Fair enough. But by the same token, what would prevent the F-15SE with RAM addition from achieving a similarly high level of RCS reduction?
At the time the T-50 design was frozen they would have had confidence that brand-new materials’ solutions would address the so-called ‘hot-spots’ in the design (I.e CNT/PMC RAM whereby a 6mm thickness was yielding -30dB absorption in broad X-band), and if you look @ unpainted prototypes you’ll notice these areas are (or will be) made of CFRP. This, however, did not preclude geometric shaping for stealth. You can see these design subtleties all over the aircraft. In fact the PAK-FA is the first design which has rewritten that famous Olenhauser quote from “shape, shape, shape & materials” to ‘shape, shape, materials & materials’. Others will follow, already evident in US 6G renditions.
Conceivably, fighters such as Rafale and Eurofighter could undertake a widespread retrofit of CNT RAM because their load bearing structures were designed from inception with CF composites in mind and they already had a large composite surface area, but there still remains the problems of external weapons loads not to mention no planform edge alignment. To address these problems would render these fighters more expensive than 5G fighters!! The F-15SE can only pay token homage to these solutions- the conformal bays can be made of this stuff and the tail fins have been canted outwards, but the vast majority of its post production RAM treatments Boeing will be forced to adopt, will date from the previous generation. This is why marketing the SE as anything other than ‘RCS reduced’ hasn’t washed with the S.Koreans.
The implication of this thread is that the T-50 is nothing more than a ‘Silent Flanker’, I hope I’ve demonstrated how flawed such a notion is.
I’m astounded that the level of debate regarding the PAK-FA’s stealth has returned to January 2010 precipitated by a flawed journalist not even Mercurious could defend and certain known trolls. Did I not present to you a commercial brochure of Russian CNT RAM developments earlier this year? How is it that the same technology will work for the F-35…..but not for the T-50 (despite being used in a more explicit and fundamental way):
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,215074,00.html
Have people forgotten what the surface finish of the X-35 looked like? Or how long ago that flew? There’s no comparison with the current T-50 prototypes. Anyways, here’s some more EVIDENCE to support the notion that upcoming T-50 prototypes will show significant improvements over the current *hand built* quality, as indicated by the need for a new static tester. It’s called H-VaRTM (the ‘H’ stands for heated) and has come too late to be widely implemented on the F-35. This is the Russian developed version and will be operationalized on an industrial scale for the MS-21 at the brand new facility @ Ulyanovsk:
http://airview.livejournal.com/191809.html
Now can we flush RFJ down the toilet please?
Sign In
