[USER=”34398″]F/A-XX[/USER] – I doubt it is the coatings since the Raptor is cleared for going higher. I’d wager it is to maximize engine life and reduce the stresses on it. You really wouldn’t want any chance of it failing on you given that it’s the only one you got.

The gripe I have on stealth claims is that the IRST represents as least as big an RCS as an IIR missile on a pylon on its own, and probably two. That has a frontal RCS of 0.05m^2 on its own, even without the rest of the aircraft.

[USER=”77048″]St. John[/USER] – I know where you get that from but it is really just abuse of physics vice a valid attempt at assessment. http://www.rfcafe.com/references/electrical/ew-radar-handbook/radar-cross-section.htm

RCS = projected cross section x directivity x reflectivity This is always true. Now, the 2D projection of a sphere is indeed a circle of the same radius. It is also true that, no matter what aspect you view a sphere from, you always see the same surface normals – that of a hemisphere oriented inward towards you, and so there is no directivity term. So the RCS = pi x (radius)^2 x reflectivity. So it will be about 0.0177 x reflectivity. (I assumed a 6in diameter for the IRST and DIRCMs. I’m not sure what diameter you used but it certainly isn’t larger than that.)

Now reflectivity can never be larger than 1. The law of the conservation of energy necessitates that you can not reflect more energy than what you are illuminated with. But it can be a whole, whole lot less than one. The ‘domes’ for the IRST and DIRCMs are made from some form of glass. Glass is pretty much transparent in the frequencies in question – and that is why aircraft such as the A380, F-15, etc. can use a glass composite for their radomes. But the glass is doped with an absorber material (the DIRCMs don’t seem to yet have that) and the wavefront will attenuate as it passes through. The materials inside will also both scatter and absorb. It is only the part that gets scattered back out in the direction of the radar transceiver that will contribute to detected reflectivity (and it will be attenuated a second time going through the glass window/dome).

It’s way too complicated to determine with eyeballing estimates and a quick equation. But there are no obvious flaws that would prevent them from reaching RCS = 0.00X territory once they swap the engines with units dedicated for that task.

Were they referring to frontal or average RCS

[USER=”77174″]panzerfeist1[/USER] – The guy didn’t say. And he likely doesn’t know for sure.

[USER=”70376″]stealthflanker[/USER] – The warning about the Mie scattering region is spot on. Although the domes of the IRST and DIRCMs are certainly within the optical region, the internal gizmos may not always be. And I doubt any of us will get close enough to the final product to know.

On this a particular mention to XB-70 #43 post that explain how state-ot-the-art avionics of F-35 with its emphasis on sensor- and data-fusion can be a real help in many scenarios involving both A2A than A2G.

Above all because he IMHO correctly point how this capability is not exclusive to it but can involve all planes of the same gen (and I would add also other planes actually in production/deep modernization process).

I would put a less emphasis on internal carrying of weapons, planes like Mig-31 or Typhoon carry their missiles in semi conformal recesses and also in other planes designed for aerial combat there is always been the research of the least possible impact of weaponry to general performances, so an advantage exist but is not so decisive.

I appreciate the compliment, Marcellogo. This thread started out with promise, but now it’s gone. And I didn’t think I was emphasizing internal weapons storage too much, but I can understand different interpretations of what I wrote. I mainly stressed the comms and sensors. In the event of a stealth bomber attack, detection ranges would be very short and so a tight “picket” would be needed. And the sensors and comms would be crucial. And with large stand off bombers, the missiles would spread out over 100s or even 1000s of square miles. That is too great an area for one aircraft to cover and so they will need to signal one another and work as a team once again. I only briefly mentioned the internal weapons of the F-35 because many modern fighters appear to get the best of the F-35 without taking them into account. They even the odds to a point.

Anyways, this thread is pretty much dead.

Changing the topic…here’s a short click of a pilot working on his/her aviation stunts.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BsdJQSCHbqf/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_medium=loading

[USER=”77292″]LMFS[/USER] – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4uVyDtvBCY You can skip ahead to around 6:50-6:55 minute mark. It is only inferred that the goal is from the designers and so I don’t take it to be as concrete as say Gen. Hostage talking about the F-35. I do believe it is likely to be at least fairly close to what they are actually targeting. The other Su-57 RCS value more commonly thrown out is the one you cite: 0.1-1.0 square meters. This came about by the media (Janes notably) perusing through Sukhoi’s patent on the aircraft. I don’t take that as reliable because it is specifically stated to be an aerodynamic patent “

AIRCRAFT INTEGRAL AERODYNAMIC CONFIGURATION

” and so it really doesn’t get into the capabilities of the stealth technology. (RAM and RAS is pretty much unmentioned) They also could have stopped development a long time ago if they only wanted less than 1m^2.

English – http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2F195.208.85.248%2FArchive%2FPAT%2F2012FULL%2F2012.01.27%2FDOC%2FRUNWC1%2F000%2F000%2F002%2F440%2F916%2Fdocument.pdf
Russian – http://195.208.85.248/Archive/PAT/2012FULL/2012.01.27/DOC/RUNWC1/000/000/002/440/916/document.pdf

A “tennis ball” on the other hand corresponds to an RCS of .0037m^2. That is small enough to be tactically very useful but not so small as to be unachievable for a first stealth attempt. And it is also on a level where you will need a specially designed engine to get there.

“…

0.1-0.5 m2, as they assess the average F-22 RCS in real world…”

Bogus assessment. You really can’t get anywhere close to actual RCS (I mean off by multiple orders of magnitude!) by analyzing pictures and such with your eyes. RCS is commonly expressed as RCS = projected cross section X reflectivity X directivity. The only term that an analyst knows 100% for a foreign design is the projected cross section – because it is directly correlated with size. Directivity and reflectivity both have a materials dependency. The best visual example I can think of is the absorbent “pies” of the SR-71 program (declassified).

https://gizmodo.com/fascinating-photos-reveal-how-they-built-the-sr-71-blac-1683754944

It was a high altitude plane and the bottom was mostly a flat plate – which is pretty good for stealth unless you are directly over the target. But Lockheed had to do something about the sharp (titanium) edges which makes for a very good reflector and re-transmitter of surface waves. So they broke up the edges by inserting a whole lot of absorbing pie shaped tiles into the edges and then painted the whole thing with ironball black. (Deep structures like these are called RAS – and re-entrant angels in this case) Thus the actual shaping of the conductive surface is very different from what a completed bird looks like. Moral of the story? Only the designers know for sure.

That makes sense, but why to threaten specifically with the F-35? Turkey is very vulnerable to US cutting military cooperation in general so it would be easy to force them in other ways. And at the same time, F-35’s supply chain and schedule counts on Turkey’s participation so there is in fact a vulnerability of the program towards them. There is still something missing…

But Turkey’s share of the supply chain can be replaced with only minor/moderate disruptions. But Turkey can not obtain a replacement within a five year period and they cannot build it themselves. And, as far as military cooperation goes, US-Turkish cooperation is already a basket case and so nothing to lose there.

My guess is they will be “forced” to adapt the J-31 and produce it under license from China.

Why do you say that? It will take a lot less time to finish the Su-57 than it would to complete the J-31 program and develop a reliable engine to power it. Keep in mind that the 2000-2015 era engines like the Ws-10 and Ws13 were made because China had to learn how to do it. But you do not want to base the future of your leading aviation combat platform off of that technology! Supposedly, China will eventually produce a new engine (Ws-19) for the J-31. I have no idea how long that will take but it is not flying yet and Izdeliye 30 is.

I’m going to go with the position that the F-35 is in fact a very good interceptor. And, over the long run, will outshine the greatest dedicated interceptor designs such as the Mig-31. Due to internal weaponry, it can be clean or nearly so far more often than legacy fighter/interceptor designs. So, kinematically, although it is not great, it certainly isn’t poor. It is pretty good. But its real strength is in its sensors and networking capabilities. Unlike traditional interceptor designs, the F-35 can go a long ways to assisting other assets to intercept a target. Right now there aren’t a whole lot of combat platforms that can interface with the F-35 to its fullest. But over the years with upgrades and new developments, that will change. The F-35 is a remarkably future oriented combat platform. The future networked battlespace will have synergies far beyond what exists today, and the F-35 will jumpstart that development.

Similarly, I’m going to disagree with the original poster and say that the F-35 will also be a very good ‘close’ combat support aircraft. What I mean by that is that the F-35, with its survivability due to first rate sensors and stealth, can monitor battlespace developments like nothing prior to it and coordinate with other assets to direct ordinance in such a way that dangerous, close combat situations are minimized to begin with. As they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a whole lot of cure. The F-35 may not have the big gun of the venerable A-10, but single asset firepower is going to become less and less decisive as militaries transition to the integrated battlespace.

The F-35 (and likely the Su-57 and J-20 as well) are going to unlock a whole lot of capabilities that has not existed in the past. Yeah, the F-35 is an underrated all rounder.