i guess the indians dont know the rcs of their own planes

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/india-russia-close-to-pactnext-generation-fighter/381718/
Sukhoi’s FGFA prototype, which is expected to make its first flight within weeks, is a true stealth aircraft, almost invisible to enemy radar. 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.

It’s a Russian aircraft. Not an Indian aircraft. Any RCS measurements would have come from Russia. Also, RCS varies with greatly frequency, polarization, and of course, what angle you view the aircraft from. It also depends on how you quantify the RCS- do you refer to head on X-band RCS? Do you refer to head on RCS averaged over a range of frequencies? Or perhaps average over all angles.

Keep in mind that the Russians give a 0.3 m^2 RCS for the Raptor- this alone should tell you that you should not compare the given (and very questionably factual) 0.5 m^2 figure to the publicly available 0.00001 m^2 figure given for the F-22’s frontal RCS. Unless the 0.5 m^2 is misinformation (a reasonable chance), it is plain to see that RCS is being quantified differently by Sukhoi. Or more likely, they just make up public RCS numbers and keep the real data close to their chest.

Also, Sukhoi also gave the Su-47 rcs as 0.3 m^2 in 2002. The Eurocanards, and Super Hornet are usually given in the 0.1-0.5 m^2 range as well.

All this being said, the 0.5 m^2 number is VERY fishy.

I have done a bit of research about it, looks like they are talking overall RCS figure, whatever that means, something like integral value from all angles? Certainly does not allow for extraction of frontal aspect RCS of the bird, at least I cannot start much with it.

Perhaps an average of RCS over all angles. Keep in mind they give 0.3 m^2 for the F-22, which is not consistent with data on its frontal RCS. Or who knows? Maybe they are referring to a worst case angle, but I think this is unlikely as it would give too much indication of the aircraft’s weaknesses. Perhaps the most likely explanation of all is that the number is completely made up as misinformation.

Shouldn’t you be looking at overall center of lift for both the wings and control surfaces? Do you really think the F-16 can outmaneuver any of the Eurocanards? Are you that silly? I’ll give you a hint… The F-22 could only kill the Rafale one time out of six in a dogfight. Do you think the F-16 would actually stand a chance? Here’s a hint, no.

Nice comparative:

The T-50 is a gorgeous aircraft. But even it, next to the Su-27, seems an ugly duckling. I don’t think any fighter aircraft ever produced or ever to be produced will match the Flanker in the looks department (though the Rafale comes close). Also, they should splash more gray on the T-50 similar to the Flanker’s color scheme, but I doubt that the aesthetic concerns of a keypub forum member named Erkokite was at the forefront of their minds when they made the decision.

i doubt they would make it inhouse, i give them more credit than that to even try and i’m sure its industry standard with rcs reduction
i wouldnt be surprised if it was similar to the fa-18ef composites

Makes sense. Guess I misunderstood your post. Apologies.

Dutch parliament has just closed debate on the JSF testprogramme and procurement.
In short, the outcome is:
– procurement of both testaircraft should be postponed.
– all direct and indirect investments in the JSF testprogramme will be cancelled.
– Data from evaluations in 2002 and 2008 are now regarded as outdated. New information concerning cost, delays and predicted total production figures are now available and should be studied carefully.
– reopening an evaluation between candidates should be considered.

The secretary of defence, who was forced to resign due to an adultary-scandal last week, was not available to defend the viewpoints of the political party CDA, which is in favour of buying the JSF. This directly resulted in new discussions in parliament, with abovementioned results.

That’s gonna look bad on LM.

When the chinese screw up a copy of the su-27 that they stole, and cant even build somthig as simple as an engine to save there lives, I am not concenred about them catching us tech wise. I will only worry when the Chinese learn what quality controll means. I got a crib for the new baby a few years ago and I was nervous when I discovered it was made in China. Im not saying to to offend a nationality but the Chinese have a bad bad badd track record with QC.

Oh, yeah… those turbofan engines. They’re real simple. :rolleyes:

The F-22 is the most advanced western aircraft and perhaps still in the world, the most advanced aircraft in aerodynamics still are Russian and American, the LEVCON was introduced by a Russian aircraft, the triplane configuration on a fighter jet also russian on the Su-33, supercruise was brought by the F-22, the Cobra by the Su-27.
No post stall agility means no fifth generation.
Were are not even mentioning the F-16AFTI and F-15 ACTIVE.

The F-22 has F-15 ACTIVE ancestry; the T-50, Su-35 ancestry, both designs deleted canards explain why?
Simply you do not need them.

TVC makes for great very low speed maneuverability and good performance at very high altitude where air density is much lower. But I’m sure you know as well as I do that TVC can cause you to bleed airspeed at a very high rate if used improperly- and as they say, “Speed is life.”

Delta canard setups like the Eurofighter are good for high speed “shoot and scoot” BVR combat where you are executing a cat and mouse BVR game where you may need to come in firing/radar range of a target and you want fire your missiles, turn very quickly and efficiently at M=1.0+ and light your burners and be gone.