Nice work finding actual values, but still, is it enough to compensate for the beam aspect shaping issues? The answer is “most likely not”, and shape is still paramount to stealth..

If they can achieve -20dB in the crucial X-band (8-12Ghz) with the 3mm CNT-based signature control material 1PP8M10-6, then increasing the thickness to 6mm should be sufficient.

However, having already demonstrated -28.6dB in the 8-26Ghz range (X-K band) in a 2008 patent which was 10mm thick, then I think it’s safe to assume that the X-band specific RAM will be between 6-10mm (worst case) in thickness. These panels should easily be integrated into the T-50’s carbon fibre composite structure of it’s RCS ‘hotspots’.

I find it amazing that you seem to have come to terms with this material’s use in the humongous RCS ‘beacons’ that are the inlet cavity & ducts, yet seem fixated with the (far from ideal) PO method’s analysis of:

…the problem child inner nacelle and the rear engine section with its poorly angled cylindrical outer surface. Both tests done at 10GHz…

The CF composites in those nacelles is so thick, that they could accommodate whatever thickness of this material they deem necessary, hence “the problem child” is nothing of the sort- I have given you the numbers. As for the rear engine section, that is a work in progress as you very well know.

With knowledge of this material’s capability I can now see how people can say the F-35 is all aspect stealth, but the PAK FA …

I find it even more incredulous that you think this material will make the F-35 all-aspect V/LO…but not the T-50!!

I don’t think I need to remind you of the words used by Tom Burbage to describe this material. Either you come to terms with the fact that this is the year 2013 and your favourite quote needs an upgrade to “shape, shape, materials & materials”, or you risk being rendered the ‘lone voice in the wilderness’.

Well, you can use this to make radar absorbent parts, but you cannot use this material to coat the plane. Unless they have somehow figured a solution where they cover the T-50 with patches of this material and then just bake it on the spot.

You’d be absolutely right. Using A-VaRTM called ‘QuickStep’, they’d “make radar absorbent parts”.

http://paralay.com/pakfa/t50%20(135).jpg
http://paralay.com/pakfa/t50%20(139).jpg

Update 3:

“Good news everyone!! I never thought being out by a factor of 10 could make me so happy, but it’s true!!“

I rechecked the tables & numbers. The CNT-based signature control material 1PP8M10-6 (1ПП8М10-6) has a reflection coefficient (Коэффициент отражения, дБ) of -10dB for the radar frequencies (Радиодиапазон) of L-band (30cm) ranging to -30dB for mid Ka-band (1mm), with a material thickness (Толщина, мм) of 3mm!!

For the crucial X-band (8 to 12GHz), it must be at around -20dB, but if they double the thickness to a whopping 6mm that should be sufficient for the T-50’s RCS ‘hotspots’. Bearing in mind this is the vanilla version, the customised (radar frequency-specific) versions for the T-50’s will easily be under 10mm.

A 2008 Russian patent of a similar RAM details an absorption of 28.6dB (~95%) over the frequency range of 8-26GHz (X-K band), that material was 10mm thick.

Roll on “QuickStep” OOOOOORAAAAAAAAAHH!!!

Сегодня ФГУП “ОНПП Технология” продолжает работы в направлении создания принципиально новых технологий интегральных композитных конструкций на основе трикотажных наполнителей и наномодифицированных связующих. В 2011 году предприятие приступило к выполнению государственного заказа на создание и оснащение современным оборудованием участка производства композитных конструкций на основе технологии “Квикстэп”, не требующей применение автоклава. Это позволит увеличить объем применения ПКМ в самолете до 45%, сократить производственный цикл на 20%, снизить материалоемкость на 15%.

Today, FGUP “ONPP Technologies” continues to work towards the implementation of the fundamentally new technologies of integrating composite structures base on knitted/matrix nano-fillers and nano-modified binders. In 2011, to fulfil a government order, the company initiated the adoption of the latest equipment sites [fabs] for production of composite structures based on “QuickStep” technology, which does not require an autoclave.

http://portalnano.ru/read/iInfrastructure/russia/nns/technologiya/technologiya

http://rusnanonet.ru/goods/84616/
http://www.rusnanonet.ru/download/documents/radar_absorbent_material.pdf

Mods, you really need to do something about the PAK-FA thread, the last post I’m (still) seeing is ff1987’s dated 09/02/13.

Did that commercial ‘FibreMatskii’ post go up OK?

Thanks.

haavarla,

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/455595.html
http://russianplanes.net/id97061
http://russianplanes.net/id97063
http://russianplanes.net/id97088

I am an engineer by trade and I don’t particularly like deductive reasoning.

Deductive reasoning has been sound scientific method since The Enlightenment
Last summer it brought me from the fantasy of ‘superconducting fan blades’ to more recently what some in the US deemed ‘too close for comfort’.

The very same company* who fabricate the T-50’s wing make SLV casings modified with CNTs (for increased structural integrity). Since 2011 they’ve undertaken significant capital investments and, under a government order, they’ve introduced autoclave free VA-ARTM called ‘QuickStep’. Given what I posted above, what do you deduce?

Its good to see you can tone your posts down from saying categorically that these materials will “definitely be used on component x on the pak fa” like you always have done in the past to “I believe” they will.

There’s a damn good reason why I’ve toned down my posts and it’s nothing to do with ambiguity- the exact opposite, in fact.
Feel free to dig up and quote my posts from the archive where I claimed categorically:

…”hey there’s a new patent for PAK FA materials”…

I’ve just given my personal speculations on an alternative solution to the S-Duck. It beggars belief that some (still) cannot come to terms with alternative(s). For example, why treat/line the intake cavity & intake with RAM post production, when you can incorporate it in the CFRP composite structure (and hence avoid the adhesion/ingestion problems that plague the F-22)? Is that such a fantasy?

Here’s some CNT and nanostructure related patents (these companies don’t make cement):

http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/234/2344074.html
http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/237/2379387.html
http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/240/2408531.html

As for the LO compressor, I can assure you there’s nothing fantastical about institutional technical research documents concerned with a whole host of IPRs. These detail a joint effort between 2 concerns who have developed the LP compressors of every major fighter engine since the Second World War, and have acted as consultants to foreign programmes.

Also, the statement in the abstract “developed for the 5th & 6th generation gas turbine engines and possible 4th generation retrofits”- kind of gives the game away.

The mere presence of a patent accompanied with a general statement from the scientists such as “this could be used on aircraft” does not equate to “this material is a godsend, shaping is now obsolete…”

I’m not asking you to believe me, will Tom Burbage do?

Tom Burbage, executive vice president of F-35 program integration for Lockheed Martin says it is “the single, biggest technological breakthrough we’ve had on this program.”

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%253A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%253Ac61d80df-a87d-4909-8ae9-5b80e3609ae1

… and this is now used in the manufacture of the PAK FA’s inlet radar blocker”…

FYI, my mantra has always been “Russkies don’t do blockers!!” (again check my post archive).
I don’t mind attempts @ character assassination, but at least get your facts straight.

…I’m glad you realise this now like every other rational person.

I have seen the ‘FibreMatski’ patent. I DO NOT *believe* it is for the MS-21.

Can we move this debate into the rational domain now?

*http://portalnano.ru/read/iInfrastructure/russia/nns/technologiya/technologiya

…I think it’s time for another one of your BS “New” Syrian AF threads….it’s been a few weeks since the last one and the word on youtube is that another final rebel offensive is imminent

He’s probably consulting with his schizophrenic ‘friend’* on how to spin that calamitous human tragedy as a sniggering comedy thread title. That’s after seeking reassurance and solace that the Russkies are so stupid as to have got the small RCS reduction details right and the obvious, humongous ones wrong.

Every military jet design is a compromise, it goes without saying.

There will be no compromises on engine stealth. The compressor solution is ten years** ahead of the game and NPO Saturn’s must be pretty serious about the back end in teaming up with the Kurchatovskii Institute (НИЦ «Курчатовский институт»). The latter is Russia’s Los Alomos National Lab.

http://www.nrcki.ru/
http://www.npo-saturn.ru/index_b7.php?sat=26

Latenlazy, those pics are very high resolution, but I didn’t see any patents plastered on the side of the aircraft! I wouldn’t dare post up patents directly related to the T-50, especially given the adverse US E-FOIA (over?) reaction to a certain recent revelation.

Speaking of which:

The question is not really about capacity to meet a RCS objective…
Su-37 showed that F-22 style “flat underbelly, serpentine intakes” is well achievable by Sukhoi,
so the idea that they are less capable of pulling off such a design is just divorced from reality.

It now goes without saying that given the march of technology and materials science in particular, Overholser’s famous quote will certainly need upgrading to “shape, shape, materials & materials”.

This guy would concur:

Tom Burbage, executive vice president of F-35 program integration for Lockheed Martin says it is “the single, biggest technological breakthrough we’ve had on this program.”

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%253A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%253Ac61d80df-a87d-4909-8ae9-5b80e3609ae1

As for the Russkies, all indications are they will make more extensive and innovative use of such materials on the T-50. Without getting into specifics (for obvious reasons) when TsAGI patents its own production method for nanomaterials and states “nanostructured radar absorbent coatings will help create “invisible” (stealth) warplanes”***, that statement may be mildly hyperbolic, but they’re not kidding.

Regarding my opinions on the PAK-FA, I will say this: I may be barking up the wrong tree, but I’m definitely in the right acre of the right forest. Whereas (to date) everyone else has been in the wrong country and a certain few, alas, on the wrong continent altogether.

*http://forum.keypublishing.com/showpost.php?p=1987345&postcount=23
**as estimated by a senior GKN Aerospace engineer regarding the construction material and methods used on the T-50’s compressor entering the mainstream aviation industry.
*** http://www.rusnanonet.ru/nns/25617/news/?page=25725