is for going into places JSF shouldn’t go is that it has a cost-is-no-object approach to stealth and that it has super cruise at high altitudes to help lower missile no-escape zone solutions and avoid or get out of negative stealth events faster.

Where a Super Hornet (naked) and a B-1 nose-on are around 1 m2 @ 0 dB.

I suppose anything is better than nothing, but the hype of stealth can be amusing sometimes. In Allied Force, 1479 ALE-50 towed decoys were expended. Will the JSF need this ability?

-Tirpak, John, Where Next With Electronic Attack?, Air Force Magazine Online, October 2006, Vol. 89, No. 10

-Lambeth, Benjamin, Kosovo and the Continuing SEAD Challenge , Aerospace Power Journal – Summer 2002

-Grant, Rebecca, The Radar Game,Understanding Stealth and Aircraft Survivability, Princeton University, 1998

-Flachsbart, Brian M., A Robust Methodology to Evaluate Aircraft Survivability Enhancement Due to Combined Signature Reduction and Onboard Electronic Attack, Adobe Acrobat file, June 1997,Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA

-Richardson, Doug, STEALTH-Deception,Evasion, and Concealment in the Air, 1989 First Edition, ISBN 0-157-57343-1

This concert is one of my favs….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r7X3f2gFz4&mode=related&search=

Another I like from the same band…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LkVzcPALVU&mode=related&search=

Public education. Lots of cash sunk into it and nothing to show for it.

Sad to say people don’t appreciate good things and prefer outdated stuff becos of political reason… 🙁

F-15 is no way matching Rafale in terms of performance except range and payload.

At the time of the competition Strike Eagle had a complete suite of mature A2G weapons and an outstanding combat crew simulator to boot. Rafale A2G weapon suite can’t compete… ( if diverse A2G is the goal ) . However given the threat, I am sure they wouldn’t have a problem with Raf.

Don’t know about UK ops but in the U.S. for night netcentric ops it is doing very well. Have seen some “x rated” videos, ( stuff that won’t make the public because it is too ugly. ) of some of the work. I would rate it very high as a night time COIN operator. Not bad in daylight either for COIN.

Now as the moronic early days in OIF 2003 when a bunch of them got shot to pieces sounding “Boots and Saddles”? ….

Completely out of their depth for that. Need fixed wings that can beat down a traditional fighting formation otherwise Apaches will just get shot to pieces like they did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/24/international/worldspecial/24CND-HELI.html?ex=1193198400&en=141c3ecd806b1642&ei=5070

http://www.afa.org/magazine/oct2003/1003najaf.asp

A whole unit of Apaches, 30 some, shot full of holes and many unflyable after the event.

Just goes to show you that when it comes to Super Hormenets, Frank and Arthur are the subject matter experts. :diablo: Didn’t Mav and Ice Man get married?

Are the AESA and upgraded software scheduled to be backfitted onto early SH? I thought when they first came out there was a lot of talk about COTS technology that was easily up-gradeable.

It is my understanding ( someone correct me ) that earlier Supers brought up to Block II standard will have the whole front nose starting at the cockpit, replaced along with other things. Makes sense when you think of all the new gear.

RE: the Super development program early days, while I am hugely critical of those gaffs and how it got approved and flew over tier one procurement ( “look at me congress I am only an upgrade” ) I will say one thing for that process, if the Littoral Combat Ship was put to sea on that kind of long term Super Hornet like development spiral, LCS probably would not be in trouble.

Look at how the Super Hornet came into the fleet with just the basics and how little capabilities were added as part of a long term plan that keep cost attention away from it. Yes maybe some goofy things, but look where it is now. While there are some things I don’t like about it, Navy is well on the way to getting Block II to arrive in the fleet and THAT capability without a lot of money is a leap ahead in strike aircraft avionics and strike hitting power. Would I like it for air domination? No, but in the case of the Navy you also measure their strike power by how many vertical launchers on ships/subs they have available: A LOT. When you add the whole Navy ball of wax together, you have a really good strike system. Anyway, INO mentioned the safety advantages of the aircraft around the carrier etc. and I think it is important for people to note that when early JSF planning was going on, haggling between the services of what they could “jointly” agree on, USAF just wanted a humble replacement for the F-16, Navy still wanted a two seat two engine setup. Well now, with Block II F they will really have something special for strike warfare. All out of the box everything works as a system, consider also that IF BOEING had won the JSF contest, the avionics you are now seeing in Super Block II, would be in it. As much as the non-F-14 dash speed bugs me and a few other things, all of the other things after those thorns is pretty good bang for the buck. AV Leak had an article a few weeks ago stating from a person working the G program that they were “knocking down” simulated S-300 family stuff in the sims. I can easily paint a picture where I would rather have a carrier air wing that was all Super E/F/G than having Supers and JSF. Given everything else the Navy needs to spend money on, I don’t think JSF brings enough to the table. Especially if…. IF…. UCAS-D works someday. I would rather have Supers and money put into UCAS-D ( 1500 mile strike range from the boat ) than sink all the cash into JSF. If JSF proves itself fine. But the Navy is trying to do things now and looking at not a lot of cash in the wallet.