http://flot.com/science/sk1.htm?print=Y#СЗК

All Soviet ships from the mid-eighties were covered with radio absorbing materials 😎

stealth is more affected by SHAPE than material 😉

You are beating a dead horse.. This has been discussed to death for some years.. Long before you have joined. The overall consensus is as follows:

– RCS is a function of angle. It is not a number or two, but a huge array of values. If you arranged the values by their corresponding angle, you would get large number of pictures in spherical coordinates, one for each particular frequency. With common aircraft the picture would resemble a fuzzy ball with many uneven spikes around the whole surface. On the contrary, with stealth aircraft the image would look almost like a deformed ring, with several large protrusions at discrete peaks, especially at lateral angles.
– generally, aircraft makers are focused on max. possible reduction of frontal aspect RCS – that is just one value of the huge array values, albeit one with a quite meaningful tactical role
– the most obvious way to present one’s RCS value would be to take the frontal aspect RCS.. it is most likely one of the lowest, if not the lowest value you have in that array.. we do not know that for sure but Lockheed likely does that for the public
– another way would be to take all values and make an averaging calculation to become one value for the whole aircraft. Again, we do not know for sure but it is assumed that this is what Sukhoi does.

If you have hoped that Lockheed somehow invented a way how to make RCS of several magnitudes lower than the rest of the competition and that all those brilliant minds working for Boeing, Dassault, EADS, SAC or Sukhoi have been scratching their heads in desperate attempts to replicate that for decades, then you will most likely be disappointed. But this is not to say that differences do not exist…

I hope it is clear for now. I do not appreciate more uninformed debate on this topic unless you somehow can get the exact procedures how the different values with different aircraft makers are presented. Other way we will only turn in circles with different brigades defending their positions, both of them having no clue. Trust me, we have seen it all here before..

i said nothing about the Dassault and EADS so dont bring them here 😉 their UAV and cruise missile do have very low RCS i agree but not their fighter
secondly , you say t-50 will be much better than F-35 because of it’s agility and speed while you completely ignore the adavantages of F-35 in RCS and you also ignore the effectiveness of HOBS missiles along with DAS :confused::confused:
yeah may be i dont know exactly the different in method they used to calculate the RCS of F-35 and T-50 however i can also assume T-50 have bigger RCS as it have a big intake with the engine blades not hidden ( just like you say F-35 will be less agile compared to T-50 because of it’s higher wing loading ;))
or you are assuming that Russian have no experiences in Stealth suddenly have a design that not only equal in stealth but also have better avionics , more agile , have higher speed , carry more missiles and also cheaper than what USA does 🙂

Yes. correct. The baseline Su-27 is about 15 square meters RCS. So that would make the MKI around 20 square meters in RCS.

But where does it says this is an average or maximum or minimum angle measuments.

And where does it say the LM 0.001 square meters in minimum or average or maximum RCS measuments?

Do you have information on both Sukhoi and LM basic methods in such figures of RCS?
Are they done in similar fashion?

Do you get my point now?

All you do is picking some very selective tidbits of information, and form it in your biased world and then try to sell it on these Aviation forum.

Pls stop. We had similar debates many times before, and there is nothing new on the matter.

so you mean the RCS of F-35 that LM public is the lowest they can get , while by contrast when Russian measure RCS of T-50 they simply take the biggest value to public :confused::confused:

Where on earth did you come by such information:confused:

Judging from your posts, you pulled all this out of your @ss..:(

First of all you make it sound like that EODAS is the golden coin in SA.
I can assure you its not. AWACS are. It still is and will allways be that way.

Second, where is the info that state F-35 has much lower RCS over Pak-Fa RCS?

Sources, sources and sources. Show up or don’t bother at all with your unsupported claims.
I’ve seen poster like you before on this forum, shows up with zippo credibility and talk the talk. No doubt you’ll evaporate soon enough.. as people loose interest in you garbage.

according to russian defence ministry official

According to a defence ministry official, “It is an amazing looking aircraft. It has a Radar Cross Section (RCS) of just 0.5 square metre as compared to the Su-30MKI’s RCS of about 20 square metres.”

[That means that while a Su-30MKI would be as visible to enemy radar as a metal object 5 metres X 4 metres in dimension, the FGFA’s radar signature would be just 1/40th of that.]

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/india-russia-close-to-pactnext-generation-fighter/381718/
and we all know US government claim RCS of F-35 equal a golf ball 0.0015 m2 😉

and about the SA it obviously that DAS do improve SA alot yes it not as good as AWACs but for a fighter it good enough
and about the effectiveness of HMD and HOBS missiles do i have to recall the practice between German mig-29 and USA F-16 🙂

If you think that PAK FA will have 0,5 m2 average frontal RCS, and F-35 will have 0,001 m2 average frontal RCS, you’re wrong.
You think that LM has some magic technology, and all the others has 100 years delays compared to LM in military aviation.
You’re trying to prove at any cost you’re right, without any serious arguments, sorry but that’s just silly.

they have more experience in stealth than Russian so they can do better ,at least US is the only country with 3 operate stealth aircraft F-117 , B-2 , F-22 ( just like russian is better than US at making supersonic anti ship missiles )

In the real war no one will give you opportunity to choose how you want to fight unless you fight against the enemy who can`t fight you back.

that the idea of bvr and stealth :rolleyes:

That is the idea behind all the BVR missiles from the beginning, but till now not the one with the most results/kills, because there were and there will be ways to counter such idea.

because of low technology , ROE , IFF in the past , they are now been improved and if you talk about about real war the thing that matter the most is number and tactic especially in WVR

I will try to explain once more.
Older generation plane with older generation missiles against vastly superior enemy was able to shoot down enemy plane and was able to dodge a lot of missiles and to outrun (enter and exit the fight) plane such as F-15 thanks to its higher speed.

the case it shot down f-18 have been explained that because of AWACS mistake IFF problem :p , but i agree they did a good job in running away 😀

The point is, higher speed has its strong points and it is always good to have the extra speed for many reasons.
And the reason they shot down few Mig-25`s lies in the fact that they fought against enemy that was superior in every single way (situational awareness/numbers/technological gap etc.)

technological gap is what make the situational awareness different , and in some case mig-25 fought an equal number of f-15 and still lose 😉 even mig-25 do have superior kinematic than both F-16 and F-15

The F-35 lacks in the supersonic domain (supersonic speed/persistence) and when put against the same generation fighter plane (not the Mig-25) that has superior kinetic capabilities he will find himself in tactically disadvantageous position.

f-35 is less agile , fly slower but it have lower RCS , 1 engine + topcoat + slower speed = less IR signature=> detected enemy first => first lock , first shot , not to mention HOBS missiles , DAS make the little bit more agile of T-50 irrelevant :p

?
I don`t need one, I`m 100% it will be superior because that plane is designed with supercruise and supersonic maneuverability in mind.
It will have better T/W ratio, better L/D ratio, better SEP. It is also interesting to look at wing leading edge sweep angle that is close to 50°. Another interesting thing is LEVCON and TVC. LEVCON optimizes the air flow over the surface of the plane (blended wing body). That way you can reduce drag, increase lift and delay vortex burst. It is also very useful for pitch control. When you have the plane with highly relaxed longitudinal stability such as PAK FA it is very good to have excellent pitch control. On the other hand highly relaxed longitudinal stability (longitudinal instability) is desired for optimal transonic/supersonic lift to drag characteristics. It is known that in transonic region, the formation of shock waves on the wing surface and the resulting separated flow causes movement of the wing aerodynamic center (CL). The aft shift of the aerodynamic center results in an increase in longitudinal stability at a constant Mach number (plane becomes “nose heavy”). In order to trim the plane you need to use elevators for more negative pressure (decrease in lift and increase in drag). When using LEVCON for trimming purposes you are applying positive deflection (you are increasing the lift) because LEVCON is placed in front of CG. You can also use TVC for trimming in combination with LEVCON. For example, Dasa’s study shows that a Eurofighter flying at 30,000ft (9,150m) and a speed of M1.8 requires a 4° upward flaperon deflection to maintain level flight. A 5° upward nozzle deflection instead would enable the aircraft to fly “clean” and reduce the required engine thrust by 3%.
Combined (LEVCON/TVC) you get less drag, more lift, better speed and acceleration and also better supersonic maneuverability.
Under the same conditions (regarding Eurofighter), but in a sustained turn, where the pitch element of the control surface deflection was 6° up, this could be reduced to 2° combined with a 4° nozzle-up component. In this configuration lift coefficient would be increased by 14%, translating into a 9% improvement in turn rate.
Another example is YF-22.
YF-22 had an increased supersonic STR when using TVC. At 38,000 feet and Mach 1.2, the turn rate advantage was 31m/s in terms of SEP, meaning for the same turn rate, the YF-22 had an excess of power when the TVC was used.

All the things applied to PAK FA (supersonically optimized aerodynamic/inlet, LEVCON/TVC) + better SEP, T/W, L/D ratio will put that plane in totally different league compared to F-35.

still dont help your plane out turn a short range missiles 😉 the kinematic , agility superior of T-50 will be useful after F-35 use all of it’s 3 meteor , 2 aim-132 , 4 CUDA 😉
and to be fair we dont really know how much more agile T-50 is compared to F-35 does it really make much different even the T/W value also depend on how much fuel these aircraft have left , lift affected by altitude a lot , supercruise and top speed simply mean nothing in WVR …etc

One example!
If we take first F-15 and first Su-27 and go through every single component separately we can conclude that F-15 has probably more sophisticated electronics and radar, but when you look at the planes as a whole and what you get as an end result, there is no way you can claim that F-15 was superior plane. The end result is what matters and it dosen`t matter if you use brute force to replace deficiency in some other field or you use something else for that matter, the end result is what counts.

depend on what version of the 2 aircraft but yeah these 2 quite even