Is this already an “official” and established practice ?

I think, when contractors talk about RCS of a fighter jet is talking always about X,ku Band frequencies, about fire control radar frequencies. All data that we know from Typhoon, Rafale,…F-35, F-22 it is about RCS on this Band.

On the case of a Bomber, for example B-2, which is designed for to be stealth on Low frequencies bands it is possible its public RCS is about these low frequencies, but i do not know, but really i do not know if there is some official information about RCS of the B-2 bomber….i do not remenber

“
Also, Indian press told RCS is 0.5 m2 from Su-57 because Sukhoi told to Indian Officials, and they are not talkling about average, but about frontal RCS, for this Indians was not very hapñpy with stealth on Su-57.”

Can we get some specifics 😀 ?
Always entertaining to see what insight into the Su-57 the Indian press has.

I do not have any interest about indian press or other different press. There are good press and bad press same in all jobs, there are good professionals and bad professionals. But if you think Indian officials do not know exact numbers of the RCS of the Su-57 prototypes, i think you need put your feets on the earth. They know all of course, and sukhoi told what exact RCS is too. Other different thing is that you can think this leaked information to some indian press is false.

I do not know it it is false or not, nobody know 100%.

***********

For example, this is some russian press, and if i do not undestand bad, they tell RCS of the Su-30 MKI is 20 m2 and Su-57 is 0.5 m2. It is not only indian press who talked about this number, some russian press too.

[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tSu-57.jpg Views:t0 Size:t192.3 KB ID:t3863718″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3863718″,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”Su-57.jpg”}[/ATTACH]

[USER=”76365″]RALL[/USER] Did you even look at the patent? They took certain feature from the front in their measurements are you sure their measurements are the same as the US measurements for the f-22? This can also take into account no coatings. Oh i think i told you this repeatedly before and that is there were sources that suggested it had the rcs of a bird.

Hi, yes i saw the patent paper un russian language. I needed translator of course. I read RCS was with Ram coating.

Yes, i saw some video many time ago where a man (i think he was some journalist) told rcs woulb be like a tennis ball RCS.

*********

Patent is very confuse when they talk about RCS, everybody can do different interpretations…do not tell nothing really

Patent talk about RCS from Su-27, this RCS everybody know it, it is around 10-15 m2 (maybe 10 is for clean configuration and 15 for full load missiles), and after patent talk about RCS from Su-57, so it seems it is talking about frontal RCS as they did on Su-27. But it is confuse because it talks about “average” and after it give a range number (0,1 to 1 m2). This is not an average point, but a range. On this case average of the range (0,1-1 m2) is 0,5 m2. You do not need tell this range, it is not interested…

If you are talking about average 360 º RCS is 0,5 m2, really you are not telling nothing, because RCS frontal what is the most importatn is unknow, it can be any number. for example 4 diferent fighters with a average RCS 360º is 0,5 m2, but its rcs frontal can be totally different in all cases.

So it is stupid thing talk about average 360º RCS on a patent. Only i see is a mastirovka exercise.

This is (in my opinion) a complete misunderstanding of the project and the statements of authoritative sources. You don’t need Butowski’s book if you have the chief designer saying they have similar requirements to the F-22 and assessing that plane’s RCS around 0.3 – 0.4 sqm. Is this compatible with an all-around average, irrespective what the lowest frontal value is? Are we sure what measurement conditions they consider, and what band? Then why to disregard the statements of the project’s top technical responsible so lightly, when they also correspond with the values stated in the patent?

Consider what Russia wants with this project and what were the references at the time of setting it up:

> If LO or VLO is considered as useful, then why to invest all the time and money in creating the shaping, materials, production technologies, maintenance considerations, operational doctrine, supporting assets etc etc just to get the performance of a SH?
> The frontal RCS values you mention are for planes without any essentially different shaping considerations to classic 4G examples, apart from the SH intakes. It makes no sense to consider a plane shaped so obviously for VLO as the Su-57 will get such poor values in probably the most tactically relevant aspect.
> The reference when the project was created was the F-22. It is only logical to aim for a RCS in the ball park of that plane, at least in the tactically relevant aspects, with all due uncertainties about what is the exact value but also with all the insights and safety margins the best experts can consider. It makes no sense to create an answer to a foreign plane and fall so far behind form the start, it would be wasting money.
> RCS measurements make more sense for Russian military considering averages, since they work with an IADS. No plane will be able to be exactly head-on with all the radars in theater, so such values as published in the West are impressive and a good PR tool but largely irrelevant if you are being illuminated from several, non optimal directions. In particular all the directions perpendicular to the main alignment planes of the airframe will reflect strongly, and you cannot achieve this scattered radiation to be sent back in arbitrarily narrow cones.

Some people simply like indulging themselves into thinking than Russian experts have their logical minds upside down. That is not the case. To understand what they do you must actually think they will do what is best for them. Seems logical but interestingly it is incompatible with the predominating agenda-based thinking where US is always right and Russia always wrong, that is why all the Western “experts” in the media are failing so miserably to forecast the project’s developments, time after time. With the US military it is a bit different though. They are painting their aggressor squadrons with the colours of the Su-57, requesting modernized air targets and reduced development cycles for air superiority platforms (NGAD case is specially obvious) with the the same key characteristics of the Sukhoi, all while their media is proclaiming the death of the program. Just the usual fog of war, only no one relevant in the matter is being fooled by it.

Yes, of course i talk only in my opinion too, and i respect your opinion. Nobody know exactly RCS of the real Su-57 series on its final form, i am agree. Only i talk about quotes from important people inside. I think Piotr is a reliable source.

Really LMFS, nobody talk about all average RCS from 360º, it has not any sense. When people talk about RCS always it is around frontal RCS, and if it is rear RCS or side RCS usually need to specify. I think nobody can stay agree with chief designer of the Su-57 telling F-22 RCS frontal is 0,3 m2 or it is the average RCS of the F-22. He does not know, only LM officials, and US Air Force told what is the frontal RCS of the F-22 around 0,0001 m2.

And now you think, F-22 its an all aspect stealth fighter, if F-22 average RCS is 0,5 m2, it means that if its frontal RCS is 0,0001 m2 then RCS side and RCS rear need to be very very crazy big. This has not any sense.

Also, Indian press told RCS is 0.5 m2 from Su-57 because Sukhoi told to Indian Officials, and they are not talkling about average, but about frontal RCS, for this Indians was not very hapñpy with stealth on Su-57.

But it is ok, i respect your opinion. we are here for talking. 🙂

Is LRASM fully intgrated in F-35? Afaik it was mostly tested on B1B

@marcello by alleveidences, the very poor radar rating of F-15C is due not to have aesa. Whay not compare it with a sopwith camel?

Nvm, this is not a µRafale thread. I just brought here storm shadow as an example of F-35 limitaitons. (PS SS speed is 0.95 mach depending on altitude)

What a level, omg

You need study more..it is many time ago F-15C has an Aesa radar. The first Aesa radar around 2000 was incorporated inside a F-15, before F-22.

😀

Pretty much

This kind of belief is simply embarrassing. The guys and scientific institutions developing the stealth on the Su-57 are the same ones that devised PTD on the first place and the world’s leading experts in anti air defences. One would expect a bit of humbleness from anybody judging their work, but now any run-of-the-mill internet enthusiast thinks he is capable of schooling them. In “that” forum they have concluded the RCS level of the Su-57 is in level with a F-18… And in the media similar arguments are peddled without a shred of criticism. It is simply pathetic.

I repeat: they have no values, no access to the doctrinal principles of the plane’s use, nothing. Not understanding a design is not the same as that design being rubbish. So I will keep calling out those without the intellectual integrity to admit they cannot groundless pontificate about Su-57’s RCS without any other argument than their beliefs.

Which forum about you are talking?

Superhornet has around 0,5-1 m2 but it is on clean configuration, not in real world with payload. So i guess it will be maybe 2 or 3 m2 with all load, same story for eurocanards. Su-57 will be around 0,1-0,5 m2 frontal RCS (Butowski told 0.3 frontal RCS on its book), but maybe they can reduce some these numbers. We need wait and see first production Su-57 if it take some improvement or it is same like last prototypes.

ok, how you want.