Russian Su-57 Aircraft Thread (PAK-FA and IAF FGFA)

FriedRiceNSpice

FriedRiceNSpice

Captain
As for the 0.5m^2 RCS, wouldn't that put the Su-57 in same range as EF2k and Rafale (possibly J-10C) in terms of stealth capability (but not technology, as it's more difficult for a large heavyweight fighter to attain the same RCS as a light or midweight fighter)? For F-35, RCS is < 0.1m^2, and F-22 even less. So even if the 0.5 figure is accurate, it puts the Su-57 in roughly the same technology and capability range as EF2K (primarily in terms of stealth, super cruise, and avionics), apart from the fact it may carry some weapons in internal bay which allows it to stay in the 0.5m range when somewhat armed and improved range/payload/radar size based on the virtue of being a larger and heavier aircraft (different weight class).
 
b787

b787

Captain
Air Force Brat said:
Heh! Heh!, well believe what you like?? the SU-57 is NO where near the league of the YF-23, nor the Raptor, or F-35?? that super slender fuselage limits the size of the weapons bay! (the YF-23 had a smaller bay as well), and it just was not as practical, nor as maneuverable as the YF-22!

and that ad copy krap, ( that's Russian for you no what?) that PAK-FA has an RCS that is 1/40th of that of the Flanker, is simply not true, theres no way, but as I said, "believe what you want"??

and you well know that 055 was rebuilt using the fuselage/center section of what would have been 6-1?? so in all honesty as a builder, I would have called that bird 056! (it would have been, had not 055 burnt to a crisp in the fire), LOL

now the forward fuse of PAK-FA does have some chining, and that no doubt does help reduce its radar signature and produce some forward fuselage lift,,, PAK-FA no doubt develops a LOT of lift on the fuse, just as do the F-22 and F-35?

its just not as L/O, and those weapons bays are small, no doubt they are there?? none at all, but they are smallish, and that little fuse also limits internal fuel??
Click to expand...
why can not you admit mistakes?

T-50-5 was rebuilt by adding new parts, T-50-6 is a new aircraft, T-50-7 is a static test bed for T-50-06 T-50- 08 T-50-09, there was no point cannibalizing a perfectly useful airframe when they have tooling to build new parts.

And it is not what i believe, but what the designers said. F-22 is older, Su-57 uses a lot of composites plus having a thin fuselage, means low drag and higher lift, Su-57 combines Su-27 features with YF-23 stealth design, if you care to understand the following you will understand why F-35 or Su-57 have round shapes, the sphere has the lowest RCS by angular reflection, however it sends signals all around, so a good design will combine flat surfaces with round, flat surfaces have better angular response, this mean they are being seen only in a smaller angle, so they concentrate the signal in fewer directions but the RCS is higher, the approaching path has to be calculated




Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
b787

b787

Captain
FriedRiceNSpice said:
As for the 0.5m^2 RCS, wouldn't that put the Su-57 in same range as EF2k and Rafale (possibly J-10C) in terms of stealth capability (but not technology, as it's more difficult for a large heavyweight fighter to attain the same RCS as a light or midweight fighter)? For F-35, RCS is < 0.1m^2, and F-22 even less. So even if the 0.5 figure is accurate, it puts the Su-57 in roughly the same technology and capability range as EF2K (primarily in terms of stealth, super cruise, and avionics), apart from the fact it may carry some weapons in internal bay which allows it to stay in the 0.5m range when somewhat armed and improved range/payload/radar size based on the virtue of being a larger and heavier aircraft (different weight class).
Click to expand...

the RCS 0.5m^2 figure does not mean it has that figure from all angles, Alexander Davidenko said its RCS ranges from 1m^2 RCS to RCS 0.1m^2, RCS 0.5m^2 is an average

this a more realistic concept
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
FORBIN

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
FORBIN said:
Few i have see mach 1.6 in this case with future engines and F-22 to mach 1.8 for SC the more fast
Click to expand...
b787 said:
at this moment, Su-57 is underpowered, it can not compete with the F-22, it only will match the 1.8 Mach supercruise speed with type 30 engine
Click to expand...
Engines etc...
PAK-FA's New Engines Make It 'Easily the Best 5th Gen Fighter in the World'
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


For RCS the claims... are for
In the stealth department, the T-50's radar cross section (rcs) value is 0.1-0.5m, significantly higher than the F-22 and the F-35 (whose values are an impressive 0.0001 and 0.0015).
Click to expand...
Exactly 0,00018 m2 frontal - 40 dBsm substract 10 for rear/sides about
and 0,00143 m2 - 30 dBsm " "

J-20 about 0,01/ 0,05 m2 rear nozzles not good as Su-57 and canards for the rest better even if finaly the RCS is better remains clearly less good than US it is certain with such a difference.
 
Last edited:
FORBIN

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
b787 said:
the RCS 0.5m^2 figure does not mean it has that figure from all angles, Alexander Davidenko said its RCS ranges from 1m^2 RCS to RCS 0.1m^2, RCS 0.5m^2 is an average

this a more realistic concept
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
With this size just stealth almost low observable F-117 is also to 0.1m2, B-2 0.01 m2 frontal ofc
Low observable true : Rafale 0,75-1,10 m2, Typhoon 0,5

For attack against SAMs, SEAD missions frontal is the more important ofc but if the target is not destroyed or remains others systems the rear can become a disability ...and there the F-22 is excellent.
 
Last edited:
b787

b787

Captain
FORBIN said:
With this size just stealth almost low observable F-117 is also to 0.1m2, B-2 0.01 m2 frontal ofc
Low observable true : Rafale 0,75-1,10 m2, Typhoon 0,5

For attack against SAMs, SEAD missions frontal is the more important ofc but if the target is not destroyed or remains others systems the rear can become a disability ...and there the F-22 is excellent.
Click to expand...
if you cared to read the whole article, and read a little of physics and optics, you will know why they say this
easy
However, Tuchkov emphasized that the rcs indicators are "a subject wide open to conjecture, based on disinformation provided either by developers for advertising purposes…or for the purpose of disorienting the enemy (so that he cannot predict in advance the tactics of air battles and interception by air defense forces)."
Click to expand...

why? only true stealth is possible with gases and that is a very relative statement smoke is black and the sky is blue, solid things always will reflect back electromagnetic waves and diffraction, reflection will do their work, F-22 is not stealth, to give you a hint F-22 is solid and built with many types of materials, only morons think the 0.001 figure works for every radar.

Radars were weak in the 1990, today the wattage available in Su-35 and in S-500/S-400s is higher than a 1980s AWACS.

in the light spectrum F-22 is very easy to see; computer power, wave frequency and the wattage used by new radars have increased the ability to render stealth useless.

stealth works only when power density is low, there are few radars, absence of data link is present and computer power is low.

in real life supercruise is more important, it allows for a shorter detection window, a narrower no escape zone for the missile.

Su-57 is built considering speed will always make it harder to defeat.

I can assure you even Rafale, with better radars will beat stealth fighters, stealth will become obsolete, speed and maneuverability will never be out of air combat, laser guns have more future than stealth specially when F-22 costs USD $60000 dollars the flight hour.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:
Air Force Brat

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
b787 said:
if you cared to read the whole article, and read a little of physics and optics, you will know why they say this
easy


why? only true stealth is possible with gases and that is a very relative statement smoke is black and the sky is blue, solid things always will reflect back electromagnetic waves and diffraction, reflection will do their work, F-22 is not stealth, to give you a hint F-22 is solid and built with many types of materials, only morons think the 0.001 figure works for every radar.

Radars were weak in the 1990, today the wattage available in Su-35 and in S-500/S-400s is higher than a 1980s AWACS.

in the light spectrum F-22 is very easy to see; computer power, wave frequency and the wattage used by new radars have increased the ability to render stealth useless.

stealth works only when power density is low, there are few radars, absence of data link is present and computer power is low.

in real life supercruise is more important, it allows for a shorter detection window, a narrower no escape zone for the missile.

Su-57 is built considering speed will always make it harder to defeat.

I can assure you even Rafale, with better radars will beat stealth fighters, stealth will become obsolete, speed and maneuverability will never be out of air combat, laser guns have more future than stealth specially when F-22 costs USD $60000 dollars the flight hour.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...


feel better now B787?? ,,, calling people who disagree with your little theories "morons" and because you gave the Rafale a half a compliment,,(even Rafale?), no doubt Master Forbin will agree with you right???

and what does $60,000 a flight hour have to do with L/O, or PAK-FA, Mr. Lazer-beam???

you probably shouldn't be referring to others as "morons",,, be careful with that "Laser Gun" dude, if you practice your quick draw in the mirror?? "remember, everything reflects"? you could fry your-self???

oh, and very nice pictures in the "light spectrum"?? the PAK-FA is a pretty thang anyway!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top