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

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

F-22 ain't no magic. You can think it has RCS of a bacteria if you want. Whatever floats your boat. The fact is, with the technology available when it was developed in the early 1990s, achieving 0.3 m^2 RCS is already a remarkable achievement. That's about 10% F-15's RCS. Any further achievement needs cloaking device. You can only do so much with RAM. Even the much touted solar panel can only absorb about 10 to 20 percent of radiation. RAM absorbs less than that due to being much thinner on the plane. RAM ain't magic.

 

[ptldM3]

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.

I can't be wrong because I never made any wrongful claims or any claims at all unless you consider the very reasonable claim that the F-22, in my opinion, used a luneburg lens.


In the HUD video the F-22 is seen darting in and out of the frame or field of view, at times the Rafale completely loses the F-22, then the F-22 is again acquired into the HUD FOV where the airspeed, altitude, and heading are completely different from the last time the Rafale lost sight of the F-22, so this scenario is unlikely.

At the range that the Rafale was at to relation to the F-22 vector, the F-22 was at a disadvantage; the F-22 would not need a luneburg lenses to have the Rafale detect the aircraft, it was always at a disadvantage. The Rafale often had the F-22s engines in its FOV, the F-22 would also at times present opertunistic moments of exposure as to present its corner reflectors and 90 degree fuselage profiles in front of the Rafale and of course the F-22 had full rudder authority which made things worse. In other words even if there was no reflectors on the F-22 it should come to no ones shock that the F-22 would be picked up by the Rafale, which has a superb radar. The J-20, SU-57, J-31, F-35 and alien space craft would likely all be detected by the Rafale for the above reasons if they were in the same scenario.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

I can't be wrong because I never made any wrongful claims or any claims at all unless you consider the very reasonable claim that the F-22, in my opinion, used a luneburg lens.


In the HUD video the F-22 is seen darting in and out of the frame or field of view, at times the Rafale completely loses the F-22, then the F-22 is again acquired into the HUD FOV where the airspeed, altitude, and heading are completely different from the last time the Rafale lost sight of the F-22, so this scenario is unlikely.

At the range that the Rafale was at to relation to the F-22 vector, the F-22 was at a disadvantage; the F-22 would not need a luneburg lenses to have the Rafale detect the aircraft, it was always at a disadvantage. The Rafale often had the F-22s engines in its FOV, the F-22 would also at times present opertunistic moments of exposure as to present its corner reflectors and 90 degree fuselage profiles in front of the Rafale and of course the F-22 had full rudder authority which made things worse. In other words even if there was no reflectors on the F-22 it should come to no ones shock that the F-22 would be picked up by the Rafale, which has a superb radar. The J-20, SU-57, J-31, F-35 and alien space craft would likely all be detected by the Rafale for the above reasons if they were in the same scenario.

No point arguing with him. Those who claim F-22 has the radar signature of a virus are delusional.

 

[LeGenD]

Try reading the article before bringing your usual bias propaganda and trolling against anything Russian which you have a history of.

You are angry; feeling insecure?

No, I have nothing against Russian hardware at personal capacity. I believe that Russians can develop high quality hardware, and I admire Russian accomplishments in general. I think highly of SU-57 in person (a decent product by any measure), but should I cloud my judgement to appease Russian audience in a discussion?

Problem is that Americans have the upperhand in defense applications, and R&D on a broader scale. Just draw a comparison between R&D output of US and Russia, and you might get the memo. Here: http://uis.unesco.org/apps/visualisations/research-and-development-spending/

"There are no exact data on the F-22’s RCS: it varies from 0.3 to 0.0001 sq. m., according to various sources. The data of Russian specialists suggest that the F-22A’s RCS ranges between 0.5 and 0.1 sq. m."

More:
http://tass.com/defense/866381

The entire article is a masturbatory exercise towards promoting SU-57, and filled with blanket assertions about VLO of other aircraft.

Take a good look at the front of SU-57. Here is a closer shot:

Three problems visible: [1] protruding object (101KS-V IRST sensor system) ahead of canopy; [2] protruding antenna. These protrusions increase RCS of aircraft (significant impact); and [3] cockpit window type. Even with protruding antenna removed, [1] and [2] are still a big problem.

VLO experts have pointed out additional problems:

[1] The seams between the flaps on the aircraft are too big.

Taking the F-22 stealth jet from the US, the flaps on the end of the wing have very tight seams that don’t scatter radar waves and therefore maintain a low profile.

[2] The vertical rear tails of SU-57 have a wide gap where they stray from the fuselage.

It is essential that a stealth keeps a tight profile. Looking at the F35’s rear tails, for example, and they touch the whole way.

[3] The nose of SU-57 is problematic as it has noticeable seams around the canopy, which eliminates stealth.

F-35 and F-22 feature a smooth, sloped appearance.

[4] The underside of SU-57 has rivets and sharp edges throughout.

Source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/worl...hter-jet-features-su-57-photos-radars-beaming

---

Now, shall we talk about the quality of RAM coatings?

"Details of the Sukhoi Design Bureau's work on the stealthy aspects of the T-50 PAK FA fighter aircraft emerged in late December 2013, when the company's patents were published.

According to the patent paperwork, taken together, all of the stealthy measures offer significant improvements over legacy fighter designs. The papers claim that the radar cross-section (RCS) of an Su-27 was in the order of 10 - 15 m^2 , with the intention being to reduce the size of the RCS in the T-50 to an "average figure of 0.1 - 1 m^2 ".

In common with other low observable aircraft designs, this reduction is achieved through the use of radar-absorbing and radar-shielding materials and coatings, panel shaping (especially around the air intakes) and in the design of the junctions between moving elements, such as flaps and hatches."

Source: http://archive.is/ZHbOH

For comparison:

Absolute match, right?

Now clearly you weren't upset about the fact that some random article claims the SU-57 had a RCS of 0.35sq M. No you got your panties in a bunch over the F-22 figures.


When Americans throw out figures you gush into complete euphoria and agree with everything. When Lockheed goes on to advertises the F-35 as the most advanced and lethal aircraft ever built in the world you simply agree and repeat their talking points. When Sukhoi or any other Russian arms manufacturers advertise their products (which is rare compared to Lockheed) you call it propaganda.

See above.

And CRY ME A RIVER.

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.

View attachment 523751

From where you got the "many times" part? From your rear-end, I suppose.

This is a one-time score for a French Rafale in a mock dogfight with an F-22A in 2009. Exact scenario is unclear (not disclosed), but this engagement was 100% WVR in nature.

Please keep in mind that Rafale feature the very best of European standards in its sensor suite and TRACK CORRELATION (DATA FUSION) capabilities. Rafale's AESA radar system and frontal IRST system were able to combine their tracks to achieve a lock on F-22A in a close-quarters engagement scenario.

People are unnecessarily hyping this mock dogfight, and creating a false sense of hope for the operators of 4.5th generation aircraft around the world. F-22A will be able to detect any 4.5th generation aircraft (even an SU-57) much earlier than the other, and let its BVR armaments do the talking afterwards.

They say that a picture is worth a thousand words at times.

CLICK: https://www.f-22raptor.com/pix/illustrations/af_radar_capabilities.gif

The AN/APG-77(v)1 radar system have close to 2000 T/R modules, and is Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) [Side Info], Non-Coperative Target Recognition (NCTR) – Narrow Beam Interleaved Search and Track [Class Info], Continous Tracking Capability [Phased Array Radar], Track While Scan (TWS), Low Probability of Intercept (LPI), Pulse Doppler Radar (Full LDSD Capability), and Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA), by design.

F-22A is not at a disadvantage even in WVR engagement scenarios:

CLICK: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Ahlw2C9pF58/U-y4UmCYmgI/AAAAAAAISFw/IievqXgk9bU/w626-h335/f22.gif

"The Raptor’s relaxed stability and powerful thrust vectoring powerplants enable the aircraft to turn tightly and perform very high alpha (angle of attack) maneuvers such as the Herbst maneuver (J-turn) and Pugachev’s Cobra. The aircraft is also capable of maintaining over 60° alpha while having some roll control." - Thai Military

F-22A have so many features onboard that it won't be fair to expand on them in order to explain how this aircraft will eat others for breakfast in a real-time combat scenario.

Of all the bashing F-22/35 fanboys dish out again the SU-57, the F-22 has far more discontinuities in the rear hemisphere then the SU-57, it has exposed 90 degrees corners, it has 8 moving parts for the nozzles.

View attachment 523752View attachment 523753

The same area of the SU-57 have nothing comparableto the F-22, there are only about 6-8 discontinuities (gaps) compared to the F-22s 30+ discontinuities not to mention the tighter tolerances around the nozzles.


View attachment 523755

Impact of 3D thrust vectoring nozzles during the course of operation:

Ouch.

Do you understand this stuff in personal capacity? Do you think that those who have designed F-22A need to take lessons from Russia in VLO sciences?

"Pratt & Whitney incorporated a number of IR signature-suppression techniques into the F119 engines that power Lockheed Martin’s F-22 Raptor. Aft of the low-pressure turbine are thick, curved vanes that, when looking up the tailpipe, block any direct view of the hot, rotating turbine components. Fuel injectors are integrated into these vanes, replacing the conventional afterburner spray bars and flame holders. The vanes mask the turbine and contain minute holes that introduce cooler air. The exhaust then passes through the F119’s “non-axisymmetric,” or 2D, thrust-vectoring nozzles, which have upper and lower surfaces ending in wedges with blended central edges. These nozzles further mask the engine hot parts while flattening the exhaust plume and generating vortices. Minute holes are evident on their inner surfaces, likely providing bypass air for enhanced cooling."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/program-management-corner/closer-look-stealth-part-5-nozzles-and-exhausts

"Supplied as part of the twin F119 engines, the F-22 nozzle features a stealth-compliant, 2-D, convergent-divergent, thrust vectoring design. The nozzles are highly tailored to the F-22’s requirement for optimum performance (net installed propulsive thrust (Fnet)) at minimum weight. In-flight thrust vectoring enables an enormous Mach/angle-or-attack/angle-of-sideslip operating range, which in turn creates a maneuver compatibility requirement for the engine inlet system. With the mechanism in place for thrust vectoring, added capability for thrust reversing was also studied early in the program, but this feature did not trade favorably with cost and weight impacts, and thus is not present on the production system."

Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9780470686652.eae490

Informative responses to a related question in here: https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-F-...-a-rectangular-nozzle-is-indeed-most-stealthy

Shall we talk about engine inlets as well?

"The F-22 inlet system features twin side-mounted inlet apertures, each feeding a single engine through a long (L/D∼6), full-obscuration S-duct. The apertures are highly swept for stealth compatibility and utilize a two-dimensional, external compression “Caret” design (see Section 4.1.1). Boundary layer control is provided with a classic boundary layer diverter and bleed system. The inlet design provides an inherent angle-of-attack shielding function, enabling full engine/inlet compatibility across a wide range of operating conditions. Due to stealth, weight, and mechanical reliability (i.e., maintenance cost) considerations, the F-22 inlet geometry is fully fixed, and does not have the variable geometry features of previous air superiority systems such as the F-14 and F-15.

F-22 inlet development was aided by significant advancements in wind tunnel test data processing, specifically, the
ability to produce near-real-time analysis of dynamic distortion data. Prior to the F-22 time frame, dynamic distortion data was recorded during the test but processed and analyzed post test. With improvements in computer power, by the late 1980s hardware was available to acquire and analyze dynamic data at the test site, allowing engineers the ability to make design decisions based on this data in near-real time. While CFD analysis was used on F-22, solution throughput in the late 1980s/early 1990s had not yet reached the rate required to base major decisions on CFD-produced information (in the absence of supporting test data). The role of CFD was to add information to a knowledge base derived primarily from test data."

Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9780470686652.eae490

There is talk about SU-57 engine inlets not up to the mark in terms of VLO either. Some pointers in here: https://www.quora.com/Does-the-PAK-FA-T-50-have-stealthy-air-intake-Why-or-why-not-Whats-the-reality

The Rafale must have one hell of a radar if it can lock onto a target that is taunted as being the size of a marble....Russian propaganda indeed. When you count frontal RCS figures, side, top, bottom, rear and every angle in between the overall RCS of the F-22 is probably roughly close to the figures put out--there is no questions about it unless you prescribe to propaganda of 0.000001 figures unless that take only frontal figures under ideal circumstances which are not realistic in warfare.

See above.

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.


View attachment 523768




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.



View attachment 523767



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.

So true.

SU-57 is the role model for any aircraft with its unrivaled VLO characteristics in the world. MY SARCASM METER = 100%

Potential informants get caught from time-to-time, and there is a limit to what you can extract from hacking initiatives. Secondly, developing something remarkable can be a cost-prohibitive task [US does not have this issue], and - in certain cases - the 'production infrastructure' is not up to the task. Even if you know much about a product in theory, this does not imply that you have the necessary tools and amount of money to develop a perfect clone of it (or even close). To make my point clear: you cannot just roll out an F-22A from the 'production infrastructure' for SU-35S or even SU-57. These matters are not so cut and dry.

"We don't know the exact quality and level of integration of the Su-57's sensors and mission systems, but on paper at least, no, the Su-57 isn't 'junk' at all. It represents a rather clever mix of capabilities that are tailored to Russia's more austere, less networked, air-battle doctrine, and it's more than capable of taking on enemies it's more likely to fight than some Armageddon war with the United States. That being said, with tight rules of engagement, like those over Syria, many of even its most capable opponent's abilities are rendered neutral anyway. So if Russia can continue to finance it and sort out its engine issues, the Su-57 is set to become a capable highly valued fighter that is better than anything else in the Russian Air Force's inventory.

But is it an F-22? No, it isn't.

And that's the problem—clearly it isn't meant to be. Yet it seems Russian officials and the Russian press constantly make claims otherwise. That's like claiming a Super Hornet is as capable in certain respects as an F-35, it simply isn't accurate and it's not really a fair comparison to make in the first place." - Tyler Rogoway

I believe that deep down, Russian officials and experts understand the asymmetry between [what they can do] and [what the Americans can do], but this recognition is not for public consumption. An admission of this nature out in the public, is a rare sight from Russian circles (I know about a case). Russia have its own manufacturing industry to cater to, and promote its products in the best possible light [in the public domain], because REVENUES > LOGIC in the end.

---

MOD EDIT: Do not want to spoil an excellent post by the insults and personal attack.

 

[SME11B]

F-22 ain't no magic. You can think it has RCS of a bacteria if you want. Whatever floats your boat. The fact is, with the technology available when it was developed in the early 1990s, achieving 0.3 m^2 RCS is already a remarkable achievement. That's about 10% F-15's RCS. Any further achievement needs cloaking device. You can only do so much with RAM. Even the much touted solar panel can only absorb about 10 to 20 percent of radiation. RAM absorbs less than that due to being much thinner on the plane. RAM ain't magic.

I don't know why you seem to think today's f-22s are pretty much yf-22's because they first flew in the 90s. The radar has upgrades from apg-81, also some updated stealth tech has been added and software and other capabilities have been added over the last 10 years or so. It continues to be upgraded and can take it's time doing so without any serious competitors yet. In a few years when maybe j-20 and su-57 come out of hiding more f-22 will not be the same then either, it has new weapons and software. Also a helmet sight and updated comms will be added by then. By early to mid 20 you are talking total computing overhaul, irst mode added to maws, engine upgrade, cockpit update, and some sort of sensor upgrade. Pretty much it will be 5.5 gen and we should just call it f-22C by then. My point is not only has it been significantly upgraded since the 90s it continues to be and at a faster pace with j-20 and su-57 on the horizon.

 

[gambit]

I can't be wrong because I never made any wrongful claims or any claims at all unless you consider the very reasonable claim that the F-22, in my opinion, used a luneburg lens.

In the HUD video the F-22 is seen darting in and out of the frame or field of view, at times the Rafale completely loses the F-22, then the F-22 is again acquired into the HUD FOV where the airspeed, altitude, and heading are completely different from the last time the Rafale lost sight of the F-22, so this scenario is unlikely.

At the range that the Rafale was at to relation to the F-22 vector, the F-22 was at a disadvantage; the F-22 would not need a luneburg lenses to have the Rafale detect the aircraft, it was always at a disadvantage. The Rafale often had the F-22s engines in its FOV, the F-22 would also at times present opertunistic moments of exposure as to present its corner reflectors and 90 degree fuselage profiles in front of the Rafale and of course the F-22 had full rudder authority which made things worse. In other words even if there was no reflectors on the F-22 it should come to no ones shock that the F-22 would be picked up by the Rafale, which has a superb radar. The J-20, SU-57, J-31, F-35 and alien space craft would likely all be detected by the Rafale for the above reasons if they were in the same scenario.

You are wrong in the sense that you implied that the luneberg lens device is at best an inconsistent contributor to how the Raffle acquire the F-22 at such close range.

https://www.acc.af.mil/News/Article...84/raptor-debuts-at-red-flag-dominates-skies/

"The thing denies your ability to put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it through the canopy," said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, F-15 exchange pilot in the 65th AS. "It's the most frustrated I've ever been."

I know Russian weapons fanboys scoffs at the above comment by an RAAF pilot. But I know better from experience.

A clean F-16 against ground clutter is something no one wants to 'fight' against, not even by an F-15 with its larger radar. Both pilot and jet have lost their acquisition, visual and radar. But now we are looking at a body that was designed originally from conception to reduce its EM output.

We do not care if your eyes and/or camera can see us. If we can deny -- or make inconsistent -- your radar acquisition of us, we won. Eyeball us all you want. Take as many pictures as you like. We still won.

The edited/limited HUD video or screenshot DO NOT tell the whole story, let alone the true story.

If/when target co-ords are available for the weapons controller, the HUD will display the appropriate symbologies. If/when those co-ords are inconsistent, the fire control section of that controller will estimate/predict the next set of co-ords. If/when that happens, that is a radar break or loss of lock. The HUD will STILL display the appropriate target symbol via boxes, diamonds, or crosses, depending on the HUD manufacturer. The pilot have the option of switching to gun computing lead sight or radar guided missile where the missile will compute its own predictive intercept path. But if the aircraft's larger radar is having intermittent loss of lock, so will the missile's smaller radar. None of this is apparent to the casual viewer of those heavily edited HUD video or screenshots.

Voila...!!! The F-22 is 'vulnerable'. Forums that hates US explodes in joy. Everyone whips out their dicks and starts yanking.

But that intermittent loss of lock is what the RAAF pilot hinted at when he made that very revealing comment about going against the F-22.

Yes, looking at the F-22's topside within visual range will be enough for any radar, not just the Raffle's, but if the F-22 was enhanced in any exercise, you better believe it that the device was a CONSISTENT contributor to anyone who managed to acquire the F-22 LONG ENOUGHT to call out a 'Fox'. Topside view or else.

The enhanced F-22 means the exercise was rigged against the F-22. That does not mean the exercise was 'bad'. It could have been to demonstrate what is needed to 'take down' an F-22. To Squadron Leader Chappell of the RAAF, it means he knew that in a real fight, even WVR, his odds of being dead is above the %75 threshold. Topside view or else.

 

[nahtanbob]

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

lot of the f-22 capabilities are classified. given the thrashing administered to foes ranging from iraq, libya, taliban no opponent wants to find out on the battlefield

 

[ptldM3]

Take a good look at the front of SU-57. Here is a closer shot:



Three problems visible: [1] protruding object (101KS-V IRST sensor system) ahead of canopy; [2] protruding antenna. These protrusions increase RCS of aircraft (significant impact); and [3] cockpit window type. Even with protruding antenna removed, [1] and [2] are still a big problem.

Right because the mighty F-35 has no protrusions and the F-22 have no sloppy gaps and 90 degree corners around the rear nozzles.

As for those protruding antenna? You clearly have no aviation experience. The YF-22 and F-35 prototype also had the same thing for testing, every prototype has one; but for once you got one thing right, it was removed. As for "cockpit window type", you are talking about the frontal shape being close to 90 degrees? That makes little difference since all those 45 degree serrations will be 90 degrees at some point depending on angle.

Lovely how random, often times unanimous people that are clueless about aviation in general, particularly about the SU-57 are "aviation experts" if they post something negative about the aircraft, yet if someone from Russia says something about F-22 that you disagree with then they are propagandist.

[1] The seams between the flaps on the aircraft are too big.

There is no noticeable difference between the newer 511 airframe and any US aircraft and sorry the SU-57 will never have the same seams and gaps as the F-22 around the engine but it shows how desperate you are getting.

[2] The vertical rear tails of SU-57 have a wide gap where they stray from the fuselage.

Now you are just being ridiculous. There is no "gap" anywhere, what you are seeing is the entire vertical stabilizer moving. Remember the SU-57 has no tradition rudder which eliminates discontinuities,
gaps as you call them.


But I do see a very large gap at the base of the F-22 vertical stabilizer and plenty of gap when the rudder moves and dozens of other gaps.

It is essential that a stealth keeps a tight profile. Looking at the F35’s rear tails, for example, and they touch the whole way.

The F-35 uses rudders, there is the same "gap" there when the rudder is applied. As for tight profile, the F-22 vertical stabilizers are about 2x bigger then the SU-57 and they have rudders unlike the SU-57, If this were the other way around you would bash the SU-57.

[3] The nose of SU-57 is problematic as it has noticeable seams around the canopy, which eliminates stealth.

There is seams around the canopy? This seam "eliminates Stealth"....more like this statement tells me all I need to know about you. There are many techniques to reduce radar cross sections such as faceting, platform alignment, continuous curvature, and keeping seams tight and plush.


There is no such thing as "eliminating stealth". 90 degree corners are avoided whenever possible but if the F-22 or F-35 suddenly got 90 degree vertical stabilizers, their front, rear, bottom and 45 degree RCS would not change. Only the side and area between the horizontal stabilizer would change. So even if the SU-57 had this imaginary giant seam at most it would contribute an increase in some direction(s) how much? Literally only the engineers would know after testing in a anechoic chamber. You are not qualified to make such claims.

F-35 and F-22 feature a smooth, sloped appearance.

[4] The underside of SU-57 has rivets and sharp edges throughout.

Source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/worl...hter-jet-features-su-57-photos-radars-beaming

---

Sukhoi built the SU-47 demonstrator over 20 years ago, It also had a smooth flat fuselage, serpentine intakes and weapons bays....amazing Sukhoi either unlocked magic stealth mode or Sukhoi got dumber and forgot how to build aircraft.

To touch on the topic you mentioned. The SU-57 has an additional 2 corner reflectors as a consequence of the fuselage design. This was a deliberate design choice for a tradeoff in more lift which give better efficiency, increases range, payload and usually helps with maneuverability. Just because the F-22 has a smooth fuselage does not exclude it from having corner reflectors in other areas. In other words the SU-57 fuselage won't "eliminate stealth" it will however increase RCS at certain angles if ground radar is present and 'eliminating' right in in between the narcels and fuselage but this alone does not mean that it will ever even be seen on radar, all is dependent on range and angle to threat.

Now, shall we talk about the quality of RAM coatings?

"Details of the Sukhoi Design Bureau's work on the stealthy aspects of the T-50 PAK FA fighter aircraft emerged in late December 2013, when the company's patents were published.

According to the patent paperwork, taken together, all of the stealthy measures offer significant improvements over legacy fighter designs. The papers claim that the radar cross-section (RCS) of an Su-27 was in the order of 10 - 15 m^2 , with the intention being to reduce the size of the RCS in the T-50 to an "average figure of 0.1 - 1 m^2 ".

In common with other low observable aircraft designs, this reduction is achieved through the use of radar-absorbing and radar-shielding materials and coatings, panel shaping (especially around the air intakes) and in the design of the junctions between moving elements, such as flaps and hatches."

Source: http://archive.is/ZHbOH

For comparison:

Absolute match, right?


See above.

And CRY ME A RIVER.

Those RCS figures are average figures which tells you nothing especially when you have no baseline comparison to other aircraft. I seen those patents long before you, and they were published before the SU-57 even existed, long before the new engine was ever built. The aircraft has seen dozens of redesign changes over the years from the original prototype, there is no telling what the actual RCS is now or what it will be with the production model. You are also still not crasping how RCS works, since an average is the sum of all parts.



Notice the SU-57 in Syria even had special modifications just for its deployment (look behind the canopy and compare it with other modes). Look at all the other details and changes that were made.

From where you got the "many times" part? From your rear-end, I suppose.

This is a one-time score for a French Rafale in a mock dogfight with an F-22A in 2009. Exact scenario is unclear (not disclosed), but this engagement was 100% WVR in nature.

Please keep in mind that Rafale feature the very best of European standards in its sensor suite and TRACK CORRELATION (DATA FUSION) capabilities. Rafale's AESA radar system and frontal IRST system were able to combine their tracks to achieve a lock on F-22A in a close-quarters engagement scenario.

People are unnecessarily hyping this mock dogfight, and creating a false sense of hope for the operators of 4.5th generation aircraft around the world. F-22A will be able to detect any 4.5th generation aircraft (even an SU-57) much earlier than the other, and let its BVR armaments do the talking afterwards.

It has nothing to do with false hope, the F-22 was close enough for the Rafale to kill it. The Rafale was no the only aircraft to kill the F-22 in mock combat either.

They say that a picture is worth a thousand words at times.

CLICK: https://www.f-22raptor.com/pix/illustrations/af_radar_capabilities.gif

This is just a silly cartoon illustration. For one it claims the F-22 has a RCS of -40dbsm when no one knows what it actually is, secondly most modern Flankers have about 350-400km detection range, so I am confused, its claiming the APG-77 has a range of around 1500kms? It claims a Chinese Flanker would detect a F-22 at the distance of the red illustrated radar cone?


And what does a Chinese Flanker have anything to do with the conversation? Instead of copying and pasting walls of off topic garbage try actually compiling a coherent argument.

The AN/APG-77(v)1 radar system have close to 2000 T/R modules, and is Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) [Side Info], Non-Coperative Target Recognition (NCTR) – Narrow Beam Interleaved Search and Track [Class Info], Continous Tracking Capability [Phased Array Radar], Track While Scan (TWS), Low Probability of Intercept (LPI), Pulse Doppler Radar (Full LDSD Capability), and Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA), by design.

I don't think you know half of what you just posted, just throwing around a lot of stuff you read from wekepedia.

But what does this have to do with the topic? If you want to go down that route, the SU-57 consists of 3 prototype radars, 5 if you count the L bands in the wings. The 3 radars have 2300 TR modules with room for more. The SU-57 have superior radar coverage and multiple bands. The SU-57 has every sensor the F-35 has and a few it doesn't. The F-22 lacks behind the F-35 in sensors and the F-35 lacks behind the Sukhoi in quantity of sensors.



SU-57 has the additional side lobe radars and L band radars for better situational awareness and beam tunning, the side lobe radar are probably also help in SAR for SEAD roles, the L-band provides enhances jamming resilience and and extra band that helps to at least narrow down LO targets which then would focus its X-band+IRST.


But as usual you can't stay on topic....

F-22A is not at a disadvantage even in WVR engagement scenarios:

CLICK: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Ahlw2C9pF58/U-y4UmCYmgI/AAAAAAAISFw/IievqXgk9bU/w626-h335/f22.gif

"The Raptor’s relaxed stability and powerful thrust vectoring powerplants enable the aircraft to turn tightly and perform very high alpha (angle of attack) maneuvers such as the Herbst maneuver (J-turn) and Pugachev’s Cobra. The aircraft is also capable of maintaining over 60° alpha while having some roll control." - Thai Military

No one said anything about the F-22 being worse then the Rafale it clearly has a better radar and smaller RCS, but the Rafale can hold its ground in WVR.

Do you understand this stuff in personal capacity? Do you think that those who have designed F-22A need to take lessons from Russia in VLO sciences?

A Russian wrote the wrote the book on "stealth" literally. There is no super secret that only Americans know, they were just the first that used the formulas, everything about how "stealth" works is public knowledge. And if we talk about someone taking lessons, it was Lockheed that bought the Yak-141 design and had Russian advisors. It was Lockheed that bought many things from Russia to install on US satellites and rockets but none of this is to the topic or changes the fact that the F-22 has dozens of gaps and 90 degree corner reflectors around the nozzles, but now the F-22 defies physics.

"Pratt & Whitney incorporated a number of IR signature-suppression techniques into the F119 engines that power Lockheed Martin’s F-22 Raptor. Aft of the low-pressure turbine are thick, curved vanes that, when looking up the tailpipe, block any direct view of the hot, rotating turbine components. Fuel injectors are integrated into these vanes, replacing the conventional afterburner spray bars and flame holders. The vanes mask the turbine and contain minute holes that introduce cooler air. The exhaust then passes through the F119’s “non-axisymmetric,” or 2D, thrust-vectoring nozzles, which have upper and lower surfaces ending in wedges with blended central edges. These nozzles further mask the engine hot parts while flattening the exhaust plume and generating vortices. Minute holes are evident on their inner surfaces, likely providing bypass air for enhanced cooling."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/program-management-corner/closer-look-stealth-part-5-nozzles-and-exhausts

Again more off topic copy and paste jobs. Those F-22 engines are easily picked up by the IRST on the SU-35, those gaps and 90 degree corner reflectors are also make a nice target.


You were bragging about those stellar engines?

"Supplied as part of the twin F119 engines, the F-22 nozzle features a stealth-compliant, 2-D, convergent-divergent, thrust vectoring design. The nozzles are highly tailored to the F-22’s requirement for optimum performance (net installed propulsive thrust (Fnet)) at minimum weight. In-flight thrust vectoring enables an enormous Mach/angle-or-attack/angle-of-sideslip operating range, which in turn creates a maneuver compatibility requirement for the engine inlet system. With the mechanism in place for thrust vectoring, added capability for thrust reversing was also studied early in the program, but this feature did not trade favorably with cost and weight impacts, and thus is not present on the production system."

Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9780470686652.eae490

More off topic, copy and paste jobs. Again you can't think for yourself. Copying and pasting a wall of text about the F-22 engine just make you look desperate.

Shall we talk about engine inlets as well?

"The F-22 inlet system features twin side-mounted inlet apertures, each feeding a single engine through a long (L/D∼6), full-obscuration S-duct. The apertures are highly swept for stealth compatibility and utilize a two-dimensional, external compression “Caret” design (see Section 4.1.1). Boundary layer control is provided with a classic boundary layer diverter and bleed system. The inlet design provides an inherent angle-of-attack shielding function, enabling full engine/inlet compatibility across a wide range of operating conditions. Due to stealth, weight, and mechanical reliability (i.e., maintenance cost) considerations, the F-22 inlet geometry is fully fixed, and does not have the variable geometry features of previous air superiority systems such as the F-14 and F-15.

F-22 inlet development was aided by significant advancements in wind tunnel test data processing, specifically, the
ability to produce near-real-time analysis of dynamic distortion data. Prior to the F-22 time frame, dynamic distortion data was recorded during the test but processed and analyzed post test. With improvements in computer power, by the late 1980s hardware was available to acquire and analyze dynamic data at the test site, allowing engineers the ability to make design decisions based on this data in near-real time. While CFD analysis was used on F-22, solution throughput in the late 1980s/early 1990s had not yet reached the rate required to base major decisions on CFD-produced information (in the absence of supporting test data). The role of CFD was to add information to a knowledge base derived primarily from test data."

Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9780470686652.eae490

Shall we talk about how you are embarrassing yourself? Quick find something to copy and paste!

There is talk about SU-57 engine inlets not up to the mark in terms of VLO either. Some pointers in here: https://www.quora.com/Does-the-PAK-FA-T-50-have-stealthy-air-intake-Why-or-why-not-Whats-the-reality

There is also some talk about about (name anything) not being up to standard. That is how pathetic your arguments are. Keep your "pointers" from quora.com to yourself



There is a number of ways to reduce RCS from inlets including radar blockers which are in use in aircraft such as the F-18SH they have also been used in prototype Boeing aircraft. Other methods include using ramps or mesh.

But until you take the SU-57 into an anechoic chamber and do extensive testing you and those random internet experts should stop embarrassing yourselves.

Potential informants get caught from time-to-time, and there is a limit to what you can extract from hacking initiatives. Secondly, developing something remarkable can be a cost-prohibitive task [US does not have this issue], and - in certain cases - the 'production infrastructure' is not up to the task. Even if you know much about a product in theory, this does not imply that you have the necessary tools and amount of money to develop a perfect clone of it (or even close). To make my point clear: you cannot just roll out an F-22A from the 'production infrastructure' for SU-35S or even SU-57. These matters are not so cut and dry.

We had an employee (a foreign national) steal and sell very complex and garded technology technology from where I work. He worked as an engineer and had all the know how. It takes millions of dollars, sometimes billions of dollars and dozens or hundreds of machines to produce what this engineer stole and the country he sold the information to started producing the same thing.

And I have worked for one of the largest military manufacturers in the world, actually I worked on a classified project but please do lecture me some more on this topic. I'm amused honestly.

But is it an F-22? No, it isn't.

No, it's not, the SU-57 was built with sensors that are not found on the F-22, it was built to have better situational awareness and it was built to do things that the F-22 simply can not.

I warned you (earlier) to not push your luck in debates about SU-57, but you did not pay heed

I'm scared. Are you going to start copying and pasting walls and walls of off topic subjects because you are unable to challenge me or form an original thought?



MOD EDIT: No personal insults please

 

[SME11B]

Right because the mighty F-35 has no protrusions and the F-22 have no sloppy gaps and 90 degree corners around the rear nozzles.


View attachment 524182

View attachment 524181

As for those protruding antenna? You clearly have no aviation experience. The YF-22 and F-35 prototype also had the same thing for testing, every prototype has one; but for once you got one thing right, it was removed. As for "cockpit window type", you are talking about the frontal shape being close to 90 degrees? That makes little difference since all those 45 degree serrations will be 90 degrees at some point depending on angle.

Lovely how random, often times unanimous people that are clueless about aviation in general, particularly about the SU-57 are "aviation experts" if they post something negative about the aircraft, yet if someone from Russia says something about F-22 that you disagree with then they are propagandist.












There is no noticeable difference between the newer 511 airframe and any US aircraft and sorry the SU-57 will never have the same seams and gaps as the F-22 around the engine but it shows how desperate you are getting.










Now you are just being ridiculous. There is no "gap" anywhere, what you are seeing is the entire vertical stabilizer moving. Remember the SU-57 has no tradition rudder which eliminates discontinuities,
gaps as you call them.


But I do see a very large gap at the base of the F-22 vertical stabilizer and plenty of gap when the rudder moves and dozens of other gaps.


View attachment 524180









The F-35 uses rudders, there is the same "gap" there when the rudder is applied. As for tight profile, the F-22 vertical stabilizers are about 2x bigger then the SU-57 and they have rudders unlike the SU-57, If this were the other way around you would bash the SU-57.









There is seams around the canopy? This seam "eliminates Stealth"....more like this statement tells me all I need to know about you. There are many techniques to reduce radar cross sections such as faceting, platform alignment, continuous curvature, and keeping seams tight and plush.


There is no such thing as "eliminating stealth". 90 degree corners are avoided whenever possible but if the F-22 or F-35 suddenly got 90 degree vertical stabilizers, their front, rear, bottom and 45 degree RCS would not change. Only the side and area between the horizontal stabilizer would change. So even if the SU-57 had this imaginary giant seam at most it would contribute an increase in some direction(s) how much? Literally only the engineers would know after testing in a anechoic chamber. You are not qualified to make such claims.











Sukhoi built the SU-47 demonstrator over 20 years ago, It also had a smooth flat fuselage, serpentine intakes and weapons bays....amazing Sukhoi either unlocked magic stealth mode or Sukhoi got dumber and forgot how to build aircraft.

Su-47 is not and will not be operational.
View attachment 524184




To touch on the topic you mentioned. The SU-57 has an additional 2 corner reflectors as a consequence of the fuselage design. This was a deliberate design choice for a tradeoff in more lift which give better efficiency, increases range, payload and usually helps with maneuverability. Just because the F-22 has a smooth fuselage does not exclude it from having corner reflectors in other areas. In other words the SU-57 fuselage won't "eliminate stealth" it will however increase RCS at certain angles if ground radar is present and 'eliminating' right in in between the narcels and fuselage but this alone does not mean that it will ever even be seen on radar, all is dependent on range and angle to threat.









Those RCS figures are average figures which tells you nothing especially when you have no baseline comparison to other aircraft. I seen those patents long before you, and they were published before the SU-57 even existed, long before the new engine was ever built. The aircraft has seen dozens of redesign changes over the years from the original prototype, there is no telling what the actual RCS is now or what it will be with the production model. You are also still not crasping how RCS works, since an average is the sum of all parts.



Notice the SU-57 in Syria even had special modifications just for its deployment (look behind the canopy and compare it with other modes). Look at all the other details and changes that were made.


View attachment 524183










It has nothing to do with false hope, the F-22 was close enough for the Rafale to kill it. The Rafale was no the only aircraft to kill the F-22 in mock combat either.









This is just a silly cartoon illustration. For one it claims the F-22 has a RCS of -40dbsm when no one knows what it actually is, secondly most modern Flankers have about 350-400km detection range, so I am confused, its claiming the APG-77 has a range of around 1500kms? It claims a Chinese Flanker would detect a F-22 at the distance of the red illustrated radar cone?

No fighter radar or airborne radar for that matter will detect f-22 at 350km. That 400km figure for irbis E is not a volume search number but cued search. It would have to concentrate it's power in a small area to hope to get those numbers and that's against 4th gen rcs.

And what does a Chinese Flanker have anything to do with the conversation? Instead of copying and pasting walls of off topic garbage try actually compiling a coherent argument.












I don't think you know half of what you just posted, just throwing around a lot of stuff you read from wekepedia.

But what does this have to do with the topic? If you want to go down that route, the SU-57 consists of 3 prototype radars, 5 if you count the L bands in the wings. The 3 radars have 2300 TR modules with room for more. The SU-57 have superior radar coverage and multiple bands. The SU-57 has every sensor the F-35 has and a few it doesn't. The F-22 lacks behind the F-35 in sensors and the F-35 lacks behind the Sukhoi in quantity of sensors.

I doubt each radar has 2300 so they are spread out between 3 radars, TR count isn't near the only way to tell the performance of a radar. If su-57 has better radar coverage but it's radar isn't stealthy it's just giving esm more signals to play with at long range. Also both x and L band coming from a fighter will give it a very unique signature and make it that much more easy to identify based on RF emissions alone. If AWAC L-band has trouble with f-22 stealth those little radars in the wings won't do much.

SU-57 has the additional side lobe radars and L band radars for better situational awareness and beam tunning, the side lobe radar are probably also help in SAR for SEAD roles, the L-band provides enhances jamming resilience and and extra band that helps to at least narrow down LO targets which then would focus its X-band+IRST.


But as usual you can't stay on topic....









No one said anything about the F-22 being worse then the Rafale it clearly has a better radar and smaller RCS, but the Rafale can hold its ground in WVR.











A Russian wrote the wrote the book on "stealth" literally. There is no super secret that only Americans know, they were just the first that used the formulas, everything about how "stealth" works is public knowledge. And if we talk about someone taking lessons, it was Lockheed that bought the Yak-141 design and had Russian advisors. It was Lockheed that bought many things from Russia to install on US satellites and rockets but none of this is to the topic or changes the fact that the F-22 has dozens of gaps and 90 degree corner reflectors around the nozzles, but now the F-22 defies physics.


Yet you russkies are still a day late and dollar short.









Again more off topic copy and paste jobs. Those F-22 engines are easily picked up by the IRST on the SU-35, those gaps and 90 degree corner reflectors are also make a nice target.

Is that image supposed to be proof of something? What am I even looking at it looks kind of like a yf-22. Typoon pilots have had plenty of time to try to negate f-22 stealth but it doesn't work because irst tech isn't ready for that it's still too limited, especially for volume search.
You were bragging about those stellar engines?


View attachment 524185










More off topic, copy and paste jobs. Again you can't think for yourself. Copying and pasting a wall of text about the F-22 engine just make you look desperate.















Shall we talk about how you are embarrassing yourself? Quick find something to copy and paste!








There is also some talk about about (name anything) not being up to standard. That is how pathetic your arguments are. Keep your "pointers" from quora.com to yourself



There is a number of ways to reduce RCS from inlets including radar blockers which are in use in aircraft such as the F-18SH they have also been used in prototype Boeing aircraft. Other methods include using ramps or mesh.

But until you take the SU-57 into an anechoic chamber and do extensive testing you and those random internet experts should stop embarrassing yourselves.












We had an employee (a foreign national) steal and sell very complex and garded technology technology from where I work. He worked as an engineer and had all the know how. It takes millions of dollars, sometimes billions of dollars and dozens or hundreds of machines to produce what this engineer stole and the country he sold the information to started producing the same thing.

And I have worked for one of the largest military manufacturers in the world, actually I worked on a classified project but please do lecture me some more on this topic. I'm amused honestly.

Was this country China?









No, it's not, the SU-57 was built with sensors that are not found on the F-22, it was built to have better situational awareness and it was built to do things that the F-22 simply can not.


Russian radar and engine tech has been lagging behind so having different types of sensors may not rule the day if they are inferior.






I'm scared. Are you going to start copying and pasting walls and walls of off topic subjects because you are unable to challenge me or form an original thought?








I'm arrogant? If I recall correctly you are the one that got arragent. Stop playing innocent, you have a reputation of coming into Russian military themed threads and trolling buy calling everything propaganda, overhyped, substandard, etc. The worst part is that you made idiotic and false claims. You continue behaving in the same manner expect someone to bring you down and put you in your place.

 

[gambit]

A Russian wrote the wrote the book on "stealth" literally.

No, he did not. I have his book, compiled from what the Soviet government discarded, on my shelf. There is literally NOTHING in Ufiimtsev's text that even IMPLIED 'stealth'.

Illustrating a behavior does not mean specifying a goal, and illustrating the MATHEMATICAL behaviors of waves under various scenarios was exactly all Ufimtsev did, hence, the Soviet government deemed his work militarily worthless.

Get this straight -- NO GOAL SPECIFIED.

In contrast, Denys Overholser (Lockheed) had a goal -- to reduce the amount of return radar echoes to source direction.

That goal tells us much about what Lockheed ALREADY knew of radar signal behaviors. The SR-71 was actually Lockheed's first attempt at that goal. The -71's vertical stabs inward cant position was less about aerodynamic efficiency -- yaw axis stability and control -- than it was a component of the overall attempt to reduce lateral aspect RCS.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0157.shtml

Lockheed designers included these canted tails based on early research into stealth technology. As far back as the 1940s, engineers had realized that perpendicular surfaces, like vertical tails, generated strong radar returns. By canting the tails away from 90°,...

With that goal in mind, Overholser sought out faster ways of calculating the enormous quantity of data that a radar signal inevitably produced upon contact with a body -- any body of any shape. And he found Ufimtsev's work in the public domain. The rest is aviation history.

The US in general, and Lockheed in particular, is the rightful owner of the credit on 'stealth'. Not the Soviets. Not the Germans under the Nazis. NO ONE ELSE.

You can have the best tools, and we are talking about humans and machines, in your organization. You can generate all kinds of data (information). But without a specific goal, what you have is essentially dead intellectual weight. The Soviets deemed Ufimtsev's work as that -- dead intellectual weight.

We did not.

 

[SME11B]

Yep, especially when that person is the current Chief of Air Staff of a major air force.

@LeGenD There is a lot of disinformation about the PAK FA. If you notice in the patent snippet you posted, it compares the Su-27's frontal RCS to that of the PAK FA's average RCS. So it's not an apples to apples comparison.

The Su-57's RCS is similar to or better than the F-22.

Even the Russians don't claim that.

Nice picture there. Was it captured from a video?

Please post if you have it.



The Rafale vs F-22 was a mock dog fight. It laid waste to the claim that the F-22 was invincible against older aircraft even in dog fights.

I wouldn't really think too much about it. The Typhoon guys also claimed they killed some F-22s in a dog fight.



This could also likely be a much larger failure of the entire NATO IADS that allowed the Su-35 to get close to the F-22 in the first place.

What do you mean "even in dog fights"? Dog fights are the only time the enemy isn't at a massive disadvantage against f-22. I wouldn't put too much stock in that grainy image either I can't even tell if that thing is in the air or on the ground.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

The US in general, and Lockheed in particular, is the rightful owner of the credit on 'stealth'. Not the Soviets. Not the Germans under the Nazis. NO ONE ELSE.

BS. There's no such thing as stealth. There is stealthy. But only to a certain extent. F-22 has 10% of F-15 radar signature. That's the limit with current technology. F-35 has 10% of F-16's radar signature. That's the limit of current technology. Each generation improves upon the one before. F-4. F-15. F-22. F-5. F-16. F-35. But you don't go from mortal to immortal in 1 generation. It don't work like that. It is not true F-22 has radar signature of fly. It is not true F-35 has radar signature of fly.

 

[randomradio]

Even the Russians don't claim that.

Many times. The last one was claimed by Bondarev, I believe.

What do you mean "even in dog fights"? Dog fights are the only time the enemy isn't at a massive disadvantage against f-22. I wouldn't put too much stock in that grainy image either I can't even tell if that thing is in the air or on the ground.

It was claimed that the F-22 can beat older aircraft not just in BVR, but also in WVR. The Rafale and Typhoon proved it wrong.

There is no grainy image, there is an entire video.

BS. There's no such thing as stealth. There is stealthy. But only to a certain extent. F-22 has 10% of F-15 radar signature. That's the limit with current technology. F-35 has 10% of F-16's radar signature. That's the limit of current technology. Each generation improves upon the one before. F-4. F-15. F-22. F-5. F-16. F-35. But you don't go from mortal to immortal in 1 generation. It don't work like that. It is not true F-22 has radar signature of fly. It is not true F-35 has radar signature of fly.

Nah, man. The F-22's RCS is as small if not smaller than a sparrow's. The F-35's RCS is even smaller.

 

[gambit]

There is no grainy image, there is an entire video.

I saw that video. Please see post 38...

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/russ...realistic-numbers.589471/page-3#post-10986755

 

[SME11B]

BS. There's no such thing as stealth. There is stealthy. But only to a certain extent. F-22 has 10% of F-15 radar signature. That's the limit with current technology. F-35 has 10% of F-16's radar signature. That's the limit of current technology. Each generation improves upon the one before. F-4. F-15. F-22. F-5. F-16. F-35. But you don't go from mortal to immortal in 1 generation. It don't work like that. It is not true F-22 has radar signature of fly. It is not true F-35 has radar signature of fly.

If a given aircraft is significantly superior the exchange ratio difference will be huge, it doesn't have to be orders of magnitude better either. Look at f-22 ratios at exercises. Because f-22 always sees first it controls the engagement and doesn't have to get close to anybody. That's how you get hundreds killed to zero ratios. Not technically immortal but for all practical purposes it might as well be. The only time f-22 has been in danger is when rules of engagement let the enemy closer to make things interesting and that includes rafael and typhoon in exercises. It doesn't need to be invisible in every circumstance, just to see first and have options from there and it will have a huge advantage. sending anything but a 5th gen against f-22 or f-35 unless it's some lucky scenario is just asking to get wrecked. The leap from f-15 to f-22 was greater than from f-4 to f-15 if for no other reason than stealth. What you meant to say was there is no such thing as invisibility.