RALL@RALL
Conclusion of study have written error (they forgot -) check value in tables, it is -8.021 and -8.003 not 8.021 and 8.003.
Ok, now it has sense.
RALL@krivakapa.
Yes but i think you understand when they tell -40 db it is only in specific direction and this is not representative of the RCS of the airplane. You need -40 Db in many specific directions for it can be the most comoun value. For this in its conclusions, they talk only about -6 db in frontal aspect (+-30º) and only in 1-4 ghz band. Strange for me it is 8 db from 4 to 12 GHZ.
One example.
In some especific direction this airplane with big Rcs can get more than -30 db.
Fire control radars works from C to Ka band. From 4-40 Ghz. Frontal RCS woulb be 8 db for the Su-57 in this study, it is many. I can not believe it, because its around 6 m2. How much the RAM coating can help for go down this number??
For this really i have doubts about this study, it is very big RCS on these bands.
RALL@Rall
“The patent of this plane is clear, they try to design an aircraft with an RCS between 0.1 and 1 m2. Their reasons will have, but that is not the fault of the West or that the Americans can design and manufacture aircraft with RCS the size of a marble.” And they gave an estimated value of the F-22 falling between that range and even admitting it being lower in RCS and they might have been regarding just the angles than the materials. Who has better materials I remain neutral on. Such instances why is the US army viewing it impossible turning invisible in 2015 while Chemezov claims an invisible helmet which might likely be displayed at this coming army expo. Another example shows that it looks like they discovered a way to make soldiers invisible in the infrared field. https://www.newsweek.com/stealth-she…-drones-989959 While the Russians said they already implemented the technology. https://www.sott.net/article/381159-…ared-remission
“Russian officials have said that the Su-57 is only slightly superior to a Su-35 S (a legacy fighter), so it does not interest its mass production. Have the Russian officials lied?” Well how long ago was this said even things can change on the SU-57. Although I do not understand why people like yourself keep ignoring that they are undergoing tests for newer engines and it would not make sense to mass produce older engines when the newer ones are underway.
Really you need tell this about the engines to russian Official who told this or indian officials who let the program. I know they are working in other new engine. But this is future, not present. We do not know if this new engine will be good or not. You know current engines have a short life cycle, a big maintenance and they are unreliable. Indians are dissapointed with russian engines on its fighters. You are very optimistic, and we do not know nothing about new prototype and when will entered in mass production.
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/03/22/india-s-sukhoi-fleet-faces-problems-despite-russian-spare-parts-deal/
https://www.rbth.com/blogs/2014/03/10/dissecting_a_dogfight_sukhoi_vs_usaf_at_red_flag_2008_33623
@RALL
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?scri…62016000100040
Su-57 model achieved -40dBsm (which is 0.0001m2 if I am correct):
On the one hand, the RCS value of the model in specific direction can be as low as −40 dBsm
So if Russians really want to make Su-57 as stealthy as F-22/35 they could, question is do they want it. Indians if want stealth level would need to pay for it, problem is India can’t afford all programs they started and they are quite sure Super 30 and Rafale AESA are more then enough to deal with J-20 and possible J-31.
I read this many time ago.
Do not tell nothing new, only what sukhoi predicted on its patent. RCS between 0.1-1 m2.
“Under V-V polarization, the mean RCS of forward ± 30° part of the plane is m = −6.1497 dBsm (frequency band in 1 to 4 GHZ), 8.021 dBsm (4 to 8 GHZ) and 8.003 dBsm (8 to 12 GHZ).”
RCS front aspect -6,1497 db= 0,25 m2 RCS
But fire control radar frequency in band X is between 8-12 GHz. So i am very confused about this 8 db….it is a bad number.
To this number you need aplied RAM effect and blockers for engine intake.
RALLRegarding what the Russian scientists can know about the F-22, well the aircraft as any other object follows the laws of physics and as such there is the possibility of simulating its RCS. If the guys doing the simulation know all applicable phenomena and technological possibilities then they could in fact reach a realistic estimation. That is what justifies Western claims about lack of stealth on the Su-57 first of all. And Russians are, at least on the theoretical side of the story, well equipped as you know. They claim signature information from Syria (an issue about which USAF guys were not comfortable at all) confirmed their simulations. Again, we are left to guess if this makes sense or not but it should not be rejected without some analysis I think.
The lack of stealth on this plane is not a problem of the opinions of the West. The Russian partner of the program has left it recently. Why do Indians need to abandon a program with such a spectacular aircraft?
It was the Indians and not the western press who had access to the airplane, and those who have been disappointed among other things with the problems in furtiveness.
These are not western inventions.
And neither are inventions from the West that a few weeks ago Russian officials have said that the Su-57 is only slightly superior to a Su-35 S (a legacy fighter), so it does not interest its mass production. Have the Russian officials lied? Has anyone in Sukhoi denied these statements weeks later? You know the answer perfectly.
F-22 is not slightly superior to A F-15C, it is tremendously superior.
I do not know under what conditions they have designed the Su-57, perhaps the designers have wanted to make a plane as economical as possible (acquiring a high degree of furtiveness is costly monetarily), or perhaps they do not have the necessary tools to produce or manufacture an airplane with great furtivity, or maybe they prefer a plane more maneuvering than stealthy ….
Only they know it, but do not put a blindfold on your eyes. The patent of this plane is clear, they try to design an aircraft with an RCS between 0.1 and 1 m2. Their reasons will have, but that is not the fault of the West or that the Americans can design and manufacture aircraft with RCS the size of a marble.
RALL@RALL:
The issue of the diverging RCS estimations has been already explained many times. The lowest value corresponds (if we are to believe that a plane maintained in field can keep such value) to a very concrete an optimized aspect of interest, while the bigger one corresponds to average RCS value. This has also been stated by officials and the chief designer of the Su-57, who are we to believe? Why are statements coming from US MIC to be taken at face value, when they have such an obvious interest on overstating the capacity of their armament?As to those Red Flags:
> What were the vectors of approach of the F-22 to the F-15D? Where they outside of the angular radar coverage of the later? It is known that manoeuvring into that aspect while beyond the adversary’s radar coverage is one of the main tactics of stealth fighters to take advantage of their low radar detectability and also the reason why new fighters are including AESA side radar arrays or frontal ones on an orientable dish.
> Did the F-22s activate their radars? If yes, then the RWR on the F-15Ds suck. If not and they were guided by AWACs, did the red air have the same support? Did they have low frequency radars or other means that would realistically represent the Russian assets on the European front (OTH, PCL, multi-band overlapping radars, advanced passive detectors, IRST, human intelligence etc? Or where they just blind waiting to receive an incoming missile alert?All these considerations would be important to understand the value of those statements you know…
Hi LMFS.
I am agree, a given value of RCS is for a radar frequency “X” and for a given angle “Y”. So, for each angle we will have usually different RCS…everybody writes here understand this.
USAF officials told this..
The U.S. Air Force, in it’s effort to get money to build more F-22s, has revealed just how “stealthy” the F-22 is. It’s RCS (Radar Cross Section) is the equivalent, for a radar, to a metal marble. The less stealthy (and much cheaper) F-35, is equal to a metal golf ball.
And the link.
https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20051125.aspx
It is very clear, and from this everbody understand F-22 RCS is around 0,0001 m2 for frecuencies used in fire control radars. We can debate if that number is only for the frontal aspect of the airplane or it is the average RCS.
But it is clear that at least in critical angles such as the frontal, this aircraft has acquired an RCS no greater than 0.0001 m2.
The chief designer of the Su-57 will be an expert talking about the Su-57, and we must to read with attention things he tells about the aircraft, but he does not know “nothing” about the F-22 or the F-35. it is from Usaf officials or people from Lockheed Martin or Northrop who you need read for to know about american stealth fighters and bombers. They have decades designing, manufacturing, and flying these airplanes.
**********
Of course we do not know how was exactly on red flags exercises, but you need think. If somebody would have detected to some F-22 or F-35 from 100-200 kms, you would know this on next minute. It would be world news.
Other example.
Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh on Tuesday sketched out a dramatic tale of a lone F-22 Raptor chasing off Iranian fighter jets over the Arabian Gulf
Welsh then displayed a picture of Sutterfield before a large audience of his fellow service members at the Air Force Association’s Air & Space Conference and Technology Exposition on Tuesday.
“This is the guy that warned them off,” he said. “He flew under their aircraft to check out their weapons load without them knowing that he was there, and then pulled up on their left wing and then called them and said ‘you really ought to go home.'”
The successful performance of the F-22 comes after the Air Force was forced to repeatedly halt F-22 flights because F-22 pilots repeatedly reported blacking out from problems breathing.
RALLThose website figures are for export and hasn’t been updated for a decade.
These figures are from IRBIS E from website of the manufacture company, and do not talk nothing about export radar, only talk about IRBIS E.
If these figures was not updated, will be because do not need any update, otherwise company would do it because it is better for them to write better perfomance.
If you have update numbers from manufacture company, you can attached it. I would happy to see it.
These fictions can tell for grandchildren
This is not fiction, this is what officials told.
And also the most important, if F-22 had a 0,3 m2 RCS could be detected from hundred kms. And it never happened in many exercises where the most important fighters of the west participated. EF-2000, Rafale or F-15 c with 3º generation Aesa could not detected F-22 from so far. So, it is not fiction, it is real numbers.
This is RAAF’s Chief of Air Force, talking about his experience flying against the F-22 in Red Flag to the Australian parliament….
[URL=”http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id…“committees%2Fcommjnt%2Ffb49a6a2-5080-4c72-a379-e4fd10cc710a%2F0002″”]http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id…“committees%2Fcommjnt%2Ffb49a6a2-5080-4c72-a379-e4fd10cc710a%2F0002″[/URL]
Air Marshal Brown : I think if you have a look around on an F16 sometimes that is not wonderful either. But getting back to the situational awareness, the ability to actually have that data fusion that the aeroplane has makes an incredible difference to how you perform in combat. I saw it first hand on a Red Flag mission in an F15D against a series of fifth-generation F22s. We were actually in the red air. In five engagements we never knew who had hit us and we never even saw the other aeroplane at any one particular time. That is in a current fourth-generation aeroplane.
The data fusion and the stealth makes such a difference to your overall situational awareness it is quite incredible. After that particular mission I went back and had a look at the tapes on the F22, and the difference in the situational awareness in our two cockpits was just so fundamentally different. That is the key to fifth-generation. That is where I have trouble with the APA analysis. They tend to go down particular paths in the aeroplane, whether it is turn rate performance or acceleration. These are all important factors, but it is a combination of what you have actually got in the jet and the situational awareness that is resident in the cockpit of a fifth-generation aeroplane that makes the fundamental difference.
RALLCalculated data of the radar “Irbis”:
maximum range of detection of air targets – 454 km
light fighter without external weapons, RCS = 1 m2 – 304 km
fighter F-22, RCS = 0.3 m2 – 225 km
Yes, but it is not data in normal search.
http://www.uacrussia.ru/en/aircraft/lineup/military/su-35/#design-features
The Irbis-E radar station with rotating phased antenna array designed by the V. Tikhomirov Research Institute of Instrumentation provides for the assured detection and acquisition of typical aerial targets at a range of up to 200 km (up to 170 km against ground background), and in a narrower field of view¬ – up to 350-400 km.
Data you attached (454 km) is for maximum range on a narrower field of view and maximum power not on a normal search. So for a normal search will be around 200 kms.
And other data from Tikhomorov.
EPR mode, i think it is maximum power.
Режим «Воздух-Воздух»:
– дальность обнаружения целей с ЭПР = 3м2 – 350 км
So it is clear, for a RCS 3 m2 (typical aerial target) in a normal search radar, track is around 200 kms, as first data from UAC told.
*******
RCS F-22 is around 0.0001 m2 not 0.3 m2. Officials have told this. it is not rumours.
RALLIf radars on missiles can track aerial targets by themselves at a 28km range. While a T-14 radar which is bigger than a missile radar with more modules cannot track larger targets than certain aerial targets at a longer range.
Are there some site with this kind of information? i think 28 kms are many kms for a litle radar of a missile. Maybe if missile is very big with a big radome it could be and RCS of the target is very big too. With normal size BVR missile and rcs of the target around 1 m2, i dont think it can track it around 28 kms…
Irbis E PESA radar from Su-35 S is one of the best russian radars out there, it can track a 3m2 airplane from 200 kms in normal search. This is a very big radar inside a big radome. I do not see Armata radar size can track from 100 kms comparing size of the radar.
http://www.uacrussia.ru/en/aircraft/lineup/military/su-35/#design-features
It is better wait for official figure from manufacture company.
RALLBook is this:
http://www.lektire.me/prepricano/djo…icic-smena_945B-2 and radar modification is very fishy self promoting stories (Zoltan tried promoted himself with story of radar mods, and Ancic with story about B-2) but what happen 27.03.1999 is written as it happened, that is confirmed by others also.
There is problem, he mentioned 23km but some other members of battery mentioned +50km, so I will try to find out which radar and what distance. IMO, P-18 was probable +50km, then P-15 was +23km (becuase that is procedure, P-15 is target acquisition radar of S-125 system (later upgraded to P-15M and P-19).
BTW F-117 isn’t 0.001m2 it was during early pole measurement (compete with XST) but that was with early RAM (or maybe without RAM at all?), RAM was improved trough service so RCS is very likely smaller probable lot smaller maybe 0.0001m2?
Yes, search radar it was P-18 with some modification.
According to The Aviationist, a series of in-field modifications carried out by the Yugoslavs further reduced the frequency of the 1960s vintage P-18 VHF acquisition radar under Dani’s command, which enabled his men to detect Zelko’s F-117 at a distance of 30 to 37 miles (50-60 km).
And…
Consequently, despite inputs from the VHF acquisition radar, the X-band* engagement radar of Dani’s SA-3 battery was able to track the F-117 only at a distance of 8 miles (13 km), obtaining a lock and launching two missiles towards it only on the third attempt (the colonel would order his men to switch the engagement radar on for no more than 20 seconds for each attempt in order to avoid being targeted by NATO electronic warfare aircraft).
RALLI just looked at the link you gave, can’t find “P-18 tracked target from +50km ” anywhere, and they didn’t specified the type of radar either.
Only the search radar (could be P-15 or P-18 or P-12) detect the aircraft from 23 km.
Then when the search radar indicate that the plane was at 14-15 km away, Dani ordered his crew to use SNR-125 fire control radar and illuminate the direction for target, they find it after the third search, so the aircraft must have gotten even closer.
This is.
the battery commander knew the possible route that the airplane was going to take, which was also repetitive (serious failure due to the confidence and / or disregard for the Serbian anti-aircraft batteries), so he placed the search radar and the control radar trigger within the possible range of detection.
And he turned on the radar at very short intervals, until suddenly, as they had supposed, something appeared on the radar screen. The rest is history.
There was no failure of the plane’s furtivity but a horrible tactic on the part of the NATO. They learnt a good lesson. Never underestimate the opponent.
https://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2005/11/secrets-of-1999-f-117-shootdown.html
(…)
The retired colonel also suggested that his battery used primarily its own resources (mostly the P-18 radar and visual observation) to build a faint picture of situational awareness and to understand NATO operations for later use. However, this is not entirely true, as it is now known that the US didn’t vary the flight paths of its F-117s, so their locations could be predicted to a certain extent. Serb forces also often received phone calls from just outside Aviano Air Base in Italy, alerting them when a NATO aircraft had taken off. Combining these two pieces of intelligence, it would not be too difficult to determine where an F-117 was at any given time (see “Shrewd Tactics May Have Downed Stealth Fighter”).
(…)
And…
RALL@RALL
IF S-400 detect F-35 that is only one step, how will old Syrian SAMs down it? Their newest SAM is BUK but it lack powerful radar, also how many BUK they have? But if S-400 isn’t problem why Israel doesn’t want Syria to get S-300? It look like waste of money if F-35 can’t be detected even with S-400.
Hi, krivakapa.
I think it its because Israel have big numbers of F-15 and F-16 combat fighters, and a S-300 and S-400 are a real dangerous. F-35 can avoid this thread, but for legacy fighters is very much difficult since they could be detected from hundred of kilometers.
@RALL:
Have to agree Krivakapa that we have (again) a discrepancy among claimed capabilities of the equipment and behaviour of a stealth plane operator with the issue of the S-300. My interpretation is this is nowhere as a lopsided case as to allow a F-35 to operate over Syria with impunity with the S-300 deployed in at least minimum numbers. Sadly for Syrian AD, their current resources (with few exceptions) are terribly outdated and scarce
Regarding the data in your post, you say you take a conservative RCS value based in the one from F-22 but used the same value… this does not match right?
Nevertheless, that value is tactically not relevant from what we know (not to say that these values are considered simply ridiculous by Russian sources, not going to push that argument since there is a clear discrepancy with what most in the West accept as valid). Any time the plane’s course is not 0º to the radar, operates aerodynamic surfaces etc it will change heavily. Add to this that several radars will be illuminating it at any time and VLO becomes real world technology with limitations and not some kind of panacea.
I take this number because general Hostage few time ago told…
The F-35’s cross section is much smaller than the F-22’s, but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war
So, i take same F-22 RCS, and it is conservative number because Hostage told really RCS is less than F-22.
Real World is different of course, but you know LMFS, if you put on your radar, my RWR will discover you, and i can choose what to do before you know where i stay.
Red Flag exercises are the closest to a real fight and…
“I flew a mission the other day where our four-ship formation of F-35As destroyed five surface-to-air threats in a 15-minute period without being targeted once,” said Maj. James Schmidt, a former A-10 pilot. “It’s pretty cool to come back from a mission where we flew right over threats knowing they could never see us.”
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35a-records-20-to-1-kill-ratio-at-red-flag-exercise
Everybody want a stealth fighter, everybody will not have will be outside.
RALL@SpudmanWP:
sorry to say but this looks to me as a rather weak case. Any proof or at least reasonable bit of evidence that the F-35s have: 1) operated in Syria 2) not been detected by S-400 or other radars 3) their performance being different in that regard to other planes that do regularly strike Syria using traditional tactics (topography among them) to avoid detection?
BTW, since when is Israel a credible source in such matters? They have been systematically denying aircraft/military losses for years and overstating their capabilities, which is by the way logical considering they are a tiny state surrounded by a huge amount of potential enemies. According to them Iran has been about to nuke the world for decades and Irak’s WMD were an existential threat.
Additionally we don’t know what happens between Russia, Israel and Syria behind closed doors, where the strict military capacities end and where the politics begin.I see no reason, following your logic, why US does not utterly crush Russia’s S-400 reputation by delivering Turkey their F-35s and proving they cannot see their stealth fighter instead of whining constantly about them being operated together. Until now all this hysteria is only giving reasons other “allied” states to negotiate the Russian system despite US “recommendations” not to do it.
I do not know if some F-35 was flying inside Syria or not, really nobody know it except IAF. We do not have any official statement about this.
But we know because they told that russian and Syrian defence are connected. So, we must think that if russian S-400 detect some hostile fighter, inmediately they will comunicate with syrian defence.
But it is not dificult if it is maybe a F-15 or F-16, but very difficult when we are talking about F-35 and/or F-22.
The 91N6E is S-400 primary Search radar. Based on public data, it can detect a normal fighter aircraft with a RCS: 4 m2 from 390 km maximum. Using radar equation, for a F-35 (RCS=0.0001 m2 (*)) this corresponds to around 28 km, detection range.
This radar is not fire control radar, for this they need the gravestone radar really.
We have data from Aviation Week, and they tell; “Almaz-Antey says the S-400’s 92N6E “Gravestone” fire-control radar can detect a 4-m2 radar-cross-section target at 250 km.”
So if we make the same radar equation, they can not fire until F-35 stay around 17 kms.
And this figure does not include EW/jamming from F-35, because then these numbers will be smallers.
Stealth fighters are a game changer. If a F-35 was inside Syria, i am sure it was not detected in any moment if IAF do not want to be detected.
(*)I take the same rcs as the f-22 since currently by various official data we know that the f-35 is as furtive as the f-22, but less. So i have taken the more conservative number.
RALLPogossian was an engineer? Sure he wasn’t a businessman?
as I see you have interests of your biography,…… you enjoy it.
Mikhail Aslanovich Pogosyan (Russian: Михаил Асланович Погосян, April 18, 1956, Moscow) is a Russian aerospace engineer.
In 1979 he graduated with honors from the aircraft manufacturer faculty of the Moscow Aviation Institute and started his career at the engineering plant named after P.O. Sukhoi (now known as the JSC Sukhoy Design Bureau) where continues to work to this day. He started as a designer engineer and then held the posts of the First Deputy Chief Designer (1992-1998), Chairman of Directors Board of the Design Bureau (1995-1999) and, eventually, General Director of the Sukhoi Design Bureau (starting from May 1999).[citation needed]
He is the author of 11 patents and inventions, 14 scientific papers, a Laureate of the State RF Prize in 1997 and Laureate of the Russian Government Prize in 1998, Doctor of Science, is a Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and is a Member of the Entrepreneurial Council at the Russian Government.
On 31 January 2011, he was appointed general director of United Aircraft Corporation (UAC),[2] was replaced in January 2015.
RALLHi everyody,
this is my first post in this very interesting thread (when is not polluted by fans or hate boys or deleted for unknown reason of course…) Being neither Russian nor American and moreover from an officially “neutral” country I have no interest in those dick measuring endless debates but do follow the serious discussions and pieces of information related to the Su-57.
Let me get back to post #308 from Inst and precisely to that question he raised:
” Is this the real secret of the Su-57? I.e, it’s “stealthy”, in terms of being LO, but it’s willing to sacrifice stealth for speed?”
The answer is yes and is known since MAKS 2009 i.e even before the first flight of T-50-1. At that time, M Pogossian who was in charge of the project at Sukhoi said something like “PAK-FA will incorporate many stealth features BUT NOT to the expense of speed and manoeuvrability” Unfortunately I cannot find the exact reference to provide a link but it was an interview of M Pogossian on an aviation forum.
Therefore, this shows a clear choice from the very beginning of the project and confirms Inst hypothesis. Which by the way gave birth to an interesting debate.
It also explains why the aircraft misses the (in)famous S ducts. Getting rid of the very efficient lifting body concept (the channel between the engines nacelles) which made and still does marvels on the Flanker family would have impacted manoeuvrability. (Not saying that the lifting body is the only reason of the Flanker agility but it definitely contributes to it.) Of course they could have developed other means to restore agility but it would have been costly and time consuming. So why re-invent the wheel to fulfil an essential requirement from the RuAF when your have a proven solution available. The RuAf which by he way seems to view stealth as a valuable asset but definitely not the most important.
OK, I have been long enough.
I will keep following the thread as long as it remains alive…
Wellcome framine.
It would be good to see if the engineer said exactly that phrase you mention. Because really in the combats of today supermanoeuvrability has happened to be secondary when the current fighters incorporate missiles HOBS and pilots mounted helmets. It is not necessary to get to 6 of your opponent. This on the one hand and on the other, close combats are increasingly rare.
So it does not make much sense from my point of view to penalize stealth to obtain greater maneuverability, because you wil not take advantage about it.
In addition, we know that the plane has radars in the cheeks to cover a greater angle, precisely to give a greater lethality to the missiles HOBS.
Another thing is to look for more speed, there I no longer enter ….
RALLNew to this forum …
Assuming you forgot that there is a third dimension, which is not visible in this diagram…
One would would assume the Russians are not so naive in engineering, remember my university lecturer in Australia who was Russian and very impressed with his ability…
I do not know if it is new or not. But you know there is some russian patent about the use of blockers on entrance of intakes before the engine. It must to go just in front of the elephant.
Sign In
