• Saturday, December 7, 2019

Russia experts estimate F-22 RCS at 0.3 m^2 and Su-57 RCS at 0.35 m^2. Fairly realistic numbers.

Discussion in 'Air Warfare' started by Austin Powers, Nov 30, 2018.

  1. randomradio

    randomradio BANNED

    Messages:
    6,991
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2016
    Ratings:
    +12 / 4,739 / -29
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    http://tass.com/defense/973625
    "This is actually a splendid plane and it can embrace both fifth-and sixth-generation features. It has huge modernization potential. Importantly, it is the best among the existing versions by its stealth characteristics. It incorporates all the best that is available in modern aviation science both in Russia and in the world," he said.

    The Russians believe the PAK FA is more stealthy than the F-22/F-35 in fact. There are people in HAL also who agree. HAL was redesigning PAK FA to make its RCS lower than any other fighter aircraft in the world, their own words, which included using better materials and also removing some of the performance specific designs the Russians had made.

    There's nothing to dispute with what you said with regards to the F-15 not being able to pick up the Raptor.

    Rafale OTOH has a lot of WVR friendly sensors even if the radar fails.
     
  2. SME11B

    SME11B FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    181
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2018
    Ratings:
    +0 / 23 / -2
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    I am talking about the image that claims to be an f-22 over syria from su-35. F-22 can beat older aircraft and has done it many times. It's one of the best dog fighters in the world and now with aim-9X blk 2 and a helmet display it's even better. Just because someone finally got a kill within visual range doesn't disprove that it's the best in the world and BVR and one of the best at WVR. Most of the time in a real war f-22 wouldn't let anybody get that close anyway its not in it's design philosophy.

     
  3. randomradio

    randomradio BANNED

    Messages:
    6,991
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2016
    Ratings:
    +12 / 4,739 / -29
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    It's authentic.

    Rafale and F-22 fought 6 times. There were 4 no results and 1 victory for each jet.

    Weirdly, the Su-35 picture belies that claim.

    Obviously we do not know the whole story. But it's weird that the F-22 was caught in a highly compromised position versus the Su-35. One would wonder what actually happened for it to have reached that point in the first place.
     
  4. SME11B

    SME11B FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    181
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2018
    Ratings:
    +0 / 23 / -2
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    We also have logic and circumstantial evidence. For instance if Iran claims it has a stealth fighter better than f-22 there are a number of reason to doubt that. Like their known habit of shameless lying about their military capabilities and that they have not demonstrated this ability before. I have heard claims all over the map about su-57 from the russians themselves, until now they seemed to concede it was at least a little less stealthy but they emphasized other things in the design. Equal to or better stealth is a new claim as far as I know. As for the image both sides make different claims and if it did get closer to f-22 than before it must be factored in the situation and the f-22 intercept prior to this. There may have been communication between the Russians and US for deescalation.
     
  5. gambit

    gambit PROFESSIONAL

    Messages:
    24,646
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Ratings:
    +141 / 22,353 / -8
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    That is the point, ya dope...:lol:

    People posts all these ALTERED images and EDITED videos as if they are indisputable.
     
  6. gambit

    gambit PROFESSIONAL

    Messages:
    24,646
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Ratings:
    +141 / 22,353 / -8
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    It is not about the F-15's radar. It is about ANY radar, even from the 70s or 80s.

    What is 'within visual range' (WVR), meaning in the context of air combat, how far is that?

    It means from the distance where your UNASSISTED vision can make out a speck of an aircraft to the point where you can make out its silhouette...

    https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005594
    At this distance, radar detection of 'non-stealth' aircrafts, minus background clutter, is %99. Factor in background clutter, such as weather or literally the ground, the higher the density of the clutter, the greater the loss of acquisition base upon that density.

    Here is an example of the many studies of that loss...

    http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1692-17982017000200170
    So when there is a HUD video of an F-22 where the jet is not a speck but full silhouette, that is not 'proof' that the F-22's is 'vulnerable' in any way. It is a VISUAL acquisition. Nothing more.

    If your weapon is radar guided, the F-22 have been testified by pilots as extremely difficult to acquire even at full silhouette level. The seeking radar did not 'failed'. The F-22's shaping was to INCREASE that probability of false alarms regardless of radar system design.

    The pilot's vision can make out details like canopy or even distinct panels. But that is not how the radar 'sees' the aircraft.

    This...

    [​IMG]

    ...Is how a radar actually 'sees' an aircraft: a cluster of voltage spikes.

    One voltage spike can be a sum -- constructive or destructive interference -- of many smaller spikes. The seeking radar does not know which and never will be able to. All the radar computer know is -- a voltage spike exist.

    Further, that cluster of voltage spikes must be CONSISTENT OVER TIME and that time duration is dependent upon radar design. Too short of a time and the radar will display ghosts. Too long and the radar will not display legitimate targets. What is 'too short' or 'too long' are manufacturer secrets.

    So just because there are HUD videos of the F-22 in full silhouette that does not mean the radar 'looking' at the jet have full lock on the jet.
     
  7. randomradio

    randomradio BANNED

    Messages:
    6,991
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2016
    Ratings:
    +12 / 4,739 / -29
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    It's not a photoshopped image. It was leaked by an active Russian pilot.

    https://www.instagram.com/fighter_bomber_/

    He has other similar pics also.




    Let's forget about the Rafale kill and let's talk about the exercise as a whole.

    There were 6 engagements, and going by the USAF, 5 were draws. So how did an aircraft with significantly more TWR, with TVC and apparently the 'best' in the world struggle against the Rafale, an aircraft with poor TWR and designed 10 years before the Raptor? Remember the Rafale-A first flew in 1986, around the time the F-22's RFP was released.

    And fast forward 32 years later, the Rafale has significantly more advanced avionics, significantly superior maintenance and logistics, significantly lower costs, with similar WVR performance as the F-22, along with, whether you believe it or not, a similar frontal RCS.

    Coming back to the topic, even the Japanese think the modernised F-22 offered to them is not good enough compared to the threats they face. :lol:
     
  8. gambit

    gambit PROFESSIONAL

    Messages:
    24,646
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Ratings:
    +141 / 22,353 / -8
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    Yes, and he 'insisted' that the images are no edited in any way. :lol:

    What were the ROE?

    That is because the Japanese used Nyquist filters?
     
  9. randomradio

    randomradio BANNED

    Messages:
    6,991
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2016
    Ratings:
    +12 / 4,739 / -29
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    Why don't you find out and let me know.

    Maybe you are confused between Nyquist-Shannon theorem and bandpass filters. :lol:

    If you're trying to mock me by making shit up, at least try to be more creative.

    But even this you're gonna have to find out yourself.
     
  10. gambit

    gambit PROFESSIONAL

    Messages:
    24,646
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Ratings:
    +141 / 22,353 / -8
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    No, that burden is on YOU since you -- and many others - claimed that these images and videos are authentic and unadulterated.

    You can turn this around and apply the argument to US as well and I have no problems with it. Anything from the goobermint SHOULD be treated as suspect. What you or I chose to believe is based upon our experiences and you and I shares NOTHING in terms of that. I have my USAF yrs and you have no military experience. I have nearly nine civilian yrs in direct connection with the technical aspects of radar and related avionics systems. You have nothing similar, I assume.

    So when I said 'I believe' and you said 'I believe', whose opinion is going to be more credible?

    Whatever, buddy. You STILL do not understand what kind of sampling that I said SPECTRA must perform. So yes, you are deserving of my mockery.
     
  11. randomradio

    randomradio BANNED

    Messages:
    6,991
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2016
    Ratings:
    +12 / 4,739 / -29
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    Okay, my statement there was directed at the ROE of the dogfight. I found your comment on the photo simply pointless, but it looks like I forgot to omit it out of the quote.

    I've heard people in the know claim the US relies too much on blatant and ridiculous propaganda, so even you'd fall in that list. We already see the snake oil the US is willing to sell to us every day. Even the IAF had to bureaucratically delay the C-17 deal until they couldn't stop it anymore, but managed to lower the 6 jets order to just 1 jet. Otoh, they found out the IL-76 was a far superior transporter in exercises when they compared both. And a high ranking officer in the know claimed the P-8I is our weakest link in the navy.

    So yeah, I know first hand how idiotic it is to believe just simple words on the internet. But that doesn't mean everything is true or everything is false. Has the US still found WMDs in Iraq?

    The Spectra uses a superheterodyne receiver, so it uses both kinds of sampling, over and under the Nyquist rate, and also simultaneous sampling. Why are you so confused? No point arguing about this.

    Typical strawman arguments designed to divert from the real argument.

    The core argument is Spectra doesn't use sampling for ACT. But that's not getting through you. So it's pointless.
     
  12. gambit

    gambit PROFESSIONAL

    Messages:
    24,646
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Ratings:
    +141 / 22,353 / -8
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    It is not pointless. It is revealing of the flaw people like you miss in your own argument. The flaw exists because you conflate the visual with the radar.

    And yet you believe that if the HUD video have the F-22 in its sight, that mean radar as well. You want idiotic? Go look in the mirror.

    What is your conception of WMD? I have the UN's definition on my side.

    MOD EDIT: No personal insults. When you people can have a debate based on facts and figures, do not ruin it by getting personal
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 6, 2018
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  13. randomradio

    randomradio BANNED

    Messages:
    6,991
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2016
    Ratings:
    +12 / 4,739 / -29
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    I've already said it before, even if the radar did not pick up the F-22, the Rafale still has other sensors to track it.

    Previously: Rafale OTOH has a lot of WVR friendly sensors even if the radar fails.

    This is the problem, you randomly come to your own conclusions.

    Haha. Let's talk about Iraqi WMDs after you actually find some.

    The rest is just pointless rambling.
     
  14. LeGenD

    LeGenD ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    9,007
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Ratings:
    +22 / 8,367 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Their is a difference between VLO-compliant protrusions and the questionable ones:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    The sharp-edged protrusions [weapon bays] in the underbelly and sensor-based protrusions on the top are not VLO-compliant as per aviation experts.

    A comparison of the structures of F-22A and SU-57 from below:

    [​IMG]

    You can also notice air inlet bumps on the bottom of SU-57 which is not the case in F-22A.

    F-22A and F-35 variants* do not have similar type of protrusions.

    F-22A top view:

    [​IMG]

    Decent information in this link: https://www.f-22raptor.com/st_fa22tricks.php

    Design characteristics of F-35 variants:

    [​IMG]

    *The EOTS in F-35 variants at the bottom, is VLO-compliant [position-wise, and it is enclosed in a sapphire glass window with Indium Tin Oxide (ITO) treatment].

    F-22A has ceramic RAM blockers right before the nozzles, mind you.

    Below is a diagram which better illustrate the differences in the rear sections of both aircraft:-

    [​IMG]

    Contrast:

    [1] http://www.latinaero.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/nws_dfs_170811_01-001.jpg
    [2] ]http://lh3.ggpht.com/-aFkewsgd-44/UBJViw05VZI/AAAAAAAAFt0/nVf6Pp8VIZE/T-50-PAK-FA-Fifth-Generation-Fighter-Aircraft-FGFA-02_thumb%255B1%255D.jpg?imgmax=800

    With:

    [1] https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4080/4809802434_299d9f1425_b.jpg

    "The shaping of the T-50 is inferior to that of the F-22 Raptor. This is mostly a byproduct of the significantly more complex shaping of the lower fuselage area, the use of a tunnel between the engine nacelles, and the aft fuselage join between the aft engine nacelles, and fuselage at the wing and stabilator roots. The single narrow specular mainlobe produced by the careful shaping and fuselage joining of the F-22 presents a much smaller visible angular extent compared to the T-50." - Air Power Australia (2010)

    [​IMG]

    "The T-50’s design emphasizes frontal stealth, with RCS-reducing features most apparent in the forward hemisphere; the shaping of the aft fuselage is much less optimized for radar stealth compared to the F-22. The combined effect of airframe shape and RAM of the production aircraft is estimated to have reduced the aircraft’s RCS to a value thirty times smaller than that of the Su-27. Sukhoi’s patent of the T-50’s stealth features cites an average RCS of the aircraft of approximately 0.1-1 square meters." - Thai Military

    [1] http://fullafterburner.weebly.com/uploads/8/4/8/6/84869598/22_orig.jpg
    [2] http://fullafterburner.weebly.com/uploads/8/4/8/6/84869598/30_orig.jpg

    "The Joint of Vertical Stabiliser and Horizontal stabiliser with aft body of F 22 has been thoughroughly optimised to reduce radar reflection." - Full Afterburner

    [​IMG]

    The engines in F-22A are also VLO-compliant: http://aviationweek.com/program-management-corner/closer-look-stealth-part-5-nozzles-and-exhausts

    You are the only individual on the web, who is boasting that F-22A is not VLO-compliant in the rear. However, every single aviation expert is claiming otherwise, and pointing out that the rear section of SU-57 is not VLO-compliant instead.

    Their are significant differences in the design (airframe), avionics + sensor suite, and RAM treatment of SU-57 and F-22A; I am highlighting some of these differences in order dispel the notion that the holistic RCS ouput of these two aircraft is very close (0.3 m^2 and 0.35 m^2).

    So, yes, I am not buying these figures. This is not an indication of bias on my end, but I have a critical mindset and prefer to do my own homework for virtually any theme of discussion. I would even critic F-22A in a relevant discussion, should the need arise, but this aircraft do not have a list of glaring shortcomings.

    Virtually any COAS of Pakistan have asserted - while addressing troops - that Pakistan Army is the best in the world in view of its accomplishments in War On Terror (live recordings), but I have my independent observations. Reality is much complex than moral-raising assertions. Conventional wisdom is a gift I suppose, but I am not into providing an argument for the sake of argument.

    You behave like a Russian bot on the other hand; you take even Russian propaganda efforts at face value which is naive. Have some independent thought.

    A Russian source claimed that F-22A and SU-57 have an RCS of 0.3 m^2 and 0.35 m^2 respectively, then it must be true. NO SHIT SHERLOCK.

    Their are noticeable differences in the airframe of SU-57 and F-22A. Some of these differences are visible from afar (see above).

    Additional differences will become apparent with careful inspections up close:

    "The F/A-22 has a low height triangle appearance from the front. This physical cross sectional view ensures a small signature from the front and low observability touches such as paint and materials, as well as little "W" shapes where straight lines might have appeared, all tend to break up the signature by absorption or redirection.

    CLICK: https://www.f-22raptor.com/pix/photos/rcs/gal_234_b.jpg

    The "W" shapes are found at numerous places on the stealth aircraft. For instance, in the forefront of the cockpit glass, there is a very apparent "W" shape. This reduces the radar energy reflected during a head-on pass to the radar emitter. The "W" shape is also found on landing gear doors, engine inlets and outlets, as well as other openings."

    Source: https://www.f-22raptor.com/st_fa22tricks.php

    Good to see that you admit that the SU-57 will never have identical seams and gaps as in the F-22.

    Next step is to come to terms with the fact that the airframe of F-22 is VLO-compliant to a much greater degree than SU-57 (numerous hints provided above; my comments and information in the links). RAM coating treatments are also different for both.

    See above.

    Meaningful discussion here: https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-...tical-stabilizers-compared-to-the-T50-and-J20

    "The rear-aspect view of the aircraft is not as stealthy, a feature also seen on the Sukhoi T-50. This is clearly an intentional trade, eliminating the heavy 2D nozzles of the F-22. In this respect, both the T-50 and J-20 reflect the philosophy behind the pre-1986 Advanced Tactical Fighter studies that preceded the F-22, based on the theory that a fast, high-flying, agile aircraft is relatively immune from rear-quarter attacks." - Bill Sweetman (2012)

    The bullet points are from an engineer working for Lockheed Martin (identity withheld from the public); he understands this stuff much better than either of us, and distant observers in general. He is best suited to clarify his points with relevant graphical aids [should he choose to], but why would he want to give Russians rich pointers? Why not let Russians believe that they have mastered the art of stealth? Real surprises lay in store for potential enemies in a battlespace, mind you.

    You can seek further insight and clarification on Quora; somebody might address your queries there.

    I am also tagging a member who understand this stuff better than most on PG: @Manticore

    SU-57 is essentially a re-imagined SU-27 with an LO-compliant design (core similarities); I tend to distinguish LO from VLO to highlight this difference.

    Boeing also proposed an LO-compliant design of F-15C in the form of F-15 Silent Eagle:



    Advanced prototype:



    Some countries (including Israel) signaled there interest in this bird, but Pentagon rejected this project.

    Please keep in mind that F-22A is not a re-imagined F-15C but a VLO-compliant design from scratch. It is a class of its own in the domain of VLO, but no longer in production.

    American military expedition in Vietnam turned into a disaster, but this war provided invaluable insight to Americans in regards to developing new generation of weapon systems, and how to minimize casualties, for potential expeditions in the future. It would be the Iraqi armed forces to experience the might of an ENTIRELY EVOLVED war-machine in 1991, and fell apart in a span of 45 days. And additional expeditions under the banner of War On Terror since 2001 are also among the least costly wars in terms of men and materials in American history. At present, US is rolling out another wave of weapon systems, and these are aimed for dominating modern-era battlespaces involving Russia and/or China.

    Yes! Numerous factors such as faceting, platform alignment, continuous curvature, and keeping seams tight and plush, RAM coating, engines, and avionics + sensor suite, come together to reduce RCS of an aircraft; SU-57 have a much lower RCS than SU-27 due to combination of these factors. And F-22A excel in all of these areas [in case you didn't knew].

    Their is much difference between a "demonstrator" and a "finished product." Demonstrator can be a carefree design (not operationally realistic).

    A weapon bay on either SIDE is responsible for the sharp-edged protrusions in the bottom of SU-57 (pictures above). Sukhoi attempted to increase firepower of the aircraft with these additions much like in the F-22A but failed to make these additions VLO-compliant as in F-22A.

    [​IMG]

    Where do you notice corner reflectors in the bottom of F-22A? Any pointers?

    [​IMG]

    SU-57 conform to stealthy principles to a reasonable extent (LO-compliant), but this is not my point of contention.

    The point of contention is that F-22A is VLO-compliant in comparison.

    The PRODUCTION MODEL of SU-57 conform to this patented drawing in large part: https://redsamovar.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/t-50-pak-fa-fifth-generation-fighter-aircraft-025.jpg

    Patents - irrespective of when they are filed and published - are among the best documents to consult in order to figure out [expected] performance parameters (and characteristics) of the PRODUCTION MODEL; they are supposed to be theoretically accurate in the context of DESIGNS and setting goals. Deviations might occur during the prototyping stage, but they are not necessarily for the better (engineering-related challenges and cost overruns can lead to less desirable outcomes at times). Moreover, a complex product is likely to be the sum of a series of patents (not just one), so I would not declare any patent as OUTDATED on my own.

    It is rather easy to set the bar [of desirable outcomes] very high in theory. Some of the products being manufactured today, might actually be based on the documents (and concepts) proposed way back in the 1960s, but engineering-capabilities of the time were not up to the task.

    The latest engine [Izd.30] for use in SU-57 [2 in total], have addressed the super-cruise part (possible up to MACH 1.3 in speed at present), reduced the RCS of the host aircraft to an extent (rear spectrum), and improved the T/W ratio of the host aircraft (from 1.02 to 1.16) - weren't these parameters envisaged in the patents earlier? F-35A have the T/W ratio of 1.16 as of 2018 as per one source (author might have access to seemingly undisclosed information).

    "In order to make the device highly manoeuvrable, the Izd.117 as well as the Izd.30 are equipped with a vector thrust operating on the horizontal and vertical axes. This choice obviously has an impact on the shape of the engine nozzle, a solution such as that adopted on the F-22 (fine integration of the nozzle within the general architecture of the aircraft) being impossible to install on the Su-57." - Red Samovar (2018)

    Informed Russians are under no illusion, on average.

    As member @gambit have pointed out to you earlier, these disclosures might actually be propaganda (DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN of sorts) with doctored images. Who the hell knows?

    Rafale MIGHT (emphasis on the word) have a shot against an F-22A in actual combat, but I would be really nervous in the shoes of the pilot of the former aircraft. I would be really nervous even if I were to pilot an SU-57 when up against an F-22A, to be honest. Iraqi MIG-29s and Mirage F-1s were a match for any aircraft [in the inventory of USAF] of the time in theory (I believe that relevant discussions back in the 1980s were just as furious as they are today for latest generation of aircraft), but we know how the actual fights turned out.

    Jeez, you are one hot-tempered fella.

    The diagram is notional, but its 'intended message' is the IMPACT of F-22A on the radar coverage of the opposing aircraft; that F-22A renders the advertised radar coverage of the opposing aircraft irrelevant due to its VLO characteristics and embedded set of defenses.

    [​IMG]

    My point was to highlight the fact that VLO aspect come down to avionics + sensor suite as well; these should be optimized for low observability by design and how they are embedded in the airframe (SU-57 have shortcomings in these matters; some pointers above).

    I am also leaving a hint that SU-57 does not have DAS-equavilent [I am preparing a response for another thread in which this part will be adequately covered]. I am sure that half of what you wrote is not clear to you either; this is why you made a blanket assertion that SU-57 have everything found in F-35 variants and then some (BULLSHIT).

    Yes, SU-57 does have extensive radar coverage; this is a plus point in its case. But do not expect much when the opposing aircraft is F-22A or even F-35 variants (read below).

    ===

    F-22 pilot Lt. Col. Wade Tolliver responded to charges of sub-standard F-22 performance in a June 13/06 Virginian-Pilot article, and illustrated a number of the points above:

    “In the Raptor, “I can outmaneuver an F-16, F-15, F-18. It doesn’t matter…” [and] the F-22’s radar works in a way that allows him to use it without revealing himself. Though its exact workings are classified, the F-22 is known to emit radar signals in extremely short bursts over multiple frequencies.

    “Even if you detect me, you’re not going to know where I am a second from now,” said Joe Quimb, a spokesman for Lockheed Martin, the Raptor’s principal builder.

    Tolliver said that radar and other sensors, along with information fed into the Raptor’s computers from ground-based radars and other planes, gives F-22 pilots an exceptional, unified view of potential threats and targets aloft and on the ground… “It’s amazing the information you have at your fingertips,” Tolliver said. In no-holds-barred mock battles with F-15s, F-16s and the Navy’s F/A-18 Hornets, he and other Raptor pilots generally “destroy” their adversaries before those foes even realize they’re around…”

    That was proven in the June 2006 Northern Edge exercise, when even E-2C and E-3 AWACS aircraft reportedly weren’t much help against the F-22. After their missiles were fired, the F-22’s active & passive sensor capabilities functioned as the Raptor’s last weapon. Northern Edge 2006’s Raptors remained in the fight, flying as stealthy forward air controllers and guiding their colleagues to enemies sitting behind mountains and other “Blue Force” AWACS blind spots. When the AIM-120D AMRAAM missile enters wider service, F-22s will also have the option of actively guiding missiles fired by other aircraft.

    Courtesy of the DEFENSE INDUSTRY DAILY

    ===

    Please keep in mind that E-2C Hawkeye 2000 and E-3B Sentry are among the best of AWACS even in the present, and optimized to search for enemy aircraft in the low frequency ranges.

    I believe that special RAM coating treatments have a role in ensuring VLO output even in the low frequency ranges - something beyond the scope of any open-source analysis.

    Addressed above.

    Member @gambit have covered this part in a response to you.

    As for the imaginary defects in the VLO-compliant rear section of F-22A; please seek an instructor in VLO sciences (American preferably). I covered this part to a certain extent above, but not expecting you to follow through.

    Does not look authentic to me.

    @gambit what do you think?

    Russian propaganda efforts are a given in a contested region such as Syria: https://thenewsrep.com/96030/while-...red-and-it-didnt-end-like-russias-fairy-tale/

    Another: https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-russian-su-35-pilot-f-22-dogfight-2018-9

    And even if an SU-35S got so close as to obtain a lock on an F-22A with its OLS-35 IRST solution somewhere over Syria (possible up to 20 KM distance; assuming lack of IR-suppressing features in the opposing aircraft), the SU-35S itself would be under the lock from another F-22A nearby [a pair of F-22A are known to patrol Syrian airspace at any given time]. F-22A have IR-suppressing capabilities by the way. In fact, pilot of the F-22A [under lock supposedly] would be aware of the presence of an SU-35S nearby (and its position) much earlier.

    Russia and US have DECONFLICTION arrangement for operations in Syria, and are unlikely to fight each other there anyways.

    Nevermind.

    Did it occur to you that SU-57 have an inlet problem in terms of VLO?

    And how effective are these radar blockers? Not very.

    F/A-18E and SU-57 are peers in LO by the way - both feature the AMAZING SPIDERMAN radar blocker technologies.

    From Lockeed Martin: "True stealth cannot be retrofitted."

    [​IMG]

    True engineers do not bring the "walls of text" argument, and neither are they arrogant.

    I do get the impression from your posts that you have a good grasp of various concepts (you might be a professional), but you need to act like one. Start with a humble take on things in your posts, so that potential readers give you the benefit of doubt and respect you in person.

    I am sure that your grasp of certain topics is much better than mine, but I am very very good in digging out information [of interest], and I have the capacity to understand complex stuff (academic credentials and skills).

    I would be tagging you in some of my discussions in regards to Russian stuff.

    Not this again.

    Tyler Rogoway have written an article in which he have provided an overview of the key merits of SU-57: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...k-six-features-we-like-on-russias-new-fighter

    So there is positive publicity in the Western circles, and I am keen to look into them.

    MOD EDIT: No personal insults
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 6, 2018
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  15. SME11B

    SME11B FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    181
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2018
    Ratings:
    +0 / 23 / -2
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    If they were draws then the rafale struggled against f-22 also, struggled against a fighter that was optimized primarily for BVR combat. Looks good for f-22. More or less what was expected and in an age of helmet sights and lock on after launch data linked missiles slight maneuverability advantages are not as important as they once were. Also any countermeasures f-22 deploys will benefit from it's stealth, less signature to cover up. Where was the source of the japanese saying an f-22 wasn't capable enough?