dionisThe original photo it was Photoshoped from has been posted.
Post it please, I must have missed it 1000 times over.
The more I look at the aircraft, the more it confirms that that is not possible & in fact the T-50/PAK FA engine ‘nacelles’ are even more similar to those of the Flanker than I have originally thought.
You must be having trouble sleeping ever since Jan 29, 2010 huh kid?
It’s pretty obvious that there’s plenty of horizontal and vertical “movement” in the intake. That’s how it works around the weapons bay – is this SO hard to comprehend?That takes care of part of it – and the rest can be taken care of by a blocker and RAM to ensure that no radar signals ever leave the intake from the engine.
And yes, you can fit the Al-41 into the PAK-FA – it’s a big ass machine!
No, the Americans have two approaches – (1) the shape of the aircraft & (2) the use of radar-absorbing materials.
The F-22 & F-35 utilize an even more advanced form of BOTH shaping & RAM to combine the VLO of the F-117 & B-2 with flight performance of a fighter.[/QUOTE]
He clearly means RADICAL shaping only for F-117 and B-2, so adding the advanced RAM with some shaping is a given for the others. But please… feel free to crap all over a head engineer, it’ll earn you some browny points with sfrerrin and Kapedani! 😀
dionisConcept of Stealth in Sukhoi Family.
Stealth Aircraft Technology: “Our Capabilities are not Inferior to Those of America”
Andrey Lagarjkov, Director General of the United Institute of High Temperatures of the Russian Academy of Sciences (and an Associate Member of the Academy), talks about Russian stealth technology in the following interview with the Russia/CIS Observer.Until recently, all Russian developments in the field of stealth technologies were strictly classified. There weren’t any reports made concerning research institutes dealing with these issues. The veil was raised somewhat last year when it was announced for the first time that the United Institute of High Temperatures of the Russian Academy of Sciences was carrying out research in the domain of reduced aircraft visibility. The information was rather sketchy. It was reported that the institute is specialized in creating materials with new properties, in particular with ferromagnetics and so-called artificial magnetics. It was pointed out that technologies developed by the institute were used in designing and manufacturing the Sukhoi Su-27M and Su-37 (Su-47). Director General Lagarjkov, who hasn’t spoken about such matters in public before, told Sergey Sokut about work of his institute in greater detail.
– How does Russia’s way of making aircraft stealthy differ from the American technology?
– The Americans have two approaches. The first, and earliest one, was used for the F-117 and B-2. The low radar cross-section (RCS) was achieved through the shape of the aircraft and the use of radar-absorbing materials to cover the airframe. In this application, the principle of minimal level of visibility was a cornerstone – and other characteristics had to be sacrificed. For example, both aircraft are subsonic. Later the Americans tried another approach: modern radar absorbing materials are applied to F-16 and F-18, as well as to 5th generation F-22 and JSF combat aircraft, which have a traditional shape. The low level of visibility is achieved through different techniques, which Mikhail Pogosyan, director of Sukhoi, and I are going to reveal in the near future. We and the Americans are close to each other in this type of technology. Russia possesses the technology for upgrading in-service aircraft with modern stealth characteristics, and moreover, this technology is demanded by foreign operators of Russian aircraft. We, together with Sukhoi, have achieved world-class results in this area, which are confirmed by tests of real aircraft. We also can optimize the shape of the aircraft to lower the level of visibility, but I still wouldn’t like to speak about the use of our techniques for 5th generation aircraft.– When would it be possible to speak about achieved results?
– Some discussion is possible today. The exact results of radar cross-section reduction will never be disclosed, neither here in Russia nor abroad. But sometime ago it was announced that the RCS of a MiG-21 fighter after its treatment by our institute is approximately 0.25 sq m. This corresponds to the characteristics of a cruise missile.– How far is it possible to go in reducing visibility of the 4th generation aircraft, and what additional improvements can be achieved in the next generation?
– My MiG-21 example demonstrates that the RCS of upgraded/modernized aircraft can be reduced 12-15 times. If we speak about new designed models, I wouldn’t want to discuss the numbers publically.
– In the press, information has been published about exotic technologies for providing low visibility, for example, plasma. How effective is it?
– We use plasma in solving the problems of RCS of an aircraft’s nosecone. In general, plasma technologies are very useful at flight altitudes of more than 25 km. At low altitudes it is impossible to use them, because there is not enough power on board.
– What is the share of stealth technologies in the total aircraft cost?
– If stringent, but reasonable requirements for visibility are implemented in the project from the very beginning, it won’t be too large. I’d like to point out here that at my institue, we have carried out advanced work in fundamental research. I also want to stress here that we had to do this without governmental support – funding our research from out-of-budget sources during the last 10-15 years.– It is known that you cooperate closely with Sukhoi. What about the institute’s work with other design bureaus?
– Recently, we have started cooperating intensively with the others as well.– If we compare achievements of different countries in the reduction of aircraft visibility, who would the leaders be? Obviously, the Americans would hit the top, wouldn’t they?
– The Americans are no. 1 because of the application of stealth to a large volume of real products. But considering the understanding of the whole problem in general – and the potential – I don’t think the Americans are better than we are. We are able to achieve, and already have achieved, the same – and even in some areas, we have had somewhat better results. Another plus for the Americans is their broader application of stealth. In particular, they are entering the world market with the stealthy aircraft. Similar developments are being made in Europe, but the level of these countries is not so high. The French are tackling this problem as well. They have very good research equipment – anechoic chambers, for example. Their Rafale fighter is advertised as an aircraft with a low radar cross-section.
Older article, but perhaps a good refresher 😉
dionisI too believe Sukhoi knows all the pluses and minuses of an S-duct. We are also sure that it is not used on the T-50, based on the test flight photos released so far. Remember aircraft design is not about picking features. It is about balancing all aspects to increase overall efficiency. Sukhoi in this case opted for the lifting wing-body configuration, similar to the Flanker (as opposed to integrated-inlet-fuselage design exemplified by the Raptor and the Berkut). This means two parallel inlet ducts protruding from the wing-body structure to produce a trough which regulates supersonic airflow.
Whatever measure Sukhoi has planned for the inlet duct, be it a blocker, plasma or any other esoteric concepts we can think of, would be just part of the overall performance balancing.
I think people here, perhaps you also, are using S-duct as another word for “tunnel shaping” that restricts radar reflection.
There is simply NO WAY that the intake is straight.
There is curving there, and I am sure with the very specific reason to restrict radar wave access to the engine.
dionisLet me rephrase the question- what do you envision the RuAF looking like in terms of updated aircraft in terms of total numbers of Fulcrums and Flankers brought up to SMT/MKI comparable specs, along with Su-34s, 35s, and 50s, in say 2015, 2020? The fact of the matter is that the RuAF budget is still nothing spectacular.
The Su-25 fate has yet to be determined. They could re-launch production of the jet, and many are going through upgrades, so in 2015 – 2020 feel free to figure out how many airframes are still airworthy AFTER thorough overhaul and upgrade. Same for the Su-24M2, but with slightly less priority as the RuAF builds around 200 Su-34s. Similar situation for the MiG-31 and Su-27, with upgrades going to BM and SM standard.
Su-35s should start coming into service and we can expect 2 full regiments in 2015.
2015 we can expect the first production models of the PAK-FA.
The TU-95MS, Tu-22M3 will be kept around until 2025, with upgrades to carry more PGMs. The newest airframes will be updated first, and many Tu-95MS-16s and Tu-22M3s have very fresh airframes.
The Tu-160 will be built forward until 40 airframes are in service, one every 18 months.
How many aircraft will there be exactly? No one knows. Here’s something to consider though: both the USAF/USN aviation and RuAF and RuN aviation will become far FAR leaner.
So a guesstimate would be:
2020 for RuAF and RuN aviation:
~50 – 100 PAK-FA
48 – 50 Su-35S
~200 Su-34
~150 Su-25SM
~150 Su-24M2
~150 MiG-31BM
~150 – 200 Su-27SM
~24 – 48 MiG-29SMT
~ Unknown # of MiG-35 (RuAF has shown interest, no orders yet)
~ Unknown # of Su-33s
~ Unknown # of MiG-29Ks
~25 Tu-160
~100 Tu-22ME/5
~25 Tu-95MS16
dionisThat whole thing is a Photoshop to the max, I feel like the blending wasn’t even done well to fit that “engine” in there 😮
The more I look at the aircraft, the more out of line the engine housing and intake looks. They are certainly off-angle horizontally even vertically.
The grooves/bump/ “ribbed 😉 ” intake may well be for radio wave scattering within the intake.
What it’s that was originally the T-50-KNS? I don’t see any paint whatsoever? There were pics of the KNS, no?
dionisIf you have objects of the same shape, lets say an object in the shape of an F-117. One of these objects is the size of a car. The other is the size of an aircraft carrier. Both of these objects will have a similar (not exactly the same, but similar) RCS. If you don’t believe it, don’t worry. Kelly Johnson had a hard time believing it, and he was one of the greatest aerospace engineers of the 20th century. So you’re in good company.
Wrightwing is, well…right. RCS is independent of size.
Well, as you’ve admit, not entirely 🙂
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_cross-section
What do you make of this?
dionisHow can you shape a bomber and aircraft carrier the same LOL?
Seems like you are trying to twist some LM story into some sort of scientific fact.
If you have 2 tails, OF THE SAME SHAPE, the smaller SHOULD have less reflection, no?
So, given good levels of engineering, on 2 separate aircraft, the smaller tails would most likely reflect less back.
dionisYou’ll note(well now you will anyhow) that I said IF they achieved that, THEN there were more than “minor” changes made.
Okay so you don’t believe what you’ve heard about RCS – alright then…
The schmuck talk was what I was referring to. The serious sources being journals, colleagues, etc… that felt the RCS was competitive or superior.
I don’t believe what I’ve heard either… journals, colleagues, etc – where are they pulling these numbers, other than their posterior? They certainly don’t have a testing lab with T-50 scaled models do they?
Which remains to be seen in operationally representative form.
Yeah, the T-50 was vapor-material on Jan 1, 2010. Look what we have now?
The US T/R modules are several generations more advanced, and that’s not even taking the back end into consideration.
Ah man, that good old argument. Certainly you must have some excellent data on those T/R modules to back up that baloney right?
Not without some major redesigning, and if you’re talking about the L band arrays, then I wouldn’t hold my breath in terms of being used to detect aircraft.
Yeah, the T-50 was vapor-material on Jan 1, 2010. Look what we have now?
x2
We’ll have to wait and see, though the LPI datalink tech won’t be frozen either.
Not sure I follow you here.
Like the ones that previous Russian Air Force fighters have continuously received?:rolleyes:
Yeah, since the budget permit it since about 2004, there have been swatches of new upgrades coming in for everything from MiG-29s and -31s, to Su-24/25/27 aircraft.
The numbers I’ve seen are M1.3 with the current engines, so M1.7-1.8 with the new ones is probably closer to the ball park.
I can’t wait to see the source for those?! 😀
That won’t address every issue, as a larger RCS will have to be overcome.
Larger RCS of what? Jammers?!?
And I suppose that’s why every US plane(including ones with AESA radars) have had so much success detecting F-22s, seeing as how they’re so vulnerable from this aspect.
No one knows what angle they tracked them from, how many were trying to track, etc.
All sounds like the game “telephone” – you heard of it? :rolleyes:
dionisROTFL, do you really like to show your incompetence in every thread here?
I’m so sorry, was it 2.5m from the intake?
dionisRCS isn’t directly related to the size of the object.
2 stealthy tails – 1 bigger, 1 smaller. The smaller will have less reflection. (Please save me your Americans tails > Russian tails BS)
I’d say if they were able to achieve 3m2, then there were more than some “minor” modifications.
I see, in general, the same aircraft.
Aside from youtube comments, I’ve yet to see any serious source that thinks that without major changes, the T-50 will be as stealthy much less stealthier than the F-35.
So back to my point – there is no data whatsoever other than schmuck-talk online.
MMI
Latest Gen AESA(which has more advanced T/R modules)
EODAS
MADL
Spiral upgrades(i.e. NGJ, DIRCM, space for additional AESA arrays for even wider coverage, etc…)
MMI? Man-Machine Interface? The PAK-FA will have very advanced AI and will have autopilot features you probably won’t find on any F-22 or F-35. That will certainly be part of “MMI” for the T-50’s side.
Don’t even start on pretending the American AESA will certainly be superior. That’s the kind of BS that just doesn’t stick. Size is gonna matter though, I promise. 😉 😉
EODAS will be compensated for with multiple radars and a solid IRST. Not to mention something more MAY be revealed later for the T-50.
MADL? What is so fancy about a data link? How can you even suggest the T-50 will not have something similar? Even more interesting, just how good will it be when L-band AESAs come around?
“Spiral upgrades” can be given to a T-50 too.
The current engine might be 34K – 35K lbs of thrust, but when the new engine is released – what are we going to see? A T-50 @ Mach 2 @ mil thrust?
New jammers, etc – all that can be installed there too.
It’s the angles of the aircraft, moreso than the angle of the aircraft, as well as the coatings, and internal layouts, that help minimize returns. There are very few instances where an F-22 would be doing a verticle climb, while heading towards an enemy radar, so that’s not a particularly realistic situation. In any event, the bottom of the Raptor would provide less return than a Flanker.
The F-22 could be flying forward, with the enemy radar emitting from slightly below in altitude from the side (from any aircraft) – getting a near perpendicular return.
dionisThere are areas that the T-50 will have advantages, but the question is whether or not the areas that the F-35 has advantages are more important areas. We know that the T-50 is faster, and has a longer range. The F-35 has a lower RCS(vs. the T-50 in its current form) and more advanced avionics. The F-35 will likely have a lower cost of ownership/easier to maintain.
RCS – See, no, you don’t know that. If you do, you better have a real good, scientifically derived report somewhere for everyone here.
Avionics – Based on what? A few extra toys? How about the far superior coverage of the 5 radars the T-50 will have?
The angles matter, among other things.
See I don’t completely buy the “angle of the aircraft” type argument entirely.
What about the angle of the emitter? If you are level with a Flanker and hitting him with radar from the side, you get a good reflection.
If you hit the Raptor from the bottom, those tails will reflect directly at you. Maybe less so, but they will.
Makes sense why the T-50 went with such small tails for side stealth.
dionisYou’re forgetting the huge tails, and direct view of the engines, which is a huge RCS booster.
How large is the reflection from the engine then? How could it possible be more than the total “squared” area of the actual intake?
That’s a clean RCS figure though, just as the 15-20m2 figure is the clean figure for earlier variants, and 10m2 was the F-15’s clean figure.
So the minor modifications of the Su-35S took the Su-27 from 15m2 to 3m2?
dionisStick into it AL-41 engines, the NIIP PESA Irbis or AESA Radar, stick in your choice of ECM and other avionics and you would have a top of the line naval fighter.
dionisThis is exactly what you do!
Look:
And here again you demonstrate that you don’t have a clue about Flanker’s RCS and all you do is cry and shout “no I don’t believe that Flanker’s RCS might be so huge!”
As I said – when you look at the graph of Flanker’s RCS (which shows RCS values that are averaged over the range of angles ± 30 °), you’ll see that frontal sector RCS (+/- 30 from the nose) is closer to 18-20m2. I don’t know where did you get that 15 m2 from underside claim. I think it’s just your wishful thinking. And BTW: looking directly at the nose RCS peaks around 30 m2.
What I did was comment on what was said. I’m not taking any “out of the posterior” guesses. Twist it any way you like, but the initial claim didn’t originate from me.
If you are referring at the Su-27 picture with db waves displayed – then what was the initial source for the testing? It escapes me.
dionis
All photos are provided by shadowname, thanks to him for them.
Ah geez, no compressor face 1.5 meters away from the intake. Russians must have found out about our forum discoveries and quickly shrunk the engine using sorcery!
Sign In
