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

I do not get this habit of yours in making exceedingly BOLD claims on your own. Once again, how would you know? Through brochures and/or outlandish fanboy stories?

US [pioneered] the philosophy of AWACS in airborne combat with E-3A Sentry, in the 1970s. Vietnam War illustrated the fact that WW2 style battlefield tactics will not deliver results for indefinite period, and innovations are necessary. In connection, emphasis shifted FROM carpet bombing (indiscriminate shelling) TO precision strikes (situational awareness). AWACS proved its mettle in the Persian Gulf War (1991) in which it facilitated scores of one-shot BVR kills among a number of other important missions.

Anyways, AWACS platforms receive substantial upgrades from time-to-time. Learn from this link: https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/d...3-sentry-airborne-warning-and-control-system/

PAF also expressed its interest in raising a fleet of E3 class AWACS due to its ability to detect low-flying aircraft over land, a capability impossible for a number of airborne radars (inability to discriminate aircraft from ground clutter). However, Pressler Sanctions (1990 - 2004) made this acquisition impossible so PAF had to settle for relatively inferior alternatives (not bad in any sense though).

General information: http://airman.dodlive.mil/2018/01/08/e-3-sentry-awacs/

E-3 class AWACS after RSIP enhancements:

"RSIP allow detection of targets about 10 times smaller than non-RSIP AWACS radars, including cruise missiles. Range Resolution improve by 6 times, with a 70 - 100 % increase in Detection Range, and much better Range, Altitude and Azimuth accuracy. RSIP radars are able to see targets with a 0.5 m radar cross section at 300 n.mi. or more. The modification include a new Pulse-compressed waveform, two new adaptive signature processors, and better electronic countermeasures proofing." - DECLASSIFIED INFORMATION

--

And say hello to the airborne beast of USN:

FYI: https://idstch.com/home5/internatio...aircraft-and-cruise-missile-defense-strategy/

I suggest you dig into E-2D Advanced Hawkeye; it incorporate a revolutionary UHF-band mechanically/electronically-scanned HYBRID radar system (AN/APY-9) to unmask a new range of targets in real-time which are almost invisible to [purely] mechanically-scanned as well as electronically-scanned PESA/AESA solutions.







"...Current mechanically scanned and pure electronically scanned radars have inherent shortcomings that limit their effectiveness and compromise their capabilities. The Advanced Hawkeye’s completely new radar merges a traditional mechanically scanned antenna with steerable electronic scanning to maximize the benefits of both technologies, while eliminating the shortcomings of either technology on its own.

It brings together high-speed processors and massive memory, sophisticated processing and tracking algorithms, exotic materials, and expandable, open architecture systems to greatly extend the range at which smaller and more maneuverable targets can be detected and tracked. Fiber optic networks and internet protocols quickly move information in the aircraft, and allow fully networked operations with other assets in the network." - Northrop Grumman

Meaningful information in here: http://www.navyrecognition.com/inde...sense-of-the-xxist-century-us-navy-fleet.html

"The rotodome is designed to spin at three different speeds, completing a full revolution either every 10s, 12s or 15s. The crew also has the option to stop the rotodome. This allows the radar to focus all the energy provided by the E-2D's twin 170 kVa generators, which can each surge to 225 kVa for up to 3h, into a targeted area. Concentrating the beam allows the radar to either find smaller targets closer-in, or pick up larger targets at far greater ranges.

It is this unique combination of mechanical and electronic scanning that allows the E-2D to more than double the range of the previous APS-145 radar on the E-2C. Neither Northrop nor navy officials disclose the range of the APY-9, but it is listed as beyond 300nm (555km) and appears only constrained by the distance to the horizon at the E-2D's mission altitude of 25,000ft."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...may-not-look-pretty-but-packs-big-new-344539/

"The APY-9 is a hybrid, mechanically rotated, electronically steered (in azimuth) solid-state UHF-band radar designed to be less vulnerable to atmospheric attenuation and better able to detect small radar cross section targets than are the much shorter wavelength X-band AESAs (active electronically scanned arrays). The antenna can be slowed or stopped to dwell on targets or stare in one direction, and uses space-time adaptive signal processing to reduce ground clutter and detect easier to detect targets, including land-launched ballistic and cruise missiles.

The APY-9 has a Northrop Grumman high-power solid-state silicon-carbide based transmitter and Raytheon digital receivers, with 19 transmit/receive element channels, as well as three channels for IFF. The APY-9 is claimed to offer almost twice the detection range of the APS-145 (perhaps 350 n.mi.), and far superior near-land/overland performance." - DECLASSIFIED INFORMATION

@gambit

--

Russian Beriev A-100 is a certainly a major leap from the Russian Beriev A-50 class in capabilities [all aspects]; Beriev A-100 incorporate an AESA radar system (Vega Premier) working in S-band [Russian source], which manually scans in azimuth, but electronically in elevation. This radar can reportedly perform 12 rotations per minute (compared to 6 rotations per minute in Beriev A-50 class) to track high-speed targets. A-100 is able to track up to 300 targets at a distance of 650 Km (depending on the type and size of targets) as well as guiding 30 devices at a time. A-100 also packing new generation in Russian EW capabilities.

Details in here: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...00-is-likely-more-than-just-a-new-radar-plane

However, E-2D Advanced Hawkeye have spooked even Russians:

"And while we wait for the A-100, Lockheed Martin has pulled ahead by releasing a new onboard radar – the AN/APY-9, with an active phased array antenna," Tuchkov noted. "Its specifications (as with the A-100) are unknown. But it is already clear that it will be capable of tracking more targets and directing interceptors to them, and feature greater range and resolution. Testing of the An/APY-9 has already been completed, and the system is beginning to be installed on the Grumman Advanced Hawkeye, designed for the US Navy. Moreover, there are excellent prospects for the sale of these aircraft to other countries. Consequently, in this segment the market for Russian arms will have to make room."

Source: https://sputniknews.com/military/201606271042020932-russian-us-awacs-capabilities-analysis/

--

India choose French Rafale - it is the most advanced combat aircraft (nothing from US is a match)
India choose Israeli MF-STAR - it is the most advanced radar system (nothing from US is a match)
India choose Russian S-400 - it is the most advanced AAD/BMDS platform (nothing from US is a match)

Whatever weed you are addicted to, is not good for your mental health.

US have a much stronger and capable military and nuclear capability than India [reality check]; consider yourself lucky that US and India share strategic goals in containing China. India needs US to keep Pakistan + China combo at bay.

 

Nope.

You need to relax, the main point of Spectra right now is to defeat X band radars of fighter jets.

But you still haven't answered how Rafale managed to get weapons quality track using just passive means.

 

Another God sensor you will talk about but not give any real evidence of? Here is your 50 rubles back to the bread line comrade.

 

F-22 has the advantage since it surprised the rafale, spectra would be trying to make out what f-22's radar lpi signals are while aim-120d is closing in and about to go active. Rafale is going to have to react to the missile and still won't know where f-22 is let alone have enough info to fire back, meanwhile f-22 can fire as many times as needed since rafale has either less countermeasures or less energy and probably both after the first missile, assuming it survives the first missile.

 

The patent you keep referring to completely contradicts your claims and that of online-bloggers. Just a small snippet but the rest you can read yourself and don't don't be under any illusions that just because you use google translate that you know precisely what is being said.



http://195.208.85.248/Archive/PAT/2012FULL/2012.01.27/DOC/RUNWC1/000/000/002/440/916/document.pdf



Двигатели самолета расположены в хвостовой части, вплотную друг к другу, что при расположении воздухозаборников по бокам фюзеляжа позволяет реализовать изогнутую форму каналов воздухозаборников. Данное решение применяется для снижения радиолокационной заметности двигателя, и, как следствие, самолета в целом




Amongst other things the patent talks about the engine shape deflecting radar away from the axis, essentially it says the aircraft employed platform alignment. This is also variable if you google in English were people summarized the patent:



http://rentaka.weebly.com/blog/pak-fa-stealth-features-patent-published



"The shape of the airframe reduces the number of directions that radar signals are reflected in with the angles of sweep of the wings and the tail plane's leading and trailing edges, the edges of the air intakes and hatch covers being reduced and deflected from the aircraft's axis. Viewing the aircraft from the flank, the fuselage sides, lateral edges of the air intakes and vertical empennage are all deflected at the same angle."





Now let's use some critical thinking instead of copying and pasting. The inlets are designed for minimnal radar scatter and controling airflow, this is evident by their trapezoid shape that aligns with other major aircraft structures such as leading edges, in essence redirect radar emissions in one direction, laterally away from the threat. The radar blockers, vent screens, slight curvature and complex shape of the inner wall, aka the "sharp" edge as you call it is also mentioned in the patent and impossible to eyeball and make general blanket statements.


Furthermore, the " sharp" edge, as you call it, is faceting inside the inlet where meshed intake ramps converge which has a duel use of, 1. controlling airflow and 2. blocking the inlet face of the engine compressors which either currently have 'radar blockers' or will have them in the future in accordance with the patent. If I understand you correctly you are now claiming faceting is bad...better tell physicists and Lockheed Martin to stop using faceting because it creates sharp edges.







As for "sharp edges", the entire F-117 was made up of them, so what you and those "aviation experts" are saying is dishonest, the F-117 used faceting techniques as apposed to today's aircraft which use mostly continuous editing curvature and blending, with faceting around the side of the fuselage.


Notice two things with the F-117, firstly it has more corner reflectors then any conventional aircraft and secondly it has sharp corners everywhere which are designed re-direct radar emissions. A great example is the top of the fuselage which resembles a pyramid. The reasons for this is similar to why serrations are added to bays, its similar to why the rear of these aircraft have sharp lines that are almost trapezoid like. A good example is the B-2 or F-117. Notice the back of the aircraft and all the sharp convergence of points, very similar to the "w" shape one of your sources mentioned. If today was the first time you found out about the F-117 and you knew nothing about its country of origin or impressive combat record you would probably argue that it's not "VLO compliant", you would argue about the dozen corner reflectors, canopy, none smooth surfaces and all moving v-tails in which you criticized the SU-57 for. Everything you criticized the SU-57 is found on the F-117.

Those sensors are still being tested around with, and change from model to model. When the SU-57s were sent to Syria the SU-57s didn't try to mask their RCS with any enhancers or external tanks, which indicates that the production model will have additional changes to where it will effect the RCS, otherwise they would never allow the aircraft to be exploited to enemy radars. The only noticeable thing they did was they covered up the mesh radar absorbers aft of the canopy which probably helped increase the RCS.


I will want to see what the sensors will look like on the first production aircraft before I can say anything meaningful about them. It should also be noted that the SU-57 uses mesh absorbers much smaller then the wave length itself--interestingly enough a similar solution was used on the F-117 intakes. Those absorbers are right next to one of those 'bumps'. This is added to areas of concern, I would hypothesize that it might have something to do with the round sensor or the flight control surfaces, mainly vertical stabilizers in full or partial deflection, possibly a combination of both. Either way they are added to reduce RCS. The pak-fa /SU-57 has been bashed for these absorbers by ignorant online trolls for years now, they often mention that it's "unstealthy" .....little do they know is that they behave in a manor opposite of what they claim, that they are actually absorbers that probably do a much better job then any RAM paint could ever hope for. The casual trolls will never know any of the science or engineering behind these vents, they may not even notice them at all and if they do they will proclaim, the common armchair general phrase...'that's not stealthy'.


Here is what I'm talking about:





In other words Sukhoi knows much better then anyone on line no matter how those online amateurs try to bend the rules or act like they are some kind of gurus.

Completely irrelevant the SU-57 canopy and sensor housing use 10-12 layers Of tin, oxide and gold to block EM energy and reduces the RCS by 250 times. I don't even know why you brought this topic up, you think that Sukhoi didn't bother treating the canopy or optical housing? Are you trying to impress me? What's next, you you going to post a link that mentions the F-35 has a pair of wings? Am I supposed to be impressed?



Here it is:


https://iz.ru/export/google/amp/248389




"According to the head designer CVTs «Development» Vladimir Vikulina, which was quoted, spraying glass cockpit make multilayered. In addition to gold to shield the lamp used indium and tin. The thickness of the 1st layer is at most 20 nm, and the thickness of the entire deposition — 90 nanometers. This design allows lower radiozametnost avionics 250 times."

This has literally been a standard for conventional aircraft for over a decade. You would be surprised on the effort put forward by Dassualt to reduce radar signature from the Rafale and other conventional aircraft.



The SU-57 does use absorbent material around and inside the intakes:



http://rentaka.weebly.com/blog/pak-fa-stealth-features-patent-published


"the patent spells out the benefits of internal weapons carriage, s-shaped engine air ducts, (which were considered but are actually not implemented in the production PAK FA), and the use of radar blockers. It adds that the inlet guide vanes of the engines' compressors generate "a significant portion [up to 60%] of the radar cross-section of the airframe-powerplant system in the forward hemisphere" and that this is reduced by using radar-blocking devices and radar-absorbing coatings in the walls of the air ducts"



Here is a chunk of the SU-57 composite material, which is apparently made of a fine polymer composite. Notice the thickness and inner honeycomb like structure for additional aid in absorption. Even old aircraft in the Soviet Union used carbon composite materials. Literally nothing new here.

Air Power Australia also states that the F-35 is irrelevant because of the introduction of the pak-fa. It also states that the pak-fa has an intake tunnel which so does the F-22. Air Power Australia and Copp are pak-fa fanboys that trash the F-35.

More copy and paste opinions......the SU-57 also used shaping, composite material and RAM to reduce its RCS. Pointing out that the F-22 uses these techniques does not magically negate the fact that this is standard 'stuff' for the SU-57. Again nothing you post is somehow unique or impressive.

Now post a close up of the nozzles instead of a grainy small grainy photo. Trying to hide the truth? Those American "aviation experts" can claim the spaghetti monster is real. It doesn't change the fact that the F-22 nozzles have 90 degree angles that have exposed mechanical bits that are not shielded when the nozzles move/deflect. There is also 30+ gaps around the engines, some are several inches thick.


You and those "experts" aka journalists and bloggers are trying to defy the laws of physics. I am honest enough to state where the SU-57 has areas of compromise, but you can not exercise the same fairness and honesty. I can acknowledge both the F-22 and F-35 are amazing aircraft that have many advances, you on the other hand make false claims such as the SU-57 is equivalent to an F-18E and it's nothing more then a Flanker.

You not bias? You claimed the F-18, with 90 degree fuselage, no internal weapons bays, no platform alignment and large pylons is an equivalent to the SU-57 in 'stealth'. Such critical and technical thinking.

Read what I said about about that source. I doubted the authenticity and accuracy of those figures from the beginning. There is literally no way to verify anything especially who those Russian "experts" are. You accused me of being a Russian bot and taking everything that comes from Russia at "face values" when I actually have been skeptical of everything and have shown to do my own research. You on the other hand are the one that takes everything at face value when it comes to anything positive related to US aircraft, even if it's posting blogs and citing random people off forums as long as they agree with you.

You just copied and pasted something that says "the F-22 has a lower height triangle from the front." The SU-57 has much smaller vertical stabilizers and smaller random that doesn't drop down and taper off from the bottom. I could use the same tactics and post how the SU-57 has small, all moving vertical stabilizers which help in reducing RCS, I can post how it has a narrow lateral profile, I can post many things. In the end what does this achieve exactly?

You might as well post an entire wikipedia page. That source just talk about serrated panels and bays. The fact is the SU-57 uses serrations in almost everything besides a few areas that they will probably change. Again what is the point of posting all of this? I can quite literally point out the same features in the SU-57. The F-22 does not have anything special or unique besides the nozzles, everything else is as common as vanilla ice cream.

I don't care about online opinions from Bill Sweetman that mentioned engines/nozzles that the SU-57 will not use, but nothing new here, you copy and paste opinions that are factual wrong and outdated. The 117 engine and nozzles are not intended for the SU-57. The two engines are worlds apart, they literally have nothing in common nor are they related in anyway. The performance and nozzle shaping of the 117 engines and the production engines, the 30 for short, are night and day. It's like comparing a Volkswagen Jetta to a Ferrari 420. The later is of much higher performance and engineering and will be far superior.

Now now tagging people for help. What are you expecting? That they agree with you that 90 degree corners magically bend the rules of physics just because the F-22 has them when the nozzle defects? You are clearly losing the debate so you are trying to get people to debate me on your behalf.

Yea, they are so identical but have nothing in common beside a similar landing gear. You are just outright trolling at this point.


Meh, close enough I guess.

Boing took an F-15, canted the tails and added some internal weapons bays. The SU-57 does not have the Flankers fuselage, front... back or top, it does not have the same wing structure, it does not have the same engines, intakes, canopy, tail boom, vertical stabilizers or anything. From an engineering standpoint you are completely wrong, from a logical standpoint you are also wrong. The two aircraft share nothing in common.

Completely off topic and irrelevant. Russia has rolled out many new weapons as well that are designed to deal with and "dominate" the US in a battlefield.

Sukhoi built the SU-47 on a small budget back in the 1990s. It had everything you claimed Russia can not achieve in a "stealth" aircraft: flat fuselage, serpentine intakes, etc. Even the Yak-130 has a flat fuselage and serpentine intakes. Sukhoi put a lot of thought in the SU-57 design, every last bolt, wire, panel, etc was careful designed and well thought out. If Sukhoi wanted a flat fuselage, they could have had it. This is one of the largest and most experienced aircraft designers in the world with access to world class test facilities, institutions, subcontractors and engineers at its disposal. It literally blows my mind that you would even suggest that they somehow could not build the SU-57 to have a flat fuselage. They in fact considered it and rejected the idea.

I explicitly mentioned that the SU-57 had addition corners reflectors, I then mentioned the F-22 also had them, just less of them.


You still don't get it. Corner reflectors are present on all aircraft besides maybe flying wing platforms. Their intensity varies depending on angle of said corner. For radar to 'aluminate' a corner reflector it has to be perpendicular to the corner (target) or at least in the general area. Even a radar is perpendicular, the altitude has a factor to play, if the aircraft is not high enough the radar will not have a clear line of sight to the corner.


For strike missions carful planing is used, no one just flies over SAMs at least not if it can be avoided. If possible aircraft will fly between 'gaps' in radar coverage and use cruise missiles, deticated SEADs or strategic aircraft for the initial strikes. The worst case scenario is that an SU-57 gets unlucky enough to fly into the path of an air defense battery, in which the battery is lucky enough to 'eliminate' the SU-57s in its most vulnerable areas. Theoretically let's assume it's lucky and locks on, luckily the SU-57 is designed MAWS capabilities and other SEAD specific avionics that will warn the aircraft and help it defeat the incoming missiles with electric warfare. At worst case it will do evasive maneuvers which would likely cause the enemy to lose radar lock.



In reality the SU-57 will probably fly into a heavily defended war zone after a barrage of cruise missiles soften enemy defenses. We know that the SU-57 will have its mission computer programed to fly a specific route, and hit specific targets. The pilot will essentially be the weapons systems operator and take control of the aircraft if some unforeseen event takes place. The SU-57 is also designed to use long range cruise missiles which gives it standoff capabilities that very much deny radars to ever track it at those ranges. Essentially it's range is part of its stealth, much the way a sniper works.

This is were you are wrong, a patent about an aircraft before it is complete tell you little certainty not enough and doesn't tell you anything about the finished product. In fact the patent drawing now differ from the SU-57 such as vertical stabilizer base which reduced the intensity of the corner reflectors along were the horizontal and vertical stabilizers join. There are always improvements that are made to an aircraft during the life of its development, sometimes hundreds of improvements are made based on inherent design flaws, pilot feed back, and changes to operational requirements and improvements in technology. The SU-57 has had redesign changes structurally and internally because the test pilots feedback. The avionics have also improved because of more advanced microprocessors, etc. The F-22 is a lot different from the YF-22 prototype because they found flaws and improved upon the aircraft, flaws that were not evident in the conceptual phase.

DAS literally mean 'Distributed Aperture System'. It uses electro optical sensors for a 360 degree aperture. The SU-57 also uses distributed (literally throughout the aircraft) electro optical sensors called Atoll, it has 360 degree coverage as well.


Sensor by sensor the SU-57 has an equivalent sensor for the DAS system:

• MAWS: Su-57 uses 101KS-U while F-35 uses AN/AAQ-37.

• IRST: Su-57 uses 101KS-V, the F-35 uses the AN/AAQ-40 EOTS

• ECM, Su-57 uses the L402 Himalayas, while F-35 uses AN/ASQ-239

• Navigation and landing: Su-57 uses 101KS-P and 101KS-N (probable FLIR) while F-35 uses AN/AAQ-37.

• For DIRCM: Su-57 uses 101KS-O while F-35 uses ThNDR.

The addition advantage is that the SU-57 has additional sensors and better radar FOV. The difference here is the OLS-50 doesn't have the FOV as the EOTS because it is located in front of the canopy while the EOTS is beneath the aircraft. However, the SU-57 has better FOV with other sensors such as the two side radars that will also help scanning and identifying ground threats. There was never a marketing campaign done by Sukhoi to advertise those systems on the scale that Lockheed has done, so a lot of people don't know about them. DAS or distributed aperture system, is found on the SU-57.

100% real. A Russian pilot in Syria named Ivan Ivanov posted the picture on his Instagram and it went viral appearing on the news. He also posted pictures of F-15s and even B-52 over Syria captured by the SU-35 OLS system, not to mention some synthetic aperture pictures taken by his aircraft. He is the real deal.


The F-22 nozzles do work in reducing IR signature. It's nothing that i or anyone reasonably will argue about but the older OlS-35 easily picked up its IR signature, the OLS-50 should be even better. Some people still can not come to terms with the fact that the SU-35 IRST was able to pick up the IR signature of the F-22 engines which some fanboys thought were practically invincible in the IR spectrum. These systems can even pick up the heat signature from the front or side of any aircraft because they do heat up the faster they travel through the atmosphere. Everything should be taken in context but the SU-57 will see the IR signature of the F-22 from quite a distance while the F-22 has nothing to see the heat signature of the SU-57. Debating who will see who first on radar or if radar will see one aircraft before the IRST futile because no one can prove anything.


What matters is that it did happen, and that the SU-57 has a better IRST system and can get much closer before being detected then any SU-35 can.



Here it is if you don't believe me.



https://www.instagram.com/fighter_bomber_/?hl=en

Well according the the patents, which you hold in high regards, the inlets do not have any problems with VLO. Your claim is a sensationalist one. How would you even know this unless you actually tested the intake extensively? We are not talking about simple corner reflectors or 90 degree angles, we are talking about a very complex designed intake that features complex shaping, mesh intake ramps and a fan blocker as well as RAM or RAS, its extremely narcissistic to make such claims. How well those intakes reduce RCS is only something a select number of people from Sukhoi know, and they only know this because of extensive testing in special facilities, certainly they didn't eyeball it and guess.

This is just dishonesty, do you actually have some RCS testing data on both aircraft intakes systems to come to that bold conclusion about radar blockers? We still don't even have photographs of the SU-57 radar blockers so your claim is totally false and can not be proven even if we knew how the SU-57 radar blockers looked due to the complexity of the intake system. The tactics you are using is to try to pivot away from the topic, you are trying to troll bait me into a ridiculous game.


The F-18 is no "peer" to the SU-57 period. The F-18, even if it was in a clean configuration with no pylons or external weapons would still have nothing on the SU-57 in terms of shaping. For starters the fuselage has 90 degrees corners, that alone makes your claim bogus and not just in terms of debating but in terms of physics and science. Furthermore it has pronounced 90 degree corner reflectors alone places like the leading edges extensions as well as many many other areas. It also has no platforms alignment, as well as large gaps around were the flaps are, it has major discontinuities and no blending and certainly not enough faceting. You still do not realize how important wing/fuselage shaping particularly frontal RCS reduction. There is a good reason why these 'stealth' aircraft are shaped similar to a trapezoid or diamond. You still don't realize how important platform alignment is to redirect energy.


Those is one of many reasons the F-18 will never match the RCS of the SU-57, 90 degree cerfaces is the other but I don't think I need to post a picture showing the obvious.





By your standards the Iranian F-5 copy with V tails must also be a peer to the SU-57, because it has a flat fuselage and some serpentine intakes. Therefore, I can also make the brilliant conclusion that the Iranian F-5 knockoff is also a peer to the the F-22. That is literally your logic.

 

Okay, first let's get something out of the way.

EVERYTHING we are dealing with are claims.

EVERYTHING that we know about stealth in the public domain comes from claims.

IAF Chief or Dassault CEO or Lock Mart CEO or USAF Chief or RAAF Chief... all these are claims, nothing else. Everything about the F-22, F-35, PAK FA, J-20, J-31, AMCA, F-3 etc are all claims. There is not one real shred of overarching evidence, beyond some piecemeal evidences, for any of it. We call them stealthy aircraft because OEMs and national leaders call their wares stealthy.

All we can do is use our own knowledge and common sense to figure out whether a claim is real or not.

When it comes to the J-20, the Chinese brought their aircraft to Tibet for tests and we watched the entire thing. This gave the IAF clues about the J-20's stealth design. And while one can claim the J-20 may have used Luneburg lens to hide its true RCS, one can also easily make the claim that the IAF has some experience in dealing with that.



And naturally, India has the facilities and resources to perform physical tests of stealth designs, considering we are also making our own stealth designs.





Is the IAF Chief's claim far fetched now?

As far as other claims are concerned, both Dassault and LM claiming their respective aircraft are stealthy hold equal value considering their backgrounds. So the question isn't about whether one or the other is lying, but how they managed to achieve it. LM chose airframe shaping, Dassault chose EM cancellation, the end result being both aircraft are now stealth aircraft. And this is where SPECTRA comes into the picture for the Rafale.

While LM's stealth techniques are easily noticeable to the naked eye, Spectra's capabilities are obviously internal to the aircraft and not easily noticeable. So you want to make your arguments against it, go right ahead, but remember that what Dassault has claimed is indeed true, that the Rafale has an RCS that's smaller than a large bird's, putting it in the same category as the F-22 and F-35.

One of Gambit's arguments against Spectra is it can only find the direction of the emitter. But he's wrong, and little does he know that Spectra comes with interferometers, which provide range and course of the source emitter as well. That's how the Rafale was able to track a target 48NM behind it. Good luck, F-22.

As far as sensor fusion is concerned, the F-35's radar comes from Northrop, the EW suite from BAE, the new computer system from Harris and the new DAS from Raytheon, and they claim sensor fusion with such a hotchpotch of dishes from different cooks. It's a wonder it's still a work in progress. Whereas the Rafale's radar, EW suite, FSO and computer system come from Thales, built around the same architecture as the F-35, called Integrated Modular Avionics. And when they claim sensor fusion, suddenly people find that unbelievable, which means common sense has become part of a premium members only club.

As for the ban, don't worry too much about it. I have chalked it up to biased moderation on this forum and it doesn't bother me much. And I'm sure many more established members have already brought it to your attention before. Of course, I didn't know the ban was removed until I decided to log back into the forum again today, hence the late reply.

 

At anyone interested, I replied to Legend's post 106, but it was deleted. But you can read it in the quote in post 110.

 

There's nothing dumb about it. If you can't pick up the Rafale on radar, then it is stealthy. There's nothing more to it.

What do you think the discussion was about the entire time?

 

Bullshit. I said no such thing regarding the word 'only'.

The first identification of any emitter is source direction, as in which direction the seeking radar came from. That is not the same as 'only'. In EW, it is not a good idea to simply wide area broadcast. If SPECRAT is as magical as you believe it is, then source direction is of paramount importance because SPECRAT must be able to deal with multiple sources, therefore, SPECTRA must be able to ascertain the source direction of one or two or more seeking radars. Which mean, source direction of the seeking radar must be FIRST criteria before SPECTRA can do anything else.

This further secure the impression that I understand the basic principles of SPECRAT better than you do.

If you are going to use technical words and phrases, it would make you look more credible if you are able to explain HOW those technical words and phrases support your arguments.

I doubt you understand how interferometry supports SPECRAT's purported capabilities against 'stealth' considering the fact that you brought on quantization errors which you thought I was talking about.

 

So many strawman arguments as usual, especially that funny statement about QE.

Can't reply to it since mods believe all of this is my monologue and not a discussion between you and me and will find an excuse to ban me as usual. This discussion will come up again some other time in some other thread, so we can take it up then. Let's go back to PAK FA/F-22 on this thread.

 

F-22 is not supposed to operate like this thread projects it to. It is a sneaky assassin for taking out Refulers and AWACS and other force multiplier..

This uses an unwarranted assumption of that the problems faced in reducing RCS of a cruise missile will be same as those faced in fighter. Doubt thats the case. Many differences :

1. Weapons bay for hiding weapons, not a issue in missile, that opportunity is simply not applicable to a missile.
2. Intake exposing blades : Again not an issue for a turbofan powered missile.

TL;DR : You cannot use the ratio of RCS reduction in case of a missile and apply that to fighters.