Oh God…you’re right I shouldn’t waste my time trying to explain what anyone with 2 eyes can see.

You show me an arrangement where the engine face can possibly be hidden in its entirety in that design…and I’ll happily agree with you. Till then…

when they may have find something to reduce the visible part of the compressor-face in the Su-35BM already. Otherwise nothing would justify the claim, that the Su-35BM is a lo-design similar to the SH and Eurocanards

Well they didn’t and their claim is as wild as many other ones. They developed a radar reflector to be placed in front of the engine face, and while this does provide a considerable improvement, it still isn’t in the same level of RCS reduction as the F-22.

Again?

The engines are clearly canted inward. That means the red line you’ve drawn is NOT the centreline of the engines.

Until you and Kapedani realise that, this discussion is pissing into the wind.

It amazes me immensely how people see only what they want to see, regardless of what is presented in front of them.

Yes the engines are canted slightly inward. It makes absolutely not a bit of difference in the world.

Of course the fact of the matter remains that NO ONE has yet to show a possible internal configuration of those inlets that would allow for the engine to be entirely hidden from view from all frontal angles.

None…and yet everyone keeps jumping when we say that they aren’t.

The article claims that the figure for PAK-FA corresponds to the figure declared for the F-22, in the first place.

The RCS of 0.3-0.4 sqm very probably refers to overall RCS from all angles, unlike the 0.000x figures which are most likely frontal aspect RCS. Looks like the same thing, just evaluated in a different way..

Thats like saying the average speed of a 300 mile trip was 50 mph because it took a Corvette 6 hours to cover it. Therefore a Fiat with a maximum speed of 50mph is the direct equivalent of a Crovette…since they will complete the trip in the same time. Except that the Corvette driver stopped for 3 hours along the way somewhere.

Here’s my estimation. Note inlet/compressor diameter is identical to tyre (Td) in order to give generous margin of error (@~0.93m 117’s compressor face’s diameter will be slightly smaller).
Nevertheless, the c-face will not be visible even @ ~1.02m diameter.

Rendition takes into account the camera is not directly aligned.

🙂 Yes except that in EVERY single attempt to impose a possible engine face placement on that picture, every singe attempt shows that there are still many frontal angles from where the engine face can be seen.

In this particular attempt, it is perfectly clear that most angles slightly below and slightly to the side, will expose the engine face.

This of course saying nothing about the actual radar returns making their way out of the inlet even if there isn’t a direct view.

In the images with more brigth is possible to identify a ramp going down on the intake or it apears to have one.. that ramp as it apears to be is enough to hide the blades

The fact that there is a “ramp” there isn’t news to me since I’ve been trying to explain this for a while now…that there obviously is one because it needs to clear the landing gear 🙂

However, what you said isn’t true at all. Even in the perfectly horizontal frontal viewing plain, not the entire engine face can be covered. Most viewing angles below that, also will expose the engine face, and most viewing angles slightly to the side will also expose the engine face. And even if you can’t physically see the engine face, a lot of reflections will make their way out of that intake towards the radar source either way.

Too small and certainly not in the right position. And even in this configuration, there’s plenty of frontal angles where the engine face can be seen (slightly to the sides or example)

I am not really sure if geometry or S-duct is needed since they already capable of using RAM on the inlet and compressor face to half the radar signature of the Su-35.

Halfing the RCS does very little in terms of ranges an equivalent radar can detect it.

Isnt this VLO thing a bit overrated both in US and now Russia , put a metric radar and bistatic and pop you dilute a big advantage

Has anyone who has faced a B-2 been able to ever see it coming? They had metric wave radars.

Yes indeed stick it to the Russkies, they sure know how to design and manufactor those huge looking stand-off bombers Tu-95/ Tu-160.

Bottom line they do their jobb, dont cost a trillion $ thats what matters in the end

No poor ******* ever won a war by having a more economical airplane (yes yes WW2, thats not what we’re talking about).

If the point was to make a stand-off platform out of the Tu-160, why the design for high speed and variable geometry wings? B-1 was designed for penetration…Tu-160?

The Russians have claimed that the RCS of Tu-160 is lower than B-1B although its a much larger aircraft .

Anybody can claim anything. The question is, why should anyone believe them? 😉

Now comparing the Tu-160 vs B-1B based on performance specs is about as useless as comparing the the F-4 vs the MiG-23 based on speed and range and climb etc. In the end…theres other factors that make one of them obviously better at their mission than the other. (of course one has to wonder if the Tu-160 wasn’t designed for penetration, then why the design to begin with? Tu-95 could do the same if all its doing is flying up to the east coast and launching a cruise missile).

Now as for this PAK-DA thing…those designs posted here have been around for about 20 years already and a continuation of the T-60 project. Why Russia would ever need such a thing, I can’t understand. Whether Russia can afford such a thing, well thats another matter. Unless…of course…there’s someone else paying the bill for their own purposes 😉

PS: As for Kh-22 etc, range and warhead are great on paper, but has anyone ever thought that a giant missile flying at high altitude makes an excellent target for long-range naval SAMs?