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

[Akasa]

No shit.

And therefore not exactly a good argument to bring up against LeGenD's claim.

Nop. If F-22 flies 1 km into France it gets tracked and intercepted by Rafale. You think Macron is that easy to kill? Think again.

And I'm assuming you have technical radar & tracking data to back this up?

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

And I'm assuming you have technical radar & tracking data to back this up?

I don't need to prove it. The one who claims F-22 has RCS of a fly has to prove it. Not me.

 

[ptldM3]

And therefore not exactly a good argument to bring up against LeGenD's claim.

What was his claim? "Russian propaganda" is the only thing he can claim and has claimed.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

What was his claim? "Russian propaganda" is the only thing he can claim and has claimed.

That's right. He can claim F-22 has RCS of a microbe all he wants. Doesn't make it true.

 

[Akasa]

What was his claim? "Russian propaganda" is the only thing he can claim and has claimed.

Not exactly sure how the Rafale vs F-22 exercise fits into the back-and-forth, but anything is possible on the PDF boards it seems. Oh well.

I don't need to prove it. The one who claims F-22 has RCS of a fly has to prove it. Not me.

The burden of proof lies with the claimant (you).

 

[ptldM3]

Not exactly sure how the Rafale vs F-22 exercise fits into the back-and-forth, but anything is possible on the PDF boards it seems. Oh well.

Because fanboys taught its RCS to be the size of a marble, if that is the case the Rafale must have one hell of a radar even if it was just from a few kms away.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

The burden of proof lies with the claimant (you).

Nop. I didn't make the claim F-22 has RCS of a fly.

 

[SME11B]

There's nothing special about F-22. It don't have plasma stealth or cloaking device. There are limitations to technology of the 1980s heck even today. Sure it has reduced RCS. Compared to 3 m^2 of F-15, 0.3 m^2 is already pushing it. To push it more to 0.0000001 m^2 you need plasma stealth or cloaking device.

If there is nothing special about it why does everyone want one? Why are you talking about fiction like plasma stealth and cloaking devices like they are a thing anybody is fielding?

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

If there is nothing special about it why does everyone want one? Why are you talking about fiction like plasma stealth and cloaking devices like they are a thing anybody is fielding?

Says who everyone wants F-22? Russia don't want it. China don't want it. There isn't true stealth without plasma stealth cloaking device. Technology ain't there yet. Give it a couple of decades.

 

[Akasa]

Nop. I didn't make the claim F-22 has RCS of a fly.

But you did make the claim that F-22 would have no chance of surviving over a theoretical French airspace. Please back that up.

 

[SME11B]

Says who everyone wants F-22? Russia don't want it. China don't want it. There isn't true stealth without plasma stealth cloaking device. Technology ain't there yet. Give it a couple of decades.

Russia does and did their best to make a raptorski and it's still not finished, the japanese and australians and others i'm sure have asked to buy it but it's not for sale. China is in a similar boat but they have more money and have stolen more tech so they are closer to having anything resembling a 5th gen fighter, hard to say how close they are in quality and years from now we can make a better comparison. That's like saying unless you are completely invisible there is no point to camouflage. He who sees the enemy first and can make decisions has a significant advantage from the beginning even if they only have minutes or seconds to react, it's a head start. Since you know stealth is useless you should let the chinese and russians know so they stop wasting time and money trying to copy it.

 

[ptldM3]

The word EXPERT is "subjective."

Russians can tell much about SU-57 but not F-22A because they are unable to develop its peer in VLO; multiple factors come together to define VLO for an aircraft. Attempting to estimate RCS of an aircraft from a singular perspective is foolish. Information leaks on the web tell another story (classified or not).

Russia is more then capable of developing VLO aircraft, the more capabilities in terms of maneuverability and sensors the less stealthy it will be because extra flight control surfaces, and sensors increase RCS due to more discontinuities and corner reflectors. If Russia wanted to it could have built a flying wing but It would have poor performance. A Russian scientist working on the SU-57 basically said that much recently, I have been saying it for years.

As for RCS, Russian intelligence/Sukhoi engineers can use anechoic chambers to test aircraft RCS under EM radiation. They obviously used it in the development of the SU-57 and more likely then not built very close dummy replicas of foreign aircraft for testing, I recall that they tested an F-117 mock up long ago.

Even simple specular rcs simulation can give a very rough idea of the type of RCS an aircraft can potentially have. Granted this doesn't take into account a lot of factors other then overall shape.

It's also no secret that Russia and China have informants that leak information, sometimes they may even hack sensitive military information. Lastly Russia gathers intelligence on US aircraft such as F-35s and F-22s when they operate over the Middle East, Eastern Europe or off the coast of Alaska, and even if the aircraft use luneburg lenses or drop tanks they can still learn something about their IR signatures to improve their passive sensors and weapons.

Russian military experts and not random unanimous sources probably have close estimates of enemy aircraft RCS.

 

[nahtanbob]

The IAF Chief said the PAK FA is much more stealthy than the J-20. That's good enough for India.

why reject the su-57 ?

 

[randomradio]

why reject the su-57 ?

Quite a few reasons:

1. No money to pursue the program. Our first priority is to stop the squadrons draw down. With our current orders, we will have a smaller air force than PAF by 2025. So money has been diverted to stop this from happening. Hence orders for LCA, Rafale, MMRCA etc.

2. The original plan was to bring next gen technology into India. So the IAF wanted a joint venture instead of just license production. They were looking ahead. But it turned out most of the program will be run by the Russians, leaving only 25% of the program to India. And DRDO said they do not need Russian help for next gen tech, they can do it themselves. Since the R&D part of the program is no longer necessary, we save a lot of money and the 5 years needed to develop the FGFA.

Now we have other choices. We can join the FGFA program later, after Russia's done developing most of it, buy 3 squadrons of PAK FA outright from Russia, or sign up for license production of an Indianised version. Or we can abandon the entire program as we deem fit since we already have our own program running in parallel called AMCA.

When the program started, 2007, we didn't have that kind of technology. But now we are already developing this stuff in India.

Personally, if we do go for the FGFA, I want India to enter a development program for a Mark 2 version with 6th gen avionics after 2025. By then our industry would have matured enough to contribute to the program.

3. It's dumb to places bulk orders before the Russians do.

The delays haven't helped either.

The program hasn't been abandoned though. The next administration will decide the future course of action.

 

[gambit]

As for F-22 and it's magic RCS, the Rafale locked onto it many times, this not to knock the aircraft because it is an amazing engineered machine but nevertheless it was locked into, granted it may have had a luneburg lens but most radar locks occurred from the top out hemisphere where the lens was hidden.

This is where you are wrong.

With most modern radar systems, the radar computer can remember the last location of a target should the radar lost contact for whatever reason. So if the Raffle somehow managed to see the luneberg lens in one moment and lost the next, the radar computer should still be trying to acquire the F-22 based upon last known location.

A radar 'lock' is when there are echoes over a period of time.

A radar 'track' is when there there are periodic non-returns over a period of time. The radar computer remembers the target's last known airspeed, altitude, and heading, then calculate a prediction of where that target might be, and if that predictive model is successful, the pilot would not know that his radar have lost contact.

So in the scenario of an EM enhanced F-22 vs Raffle, as the two aircrafts maneuvers, neither pilot would know how much the luneburg lens affected the scenario.