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]

2. Intake exposing blades : Again not an issue for a turbofan powered missile.

Wrong.

Kh-55 has jet engine slung under the fuselage.

1. Weapons bay for hiding weapons, not a issue in missile, that opportunity is simply not applicable to a missile.

Wrong. Fighter plane radar signature never count stores. Only in clean configuration without any stores.

 

[BringHarmony]

Wrong. Fighter plane radar signature never count stores. Only in clean configuration without any stores.

Actually it does, thats the point of having an internal weapons bay. Why will you send a fighter with minimal arms otherwise? Fighters do not go without missile loads in battle.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Actually it does, thats the point of having an internal weapons bay. Why will you send a fighter with minimal arms otherwise? Fighters do not go without missile loads in battle.

Nope. Radar signature estimate never count stores, only in clean configuration.

 

[BringHarmony]

Nope. Radar signature estimate never count stores, only in clean configuration.

Actually all the numbers floating around on RCS have no indication in which configuration they were taken. In real battle situations, no fighter will go to war without weapons. Plus internal bay also makes underneath of a fighter clean removing any radar reflecting surfaces.

Look at F-22 or F-35 and compare it with F-16..

F-16

F-22

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Actually all the numbers floating around on RCS have no indication in which configuration they were taken. In real battle situations, no fighter will go to war without weapons.

Fighter planes don't come with stores. Fighter jet radar signatures never count stores. Obviously external fuel tanks have far more radar signature than say infrared air to air missiles.

 

[BringHarmony]

Fighter planes don't come with stores. Fighter jet radar signatures never count stores. Obviously external fuel tanks have far more radar signature than say infrared air to air missiles.

In the battle, will your fighter go with the weapons or not? Thats where an internal weapon store will help. Otherwise why will they put it in the first place?

Cruise missiles do not have that problem, so they don't have to apply that solution.

Fighter jet radar signatures never count stores.

Are there any authentic source of RCS? If there are they will mention which configuration. Most of the figures of RCS you see are simply speculation with dubious bearing to reality.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Actually all the numbers floating around on RCS have no indication in which configuration they were taken. In real battle situations, no fighter will go to war without weapons. Plus internal bay also makes underneath of a fighter clean removing any radar reflecting surfaces.

Look at F-22 or F-35 and compare it with F-16..

F-16

F-22

F-16 is 1 m^2. F-22 is 0.3 m^2. m^2 of what? Material? How thick? RCS is a flawed concept. If you say F-22 has radar signature of marble, not true, marble is sphere, same radar signature from any angle. F-22 is not same radar signature from any angle. Marble made of what? What material? How big marble? It's ridiculous.

In the battle, will your fighter go with the weapons or not? Thats where an internal weapon store will help. Otherwise why will they put it in the first place?

F-22 has many external hard points, can carry external fuel tanks. By your logic these are all counted. Ridiculous.

 

[BringHarmony]

F-16 is 1 m^2. F-22 is 0.3 m^2. m^2 of what? Material? How thick? RCS is a flawed concept. If you say F-22 has radar signature of marble, not true, marble is sphere, same radar signature from any angle. F-22 is not same radar signature from any angle. Marble made of what? What material? How big marble? It's ridiculous.

There is a reference for measuring RCS actually. Its a conducting sphere.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19950013365.pdf

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

There is a reference for measuring RCS actually. Its a conducting sphere.

What sphere? Care to share?

 

[BringHarmony]

What sphere? Care to share?

Read this paper :

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19950013365.pdf

The cross-sectional measurements are calibrated to a 6-in-dia. (15.24 cm) sphere target and are presented in dB referenced to a square meter (dBsm).

Thats how you calibrate your meansurement, its in reference to a conducting sphere. Point being, what surface area of a conducting sphere will have same radar response as your target.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Read this paper :

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19950013365.pdf

Sorry. I don't read crap.

 

[BringHarmony]

Sorry. I don't read crap.

If NASA's documentation is crap then your 'ideas' are 'not even wrong'. They are worse. BTW, I have highlighted the portion that answers your question.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

If NASA's documentation is crap then your 'ideas' are 'not even wrong'. They are worse. BTW, I have highlighted the portion that answers your question.

I don't read papers people can't understand.

 

[BringHarmony]

I don't read papers people can't understand.

Ahem! Then admit you don't understand what you are talking about.
For example, If one does not know difference between center of mass and center of gravity, there is no point commenting on the design of a spacecraft.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Ahem! Then admit you don't understand what you are talking about.
For example, If one does not know difference between center of mass and center of gravity, there is no point commenting on the design of a spacecraft.

That is for a perfectly conducting sphere. It don't exist in this universe.