JF-17X- A Sino-Pakistani Stealth Fighter

[IceCold]

A couple of things come to mind.

Firstly, F-15 is no where as "stealth" a plane as a F-22. Why, shape..because rounded shapes aren't the smartest way to reduce RCS.

Secondly, size. A F-15 is a huge plane which means enough space to create an internal weapons bay to carry a meaningful number of armaments. You don't want a "mini-internal weapons bay" to carry just one AMRAAM on each side.

The amount of changes needed to make it a complete "stealth " airplane will be quite significant and will cost a lot. Its not with a reason that F-22 and F-35 development cost are in the tens of billions.

The best possible way is to introduce more stealthy features to further reduce RCS like reducing reflection from canopy, perhaps a twin-tail if it helps, introduce more advanced avionics and ECM, find ways to reduce IR signature, develop better missiles, etc.

Yes, if you have enough money , you can develop something like a F-15SE by changing some shape, internal bays, etc but I do not think the F-15SE is a stealth fighter. They just reduced the RCS significantly which is very good thing and if possible they concept should also be translated to the JF-17.

I doubt however, that JF-17 will have an internal weapons bay. By the time it does, it would be another aircraft entirely because you will need to increase the size and make it into a medium weight category atleast.

My $0.02.

I never said F-15 silent eagle is an equalevent to an F-22. Not even close. Not even the JSF is, yet alone the F-15. F-22 is an altogether different ball game. My point was that if an F-15 can be modified to adopt stealthy capabilities and it has significantly joined the stealth club because of the internal bay carrier, if not a proper stealth jet, it would be on par or even better then the eurofighter which too in cooperates certain stealth features why is it a far fetched idea when we talk about JF-17 keeping the development of F-15 in mind. Size yes however according to the ex ACM work was on the way to increase hard points meaning increasing wings. The same principle can be applied else where.....can it not? Funds yes another factor and i already mentioned it if the economy can sustain it.
The development of the JF-17 has surprised us many times before and just when we thought this is it, we were surprised again. I think there are a couple of surprises left for us w.r.t JF-17.

 

[bilal1219]

to make JF17 into Stealth aircraft would mean changing the whole shape and design and configuration of the aircraft hence, totally new name. So i think it is highly doutful and impractical to do so

 

[lionheartsalahudin]

nay! i don't think jf-17 is going to have any stealth versions and if some fool in chain of command is thinking so he must be high on weed man,whats the use of converting a light aircraft into stealth thus further reducing its payload capacity as the missiles will have to have internal docks (better create stealth ucav then)further more it will never acheive perfect stealth ability i know f-22 might be questioned in the same way but comparatively f-22 is better,abt f-35 equivalent well the famous breifing by that usaf col on redflag rgrd indians he was'nt that optimistic about f-35 and f-35 is suppose to be a fleet defense aircraft so it might be overlooked if ur thinking about placing f-35 or this supposed jf-17 stealth as carrier launched platform for naval purposes it might work but to defend mainland against airsuperiorty heavily loaded awacs guided su-30s no way man,i think pakistan should rather invest in j-xx which just might have the key to our stealth ambitions,

 

[mean_bird]

I never said F-15 silent eagle is an equalevent to an F-22. Not even close. Not even the JSF is, yet alone the F-15. F-22 is an altogether different ball game. My point was that if an F-15 can be modified to adopt stealthy capabilities and it has significantly joined the stealth club because of the internal bay carrier, if not a proper stealth jet, it would be on par or even better then the eurofighter which too in cooperates certain stealth features why is it a far fetched idea when we talk about JF-17 keeping the development of F-15 in mind. Size yes however according to the ex ACM work was on the way to increase hard points meaning increasing wings. The same principle can be applied else where.....can it not? Funds yes another factor and i already mentioned it if the economy can sustain it.
The development of the JF-17 has surprised us many times before and just when we thought this is it, we were surprised again. I think there are a couple of surprises left for us w.r.t JF-17.

I am sorry if you misunderstood me. I never say that you are claiming F-15 to be F-22 type stealthy. The F-15 might have significantly reduced its RCS, but I wouldn't go as far as to call it a stealthy airplane which is the title of this thread.

Regarding wing area, extra hardpoint might not necessarily indicate that. Possibility of having an extra hardpoint under the fuselage or along the intakes, etc might also be possible. Making room for internal weapons bay might need increase in fuselage too. As I said, there is no use having just one AMRAAM on each side in a stealthy JF-17. You need to increase the size of the plane and make it into a medium weight category. Besides, you will also have to sacrifice fuel tanks, so that too needs increase in weight and size.

It would be more appropriate to build a J10 size or slight bigger airplane if you want internal weapons bay, possibly with a similar design or heritage to JF-17 but that won't remain a JF-17.

My bottom line point is that JF-17 is too small, and real "stealth" would mean changing the shape to more angular design. So your point is valid that its possible to bring in some stealthy features like in F-15SE but the the resulting aircraft would almost be a new plane because you change the size and weight category completely.

 

[icekid]

They did it with F-15 Silent Eagle

Why not with JF-17.. Maybe a future upgrade... It wouldn't be as stealthy as a dedicated stealth fighter but reduces radar signature is always possible.

 

[Munir]

They did it with F-15 Silent Eagle

Why not with JF-17.. Maybe a future upgrade... It wouldn't be as stealthy as a dedicated stealth fighter but reduces radar signature is always possible.

A light weight fighter does not have internal bays or double rudders so they can make stealth without major redesign...

 

[gambit]

They did it with F-15 Silent Eagle

Why not with JF-17.. Maybe a future upgrade... It wouldn't be as stealthy as a dedicated stealth fighter but reduces radar signature is always possible.

Am going to have to clear up a lot of misconceptions about radar detection and aircraft designs.

First...Radar detection is essentially a 'stochastical' process, fancy word for statistics or guessing. Say there are ten transmit pulses but only five echoes produced, it is now a %50 probability that there is <something> out there. For WW II era radar, that is acceptable enough to send out Spitfires to (hopefully) intercept Nazi bombers.

Second...Radar detection is about detection AND identification of a target as far away from the transmitter as possible. It does not matter if the transmitter is ground or airborne. It does not matter if it is civilian or military. For a busy civilian airport, the more targets detected and the further the distance, the better the scheduling of take-offs and landings with plenty of time to spare for each. For the military, every target is suspect of being an armed hostile until proven otherwise -- Identification Friend or Foe (IFF). So it be good to detect anything as far out as possible in protecting a valuable asset, like the President or a nuclear facility.

So for today, when the military post a need for a radar system based upon the two above understandings, the demand will be something in the line of: 'The system MUST be able to detect a target of 5m2 at 200km with a %90 probability.'

You cannot meet that criteria? You get no contract.

Now to the F-15SE.

When a design is under radar range testing, there will be a full scale model of the design perch atop a pylon and the model will be bombarded with radar signals of every freq bands from every directions.

Looks like this...

That is a full scale model of an A-12/SR-71, upside down and with no vertical stabs.

The F-15 base RCS value will be of a clean aircraft. The wings will have hardpoints but no pylons, hence no missiles or bombs installed. Those things can be added later for different testings.

Let us be generous and say the average RCS value for the F-15 is 10m2 at 400km. Round figures are easier to digest. If we want to install pylons and external stores, we have to ask what is the mission. An all missile configuration will be air superiority. Bombs will be for ground strikes. Add in external fuel tanks for both types. Each configuration will have an effect on the aircraft's average RCS value OTHER THAN BASE. Bomb clusters are larger than air-air missiles. Now this ground strike configured F-15 has an average RCS value of 15m2 at 400km, for example.

An aircraft's RCS value is affected by atmosphere as well -- atmospheric attenuation or absorption. Transmitted pulses loses energy in their travel to a target, pulses that reflect off that target suffer the same fate in their travel back to the radar but we will ignore this factor for now. Anyway, if I can detect a target of 10m2 at 400km, I will be able to detect a target of 15m2 at 400km or if we take in atmospheric attenuation, the target was 15m2 at 500km but became 10m2 at 500km, possibly FURTHER out. In other words, I can see the target just as clear at a further distance. Advantage to me. If I put an F-15 directly a few meters in front of a radar, its RCS will be infinite for that radar but still be 10m2 for a different radar 400km away. Or 5m2 at 800km. Or 'invisible' at 1000km.

But if I internalize missiles, bombs or even extra fuel with special compartments that conform to aerodynamics, the F-15's average RCS value may or may not increase from 10m2 at 400km. In other words, going back to the second understanding of radar application -- distance -- I have managed to increase several folds the lethality of my weapon without significantly increasing the effective detection range by the enemy's radar. If I alter slightly other structural items like canting the vertical stabs to remove large corner reflectors and install Radar Absorbent Materials (RAM), I could decrease the distance to 10m2 at 200km, which could translate to 5m2 at 400km, or 'invisible' at 600km, in effect, I moved the threat closer to the enemy or make it ambiguous for him to determine if there is a threat or not. Ambiguity, uncertainty and hesitancy have caused many battle losses.

Can the JF-17 be modified similarly to the new F-15SE? In my opinion -- highly unlikely.

The most capable jet fighters in the world internalized their engines. A single engine fighter like the F-16 have a tubular frame. The fuselage contain the frame. A twin engine fighter like the F-15 have a 'box' or 'box-like' frame. This is about mass centralization for maneuverability. The 'box-like' frame will be larger, it must be to fit two engines, hence a larger fuselage and that equate to greater flexibility in terms of modifications.

Conformal compartments are possible with the F-15 because it is a large and robust airframe supported by powerful engines. Do not be misled by news reports about the 'aging' F-15 fleet. Most B-52s are older than the people who flies and maintain them and the latest B-52 variant is a complement to the AWACS in terms of network centricity for the battlefield. The F-15 airframe can last for a couple more decades.

If the JF-17's internal frame is anything similar to the F-16, and from all visual indicators both are similar, then the aircraft is pretty much fixed as is. It could be more problematic and financially straining in trying to reduce the JF-17's RCS through after-the-fact methods. This is why the F-22 and the F-35 were designed from the ground up with 'stealthy' features built-in, not as add-ons, like the F-15SE.

 

[vizier]

f18 super hornet which has somewhat lowered frontal aspect rcs does not have internal bays.In bvr missions against non-stealth old planes or uavs you can use external bvr pylons. Yes f18 super hornet is below in terms of stealth from f15 se but it gives the catch for the direction to make research.

F15 has internal bays etc. to carry amraam because currently there is no other lo plane other than the US ones and it is designed to be capable like the f35 in bvr against what we have the 4th gen planes. What is the point of obsessing with bvr missiles if F15 and JSF has a rcs that can be detected within wvr or even detected with stronger radars atleast amraam type of missiles are generally ineffective and dodging wvr is more difficult as well. For interceptors vectored by the long wavelength vhf radars on the ground , Wingtip pylons for two smaller wvr missiles will be enough as it would be too late for the opposing planes to detect our planes and missile monopulse seeker is also not very effective against low rcs. If ground vhf long wavelength radars are accurate enough to direct a2a missiles after launch in addition to their current capability of vectoring interceptors against stealth fighters then you may want internal bays for bvr.

Jf 17 can get a similar upgrade to par with F 15 se or atleast at initial phase it can be made in par with f18 super hornet and later it will evolve to 5th gen. frontal aspect like silent eagle. SU35-37 variants also had continious upgrades to reduce their frontal rcs.
J 10 has an underside one inlet like F16 which can be upgraded like the JSF variant boeing X 32. It is difficult but achievable in my opinion.

Mig 29, Su 27 have engine inlets underside of the plane seperate from each other but from upside both have relatively flat surfaces and airframe design modifications can concentrate on top aspect with tapered conductivity as gambit said if engine inlet design is relatively difficult so these planes will prefer lower altitudes exposing their upper section while approaching intruders to avoid detection. Making the ram top aspect flatter and exposing an angle to incoming radar guided bvr missiles would deflect the radar waves somewhere else from the source.

Also note that frontal view of vtol Yak 141 freestyle looks very much like the F15 so it can be handled with a very similar make up having bays or not and would have the vtol characteristic of F 35.

 

[hj786]

f18 super hornet which has somewhat lowered frontal aspect rcs does not have internal bays.In bvr missions against non-stealth old planes or uavs you can use external bvr pylons. Yes f18 super hornet is below in terms of stealth from f15 se but it gives the catch for the direction to make research.

F15 has internal bays etc. to carry amraam because currently there is no other lo plane other than the US ones and it is designed to be capable like the f35 in bvr against what we have the 4th gen planes. What is the point of obsessing with bvr missiles if F15 and JSF has a rcs that can be detected within wvr or even detected with stronger radars atleast amraam type of missiles are generally ineffective and dodging wvr is more difficult as well. For interceptors vectored by the long wavelength vhf radars on the ground , Wingtip pylons for two smaller wvr missiles will be enough as it would be too late for the opposing planes to detect our planes and missile monopulse seeker is also not very effective against low rcs. If ground vhf long wavelength radars are accurate enough to direct a2a missiles after launch in addition to their current capability of vectoring interceptors against stealth fighters then you may want internal bays for bvr.

Jf 17 can get a similar upgrade to par with F 15 se or atleast at initial phase it can be made in par with f18 super hornet and later it will evolve to 5th gen. frontal aspect like silent eagle. SU35-37 variants also had continious upgrades to reduce their frontal rcs.
J 10 has an underside one inlet like F16 which can be upgraded like the JSF variant boeing X 32. It is difficult but achievable in my opinion.

Mig 29, Su 27 have engine inlets underside of the plane seperate from each other but from upside both have relatively flat surfaces and airframe design modifications can concentrate on top aspect with tapered conductivity as gambit said if engine inlet design is relatively difficult so these planes will prefer lower altitudes exposing their upper section while approaching intruders to avoid detection. Making the ram top aspect flatter and exposing an angle to incoming radar guided bvr missiles would deflect the radar waves somewhere else from the source.

Also note that frontal view of vtol Yak 141 freestyle looks very much like the F15 so it can be handled with a very similar make up having bays or not and would have the vtol characteristic of F 35.

Super Hornet style signature reduction is on the cards and depends on money.

But no, JF-17 will NEVER become like F-15SE. Didnt you read the above post by Gambit? It would need internal weapons bays and it is simply too small for those.

 

[vizier]

Maybe yes it has its limitations but even f18 sh type upgrade would be valuable in bvr.

What about other planes is it only f15 that can get the
rcs upgrade. Yak 141 looks very similar with a box shaped design from front and it can get the same
upgrade with vtol bonus.

Mig 35 and SU 35 have almost flat top surfaces and geometrically it deflects radar waves unless
it is prependicular. Ram and other measures can be applied to the flat parts and
small curved extensions like
behind the cockpit canopy and in front of the engines at the top surface of the plane can
be replaced with edged facets so that it would be very difficult to detect it from above
and it can angle its flat topside to desired angles against incoming threats.

 

[Arsalan]

in my opinion, to make JF17 stealth we will have to:
1. increase its size so as to finnd room for internal bays
2. as the size is increased, we may well have to incorporate another engine stronger to keep that heavier machine flying, probable a twin engine!
3. will have to use more composities
4. upgrade avionics
5. twin tail.
6. PCS reducing techniques will have to be followed in whole of the plane, its nose, fuselage, endine air in-takes and all!
and i know i am missing a huge lot of other points!!

so if we have enough mone we better make a new plane, JF17 can be upgraded/mpdified to add a bit of strealth feature but a complete stealth plae seem not so practical! however as i said in the start, this is my opinion and you may differ on it!!

regards!

 

[gambit]

f18 super hornet which has somewhat lowered frontal aspect rcs does not have internal bays.In bvr missions against non-stealth old planes or uavs you can use external bvr pylons. Yes f18 super hornet is below in terms of stealth from f15 se but it gives the catch for the direction to make research.

Besides the F-15SE, the Super Hornet is ALSO an inappropriate example in trying make the case for a modified JF-17. The Super Hornet is a much larger and more capable aircraft than its predecessor, %20 larger airframe which increased fuel capacity by %33 over the original. Of the new engines, each has %35 more power over the original engine. The larger wing area added two more hardpoints. Its extensive redesign allowed a far more indepth incorporation of RCS reduction techniques than possible with the original airframe, especially with engine intake tunnels. I pointed out on the previous page on how an engine is the greatest contributor to an aircraft's frontal RCS value. It is somewhat counter-intuitive that a larger intake would reduce frontal RCS but many RCS reduction techniques are developed from rather isoteric principles of radar signal behaviors.

The JF-17 would have to undergo an equally drastic redesign, may be not an upgrade to a more powerful engine but extensive radar range testings of the inlet areas are required in order to gather radar signal behaviors around them. With the current fuselage design, is it possible to reshape the inlet mouths? Or relocate them somewhere along the length of the fuselage? It will be a given that RAM must be installed on the leading edges of the inlets, but if the fuselage does not allow sufficient reshaping or relocation of the inlets, then the installation of RAM will be for naught. With current passive RCS reduction technology and techniques, shaping is the most critical and aerodynamics may not allow inlet redesign above a certain threshold before overall aircraft stability and maneuverability are adversely affected.

What in the world is 'bvr pylons'?

F15 has internal bays etc. to carry amraam...

No...The basic F-15 airframe has no such provisions. What we see on the new F-15SE is an adaption of conformal FUEL TANKS to carry weapons. Conformal fuel tanks are essentially EXTERNAL fuel tanks that are custom shaped to perform WITHIN an aircraft's aerodynamic characteristics. Standard external fuel tanks looks like bombs -- tapered and finned cylinders -- and are designed to be highly aerodynamically independent of the aircraft. That is why they are on pylons. They need to have some degree of airflow around their bodies.

With the F-15SE, the F-15's size and body shape made it easy to create external conformal stores. It is no longer for fuel but storage, fuel or missiles or bombs, depending on specific mission type. The F-16 also have conformal storage created for it with the Israeli Sufa but for now, it is for fuel. With the location of these storage compartments, above wings and on the upper half of the fuselage, it is highly improbable that they will be used for weapons. So what we did with the F-15SE conformal fuel tanks was to adapt them to hold missiles and bombs. We covered them up. We removed them from the aerodynamics equations. Reduce drag and total RCS for a weapons loaded aircraft.

I do not want to give anyone the false impression that a conformal fuel tank can be fitted with missiles or bombs but what I mean here is that what was once supposed to be only for fuel is now more flexible. If a mission does not require additional fuel then the conformal fuel tank will be removed and a conformal weapons storage tank will be installed, or possibly a conformal ECM package. Just like how everyone underestimated the versatility of the C-130, with the basic F-15 airframe and its powerful engines, we are seeing the same level of combat versatility with the F-15, SE or other.

Versatility, not speciation, is now the highest virtue and once again, the Russians are exposed to be behind and the Chinese may never be able to enter the race unless either have something equivalent to the basic F-15.

What is the point of obsessing with bvr missiles if F15 and JSF has a rcs that can be detected within wvr or even detected with stronger radars atleast amraam type of missiles are generally ineffective and dodging wvr is more difficult as well. For interceptors vectored by the long wavelength vhf radars on the ground , Wingtip pylons for two smaller wvr missiles will be enough as it would be too late for the opposing planes to detect our planes and missile monopulse seeker is also not very effective against low rcs. If ground vhf long wavelength radars are accurate enough to direct a2a missiles after launch in addition to their current capability of vectoring interceptors against stealth fighters then you may want internal bays for bvr.

Sorry to say this but...This is such a gross misunderstanding of BVR capabilities that I do not know where to begin.

 

[vizier]

No...The basic F-15 airframe has no such provisions. What we see on the new F-15SE is an adaption of conformal FUEL TANKS to carry weapons.

By saying F 15 I meant the SE upgrade that carries weapons inside. Since there is no plane like JSF or F22 yet in other countries F 15 would be able to use these bvr weapons easily and effectively from long ranges as I described in the rest of the pharagraph that I wrote. If it encounters a rcs similar to the frontal aspect of JSF or F22 how do you plan to use amraam? Add jamming to that and don't say me there is home on jam because towed decoys are widely used these days.

Bvr detection and missions planning can be achieved by connection to ground vhf radars but for the weapons usage what is the probability of kill for amraam against F 22 bvr? Has its small monopulse seeker began to detect low rcs planes lately?



By pylons I mean F 35 has external pylons that can be used as well but it reduces its stealth and it is planned to be used in later times of the war when air superiority is gained. Similarly if it is easier to make frontal aspect
rcs reduction without designing the weapon carriage extensions like F 15 SE then be it at the beginning of the war the external pylons won't be used to carry larger bvr missiles to avoid detection but only small number of wvr
missiles to make hit and run attacks qued by vhf long wavelength radars against low observable aircraft.


Ok for the planes you mentioned but F 15 as an old design is not unique there are many other modular designs that can handle some frontal aspect make up like Mig 31 and Yak 141 if I am not mistaken.

 

[gambit]

By saying F 15 I meant the SE upgrade that carries weapons inside. Since there is no plane like JSF or F22 yet in other countries F 15 would be able to use these bvr weapons easily and effectively from long ranges as I described in the rest of the pharagraph that I wrote. If it encounters a rcs similar to the frontal aspect of JSF or F22 how do you plan to use amraam?

Encounters? You are not making much sense. If an F-22 is detected, it can be tracked and targeted even without the need for an AMRAAM. If there is an undetected F-22 out there then it does not matter if you have an AMRAAM or not.

Add jamming to that and don't say me there is home on jam because towed decoys are widely used these days.

Do you really think that EVERY aircraft is towing a decoy? Either every aircraft is a self-protection jammer...Or...

If there are ECM escorts for a strike package, home-on-jam is not such a bad idea. An ECM escort is about providing wide spectrum electronic protection for multiple aircrafts, destroy the jammers and the entire flight is exposed. Even the Iraqis knew that. The problem is how to destroy those jammers even if one is in possession of a home-on-jam missile. ECM and ECCM are distinct disciplines that will exceed the scope of this topic.

Bvr detection and missions planning can be achieved by connection to ground vhf radars but for the weapons usage what is the probability of kill for amraam against F 22 bvr? Has its small monopulse seeker began to detect low rcs planes lately?

Monopulse radars? I see that you are treading into territories in which you are already filled with misconceptions. And you still are not making much sense. If an F-22 is detected, a missile can be guided towards it. The problem lies with the information the frequency can produce.

By pylons I mean F 35 has external pylons that can be used as well but it reduces its stealth and it is planned to be used in later times of the war when air superiority is gained.

Incorrect. Pylons that will compromise the 'stealthiness' of an F-22 or F-35 are not restricted only when air supremacy has been achieved over a territory. They can be used if needed, even when air supremacy has not been achieved.

Similarly if it is easier to make frontal aspect
rcs reduction without designing the weapon carriage extensions like F 15 SE then be it at the beginning of the war the external pylons won't be used to carry larger bvr missiles to avoid detection but only small number of wvr
missiles to make hit and run attacks qued by vhf long wavelength radars against low observable aircraft.

You are seriously confused in believing that an AMRAAM-type missile is supposed to be against low observable aircrafts like the F-22. It is not. Radar detection ALWAYS exceed effective missile range. The goal of a BVR missile is to engage the enemy at as maximum a distance from you as possible, preferably if he is unaware of your presence. In radar detection and ECM, a radar pulse is the equivalent of a missile and against a very low observable aircraft equipped with BVR missiles, the odds of winning the fight is well below average, as many US F-15 pilots have learned.

It is a myth that long wavelength freqs are effective against the F-22 and its brethen. It is desperate propaganda vomited by the Russians and the Chinese. Do not bring up the single F-117 shot down over Yugoslavia. Over hostile Serbian air defense, NATO flew about 21000 sorties, of these about 5000 are Suppression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD), which is often slow and low to lure missiles. So if long freqs are supposed to be so good against 'stealth', then why only 2 aircrafts shot down, an F-16 and an F-117? Plus there were about 60 B-2 sorties flownn from Continental US (CONUS). Why not one B-2 was shot down? Two out of 21000 is not a combat record to boast about and the Serbs knew it so they milked the propaganda value of the one F-117 loss for all its worth. If you believe them, you got suckered.

In radar detection, nothing is really invisible under 1ghz. But the problems with these low freqs are target resolutions, such as range and speed. Tracking and targeting radars cannot cope with ambiguous target resolutions and that is why these radars uses the centimetric and millimetric bands, commonly known as X-band. Centimetric and millimetric freqs are what the F-22 and its brethen are designed against. What good is detection if you cannot track and target? That is the problem 'stealth' poses for the defenders.

Ok for the planes you mentioned but F 15 as an old design is not unique there are many other modular designs that can handle some frontal aspect make up like Mig 31 and Yak 141 if I am not mistaken.

I am not going to say if these Russian junks can be modified like the F-15SE or not. But it is telling that once again, just like how the Soviets ignored Petr Ufimtsev and his math that made 'stealth' possible and the US took advantage of those equations, the US now managed to get a jump on the Russians to 'stealthify' an existing airframe. We do not know the precise average RCS value of this new F-15SE version, but the old F-18 is estimated to be 3m2 at 400km and the Super Hornet, a %20 larger aircraft, has an estimated average RCS value of 0.1m2 at 200km. That is a radical reduction in average RCS and effective detectable distance on an existing airframe.

 

[hj786]

the old F-18 is estimated to be 3m2 at 400km and the Super Hornet, a &#37;20 larger aircraft, has an estimated average RCS value of 0.1m2 at 200km.

Not that I doubt you Gambit, but can I ask what these estimations are based on?