Seconding Mr. Paralay (Davidenko interview quote ℅ Austin):

So there you have it, PAK-FA RCS by Russian standards (~0.4 м²) and 0.0035 м² by US/European standards (℅ ff1987). Say “thankyou”, FD.

Incidentally, the director of ITAE (Dr. A Lagarkov) is interviewed @ 08:15 in ff1987’s yt link. He’s the same dude that co-wrote that RCS paper with Pogosyan back in 2003 (linked by Wingex, above), and this paper on engine-duct RCS:

https://www.google.co.jp/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=anastassiu%20intake%20cavity&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&ved=0CFQQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asianscientist.com%2Fbooks%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F05%2F6561_chap01.pdf&ei=rBhZUvTjG8aU0AW524Aw&usg=AFQjCNE2iiqaZtikOyRguYX0QsND0N-oGA&bvm=bv.53899372,d.d2k. (English)

Somehow I don’t think OKB Sukhoi will be going to the Indians to make PMC tailfins for the PAK-FA:

http://technologiya.ru/press/new.aspx?nID=166&lang=rus

Thanks Jo and Paralay, these are very useful posts

Just like I was saying earlier this statement in Russian by Sukhoi says that the radar signature of the Pakfa will NOT exceed the radar signature of the F22 and that is actually one of Pakfa design goals. And with Pakfa having a much more powerful and modern radar system than F22 and the worlds most advanced IRST OLS system the F22 and F35 are hopelssly outmatched and at a severe disadvantage vs Pakfa in BVR combat and WVR as well.

How thick or slow can one be,it was confirmed many times that Pakfa rcs will be on the same level as F22 and NOT larger and frontal rcs possibly less than F22 and definatelly lower rcs than F35. Yet you compare frontal rcs of a vlo stealth fighter to not even lo but standard figher,pathetic.

Where has it been confirmed many times over and by whom? Please enlighten us, you will only be putting our concerns at rest.

Exactly!

Sigh. They *are* radars, they just don’t do radary things.

Don’t want to be pedantic but if it isn’t doing any Ranging, it’s not a radar, it’s a transceiver.

Weapons useful information (plot a firing solution) only if you have the (relative) range to the target, its bearing is good, but not enough.

If the average RCS for the T-50 is nearing 1m² that is not very good. A clean F-16 is rumoured to have 1m² RCS at 100km head on and it is quite comfortably detected by most modern radars out there at this distance (IIRC) .

I wonder how close to reality this is …

The papers claim that the radar cross-section (RCS) of an Su-27 was in the order of 10-15 m 2 , with the intention being to reduce the size of the RCS in the T-50 to an “average figure of 0.1-1 m 2 “.

Hi. Sorry for responding so late just got my account approved. I’m afraid OS does play a role in CAD design if you want to use up to date systems. I’m a design engineer and use Solidworks. The latest version can only work on Windows 7 or 8. XP support has been dropped. I think SW2014 has only 64 bit due the memory requirements. I’d be curious to know what systems Sukhoi uses as it’s all about collaborative design and common formats for viewing designs.

And why would they use the latest version? First rule of engineering, if it works, don’t change it (unless it becomes prohibitively expensive to keep).

The company I work for just (and I mean just) upgraded to win 7 32bit. We chose 32 bit because we have no specialised 64 bit applications and 32 bit is much faster than 64 bit in whatever it is we are doing. The only reason we updated from XP was that we had the budget and the IS department took it. If we had our way we’d have a series of brand new 3D printers.

Perhaps, but you still have to stay supported by the manufacturer. XP limits the amount of addressable RAM to 3.75-4GB and with a 32-bit architecture. Hardly optimal for a CAD program, especially when suitable 64-bit platforms have been around for years.

There is a 64 bit version of windows. And security is not an issue for internal networks without outside world connections. A closed network is a safe network by definition.

I just think, we might be able to use this model as a tool for our various discussions, providing we approve that it is suitable. I too noticed some of the things you both have mentioned, but more eyes are better than two ..