Russian fighter jets intercept U.S. F-22 Raptor flying over Syria

[gambit]

just for the record the first stealth fighter was the Horten H IX first flown in March 1944...

The record is wrong, or at best debatable.

The Horten brothers used the flying wing design because of its already well known long distance capability. The flying wing was not new in WW II.

http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation history/flying wings/northrop.htm

In fact, the flying wing design was known as early as the 1920s. The problem have always been control and stability in the yaw axis.

It is true that the Horten brothers wanted to reduce the radar observability of the 229, but the techniques they used were nothing new as those techniques were already applied to periscopes and snorkels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_in_World_War_II

The combination of magnetron, transmit-receive (T-R) switch, small antenna and high resolution allowed small, powerful radars to be installed in aircraft. Maritime patrol aircraft could detect objects as small as submarine periscopes, allowing aircraft to track and attack submerged submarines...

In order for a design to be consider as a true low radar observable design, that capability must be from conception. The Horten 229 was not. Long distance was the 229's main objective. Low radar observability was a secondary consideration.

So from that perspective, the first true 'stealth' design was the F-117 where every physical features, even those crucial for aerodynamics and flight controls, were subjected to RCS reduction measures.

 

[Fawadqasim1]

The record is wrong, or at best debatable.

The Horten brothers used the flying wing design because of its already well known long distance capability. The flying wing was not new in WW II.

http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation history/flying wings/northrop.htm

In fact, the flying wing design was known as early as the 1920s. The problem have always been control and stability in the yaw axis.

It is true that the Horten brothers wanted to reduce the radar observability of the 229, but the techniques they used were nothing new as those techniques were already applied to periscopes and snorkels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_in_World_War_II

In order for a design to be consider as a true low radar observable design, that capability must be from conception. The Horten 229 was not. Long distance was the 229's main objective. Low radar observability was a secondary consideration.

So from that perspective, the first true 'stealth' design was the F-117 where every physical features, even those crucial for aerodynamics and flight controls, were subjected to RCS reduction measures.

A full scale model was tested by skunk works Engineers they found that most of the reflections received were from the cockpit the skin was made of wood so it was sort of a precursor to stealth.

 

[gambit]

A full scale model was tested by skunk works Engineers they found that most of the reflections received were from the cockpit the skin was made of wood so it was sort of a precursor to stealth.

Sort of is not good enough. In order to qualify as a true low radar observable design, that feature has to be built in from conception, not as an add-on or incidental item like how the Horten brothers did the 229.

 

[ptldM3]

Stealthy enough to not be seen on radar.

I don't know about flying over Moscow undetected, because you still can physically see the plane. However it can enter Russia without being detected at all.


"The OLS-35, like and other IRST, does not provide target quality track data for weapons employment. For example, if a Russian Su-35 fighter jet detected an approaching forward aspect F-22, the Russian pilot could not directly utilize the IRST data to direct semi-active, active, or passive homing missiles; laser illumination capabilities are generally a means to guide air-to-ground munitions rather than air-to-air missiles."
I was just saying that his article says:

Stop pretending to know what you are talking about when you are clueless. At first you claimed that the SU-35s only option was guns.


This may come as a shock to you but infared homing missiles such as R-27 exist.

When a Russian plane downs an American plane, only then I will believe it. So far, it has been Russians which are on receiving end when it comes to air combat.

Perhaps you might want to check the number of aircraft lost over Vietnam, it is in the thousands. If you are referring to the two losses over Syria, both were unarmed aircraft, neither were fighters and neither expected to ever be shot at. The USSR also downed many reconnaissance aircraft in a similar fashion.

 

[gambit]

Perhaps you might want to check the number of aircraft lost over Vietnam, it is in the thousands.

Which came from mostly SAMs.

 

[Frostbite]

Which came from mostly SAMs.

Moot point.

nothing can totally hide from electromagnetic waves but reduce RCS, US not claiming t

look at your Beloved Su-57 it has less RCS reduction features than F-22,

1) it has engine fan blade exposed to radar with increased RCS from front @Frostbite

2) it has IRST in front which also gives the extra radar return @Frostbite

3) it has a cockpit bracing which also increases radar return @Frostbite

4) it has a LEVCON which gives extra surface to radar @Frostbite

5) Engine is totally expose to radar, IR sensors because it has no LOAN type nozzle that is on F-22 that reduces IR signature from behind @Frostbite

Your picture shows that Su-35 capture this image when F-22 was within the range of visual range of Su-35, if there was fight between F-22 and Su-35 within visual range your beloved Su-35 had been long gone because F-22 can detect Su-35 earlier and destroyed Su-35 before @Frostbite


You close friend @undertakerwwefan @Frostbite

This is manifestly untrue. The levcon (all composite)is a neat way of giving the performance of a canard but without the external protrusion. This also allows the vertical stabilizers (all composite) to be less than half the size of the F-22's.

The IRST. Oh man. The pseudo RCS expert manual says 2 things. Sphere bad and F-22 doesn't have it = bad. So you automatically believe that a spherical shape (regardless of what its made of or what size it is) is a stealth deal breaker. You probably believe that a marble taped to the nose of a F-22 = RCS 14. But no. This is not how any of this works in reality.

The su 57 intakes are the same as the YF-23 which had better stealth than the F-22. The rear of the su 57 is the same thing as the F-35. So 2 total non points.

As for your claims about BVR. That all sounds great in a text book. Wars aren't faught in text books.

Stealthy enough to not be seen on radar.

I don't know about flying over Moscow undetected, because you still can physically see the plane. However it can enter Russia without being detected at all.


"The OLS-35, like and other IRST, does not provide target quality track data for weapons employment. For example, if a Russian Su-35 fighter jet detected an approaching forward aspect F-22, the Russian pilot could not directly utilize the IRST data to direct semi-active, active, or passive homing missiles; laser illumination capabilities are generally a means to guide air-to-ground munitions rather than air-to-air missiles."
I was just saying that his article says:

Nobody is arguing that. It just puts to rest the idea that the F-22 can fly around completely invisible to a 4th gen aircraft. Because that's what many ppl including the US president think stealth is.

 

[Beny Karachun]

Nobody is arguing that. It just puts to rest the idea that the F-22 can fly around completely invisible to a 4th gen aircraft. Because that's what many ppl including the US president think stealth is.

No one ever said the F-22 is invisible. However you are hopeless to find it in a BVR scenario with current technology, and you better pray it doesn't want to shoot you down.

 

[Ultima Thule]

This is manifestly untrue. The levcon (all composite)is a neat way of giving the performance of a canard but without the external protrusion. This also allows the vertical stabilizers (all composite) to be less than half the size of the F-22's.

The IRST. Oh man. The pseudo RCS expert manual says 2 things. Sphere bad and F-22 doesn't have it = bad. So you automatically believe that a spherical shape (regardless of what its made of or what size it is) is a stealth deal breaker. You probably believe that a marble taped to the nose of a F-22 = RCS 14. But no. This is not how any of this works in reality.

The su 57 intakes are the same as the YF-23 which had better stealth than the F-22. The rear of the su 57 is the same thing as the F-35. So 2 total non points.

As for your claims about BVR. That all sounds great in a text book. Wars aren't faught in text books.

You don't even even knows the basics of Stealth and calling you as an expert, what a fart you're @Frostbite Whether LAVCON made of composite or not it gives a extra radar return, Both IRST /LAVCON gives extra radar return, Stealth theme means to avoid 90 degree angles and to avoid to gives extra surface from radar as much as you can (clean design) @Frostbite

I am not talking you the shape of intake design but inside of it, in the intake more than 80% engine fan blade (one of the biggest radar reflection source) expose to the radar @Frostbite

what is you talking about @Frostbite i think you're either blind or lived always in your false hood, Su-57 is no way near the F-35 nozzle design/stealth, basically its a upgraded Su-27 series of jets with only front (partial) stealth @Frostbite

Are you living in 60/70 kid @Frostbite where BVR extremely unreliable (in 60/70), you're forgetting first gulf war where BVR destroyed more than 50% jets and also in Balkans War more than 90% enemy jets were destroyed by BVR @Frostbite

The main theme for stealth is to attack enemy with BVR and for last resort they have short range air to air missiles and guns @Frostbite

can you give me a answer for my this question will ya @Frostbite If you think BVR is/will be useless for current and future war than why Russian have R-77/R-27/R-33 in their service, and they are trying to design/develop new BVR for Su-57 @Frostbite sorry kid to brust your bubbles @Frostbite

 

[gambit]

Moot point.

It is not moot. It is necessary to put the air war over VN in its proper context regarding platform vs platform.

I give you Operation Bolo...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bolo

This is the real air war.

This is manifestly untrue. The levcon (all composite)is a neat way of giving the performance of a canard but without the external protrusion.

There are three rules in designing a low radar observable body:

Control of:

- Quantity of radiators
- Array of radiators
- Modes of radiation

Though they are called 'rules', they are more like guidelines. They cannot be broken in the sense that it is the degree of obedience to them that matter.

The levcons may not protrude like the canards, but once they are in motion, like the image above that shows a gap, they become less obedient to rule 2, meaning their relative position to the fuselage changes, altering the behaviors of rule 3.

The IRST. Oh man. The pseudo RCS expert manual says 2 things. Sphere bad and F-22 doesn't have it = bad. So you automatically believe that a spherical shape (regardless of what its made of or what size it is) is a stealth deal breaker. You probably believe that a marble taped to the nose of a F-22 = RCS 14. But no. This is not how any of this works in reality.

The reality is that more protrusions the less obedient to rule 1. However, because the IRST sensor is relatively sort of a ball -- curvature -- its contribution to overall RCS is most likely statistically insignificant. In other words, not a biggie.

The su 57 intakes are the same as the YF-23 which had better stealth than the F-22. The rear of the su 57 is the same thing as the F-35. So 2 total non points.

The Su-57 program is essentially -- dead. What you dismissed as 'non points' probably were pointy enough for the Russians to put a hold on the program.

As for your claims about BVR. That all sounds great in a text book. Wars aren't faught in text books.

We -- US airpower -- contributed a lot to that textbook.

Nobody is arguing that. It just puts to rest the idea that the F-22 can fly around completely invisible to a 4th gen aircraft. Because that's what many ppl including the US president think stealth is.

No one is using the word 'invisible', at least not from the US side. The official Pentagonese is 'low radar observable'.

 

[Ultima Thule]

It is not moot. It is necessary to put the air war over VN in its proper context regarding platform vs platform.

I give you Operation Bolo...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bolo

This is the real air war.


There are three rules in designing a low radar observable body:

Control of:

- Quantity of radiators
- Array of radiators
- Modes of radiation

Though they are called 'rules', they are more like guidelines. They cannot be broken in the sense that it is the degree of obedience to them that matter.

The levcons may not protrude like the canards, but once they are in motion, like the image above that shows a gap, they become less obedient to rule 2, meaning their relative position to the fuselage changes, altering the behaviors of rule 3.


The reality is that more protrusions the less obedient to rule 1. However, because the IRST sensor is relatively sort of a ball -- curvature -- its contribution to overall RCS is most likely statistically insignificant. In other words, not a biggie.


The Su-57 program is essentially -- dead. What you dismissed as 'non points' probably were pointy enough for the Russians to put a hold on the program.


We -- US airpower -- contributed a lot to that textbook.


No one is using the word 'invisible', at least not from the US side. The official Pentagonese is 'low radar observable'.

He will not understand you @gambit sir

 

[ptldM3]

You don't even even knows the basics of Stealth and calling you as an expert, what a fart you're @Frostbite Whether

Neither do you but you keep posting.

LAVCON made of composite or not it gives a extra radar

return, Both IRST /LAVCON gives extra radar return, Stealth theme means to avoid 90 degree angles and to avoid to gives extra surface from radar as much as you can (clean design) @Frostbite

Very good but convenient how you ignore all the extra features such as ventral fins and and vertical tail base on the J-20. But.....but lavcon....that lavcon. Same with the F-35 which I will cover later...

But if you removed your fanboy glasses you would see ventral fins as extra corner reflectors and the horizontal stabilizers attached to vertical base on the J-20 as the same challenge/potential reflector as Lavcon.

I am not talking you the shape of intake design but inside of it, in the intake more than 80% engine fan blade (one of the biggest radar reflection source) expose to the radar @Frostbite

I think you figured it out. Russian engineers, designers, scientists and project managers were too dumb to figure the methods of reducing RCS from the intake. Or perhaps you're completely oblivious to the SU-57. It's all always the arragent and cocky people like you that get burned the most.

what is you talking about @Frostbite i think you're either blind or lived always in your false hood, Su-57 is no way near the F-35 nozzle design/stealth,

Both the F-135 and izdeliye 30 have faceted pedals and 'serrated' ends but now the F-135 have something magical that, although it is shaped the same as the izdeliye 30 it has mystical powers of invincibility

basically its a upgraded Su-27 series of jets with only front (partial) stealth @Frostbite

Basically you're a little slow and too arrogant for your own good, to say the least. SU-57 is to Flanker as F-22 is to F-15. The F-22 is just an upgraded F-15 right?


Basically the same aircraft...

You have also mentioned the SU-57 "metal frame" before and cited it as "unstealthy". There is no such criteria for so called stealth. It's a discontinuity, in which all aircraft have. Essentially a gap in which all aircraft have in the forms of bay doors, leading edge extensions, access panels and so fourth.



The SU-57 have 1 discontinuity on the canopy, while the B-2 has several.

F-35 discontinuities. The VSTOl systems requires many movable panels which are absent on the SU-57.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Neither do you but you keep posting.

i am not claiming that i am an expert on aerodynamics @ptldM3

Very good but convenient how you ignore all the extra features such as ventral fins and and vertical tail base on the J-20. But.....but lavcon....that lavcon. Same with the F-35 which I will cover later...

Ventral fins/ Canards/LAVCON are bad for overall stealth sir, Canards/LAVCON is extremely good if you're illuminated from front only (Head on) if they illuminated from different angles such as below/side they gives extra surface to radar, now show me that F-35 is using LAVCON similar device on it @ptldM3

Both the F-135 and izdeliye 30 have faceted pedals and 'serrated' ends but now the F-135 have something magical that, although it is shaped the same as the izdeliye 30 it has mystical powers of invincibility

faceted pedals and serrated ends are two things but 30 doesn't treated low observable treatments overall, may be 30 will treated later


, its have a metal exposed to gives radar reflections, F-135 is treated low observable treatments here it is

Basically you're a little slow and too arrogant for your own good, to say the least. SU-57 is to Flanker as F-22 is to F-15. The F-22 is just an upgraded F-15 right?

Plan-form is extremely similar to Su-27 series of jets with exceptions of shaping (STEALTH)

You have also mentioned the SU-57 "metal frame" before and cited it as "unstealthy". There is no such criteria for so called stealth. It's a discontinuity, in which all aircraft have. Essentially a gap in which all aircraft have in the forms of bay doors, leading edge extensions, access panels and so fourth.



The SU-57 have 1 discontinuity on the canopy, while the B-2 has several.

F-35 discontinuities. The VSTOl systems requires many movable panels which are absent on the SU-57.

No i am not saying that but you assuming sir, 70% composite is good content sir, every design has pros and cons/limitation, no design 100% correct, and i am afraid to say that your SU-57 is far from finished product @ptldM3

You have also mentioned the SU-57 "metal frame" before and cited it as "unstealthy". There is no such criteria for so called stealth. It's a discontinuity, in which all aircraft have. Essentially a gap in which all aircraft have in the forms of bay doors, leading edge extensions, access panels and so fourth.



The SU-57 have 1 discontinuity on the canopy, while the B-2 has several.

F-35 discontinuities. The VSTOl systems requires many movable panels which are absent on the SU-57.

No i am not saying that but you assuming sir, 70% composite is good content sir, every design has pros and cons/limitation, no design 100% correct, and i am afraid to say that your SU-57 is far from finished product @ptldM3

 

[ptldM3]

Ventral fins/ Canards/LAVCON are bad for overall stealth sir,

It's a trade off but somehow the J-20 gets a free pass with its ventral fins, vertical stabilizers, engines, canards, etc while the SU-57 gets bashes relentlessly for everything. The F-35 also receives a free pass despite its undercarriage and excessive bays (discontinuities) It's an example of selective bias.

Canards/LAVCON is extremely good if you're illuminated from front only (Head on) if they illuminated from different angles such as below/side they gives extra surface to radar,

That is nonsense, by that token the B-2 would be an awful design since the entire aircraft is a wing, "extra surface" as you put it and it has movable leading edge slats, ailerons and flaps.

Conards, Levcons, Leading edge extensions, etc cause potential spikes to RCS due to discontinuities (gaps) and movements. We don't know the extent of the RCS these surfaces cause and there is no standard or agreed upon numbers of what is acceptable. The manufacturers decide what is expectable.

now show me that F-35 is using LAVCON similar device on it @ptldM3

This makes no sense at all. The Lavcon is a discontinuity, show me the SU-57 having the same discontinuities as the F-35 with its VSTOL system which requires at least 7 extra movable bays doors, not counting access panels.

faceted pedals and serrated ends are two things but 30 doesn't treated low observable treatments overall, may be 30 will treated later


, its have a metal exposed to gives radar reflections, F-135 is treated low observable treatments here it is
View attachment 501669

The F-135 doesn't have "metal" now you clearly are just desperate now. The F-135 and izdeliye 30 both are constructed from some type of alloys. What exact alloys or treatments, if any, is not known yet somehow your eyeballs were able to know about the izdeliye 30 properties just by looking at a picture. F-135 nozzles are actually silver, and not gold/bronze as in that edited picture. Shaping is the only thing that matters with nozzles.

Plan-form is extremely similar to Su-27 series of jets with exceptions of shaping (STEALTH)

The SU-57 has two spaces engines, underwing intakes and two widely separated vertical stabilizers---must be a Flanker as much as F-22 must be an F-15 due to its intake, engine and stabilizer arrangement.

Ventral fins/ Canards/LAVCON are bad for overall stealth sir,

 

[Ultima Thule]

It's a trade off but somehow the J-20 gets a free pass with its ventral fins, vertical stabilizers, engines, canards, etc while the SU-57 gets bashes relentlessly for everything. The F-35 also receives a free pass despite its undercarriage and excessive bays (discontinuities) It's an example of selective bias.








That is nonsense, by that token the B-2 would be an awful design since the entire aircraft is a wing, "extra surface" as you put it and it has movable leading edge slats, ailerons and flaps.

Conards, Levcons, Leading edge extensions, etc cause potential spikes to RCS due to discontinuities (gaps) and movements. We don't know the extent of the RCS these surfaces cause and there is no standard or agreed upon numbers of what is acceptable. The manufacturers decide what is expectable.









This makes no sense at all. The Lavcon is a discontinuity, show me the SU-57 having the same discontinuities as the F-35 with its VSTOL system which requires at least 7 extra movable bays doors, not counting access panels.


View attachment 501706









The F-135 doesn't have "metal" now you clearly are just desperate now. The F-135 and izdeliye 30 both are constructed from some type of alloys. What exact alloys or treatments, if any, is not known yet somehow your eyeballs were able to know about the izdeliye 30 properties just by looking at a picture. F-135 nozzles are actually silver, and not gold/bronze as in that edited picture. Shaping is the only thing that matters with nozzles.











The SU-57 has two spaces engines, underwing intakes and two widely separated vertical stabilizers---must be a Flanker as much as F-22 must be an F-15 due to its intake, engine and stabilizer arrangement.

Ok sir you're right i am wrong , Peace @ptldM3

 

[Agha Sher]

Russians have lost the aerospace race. F-22s and F-35s would eat SU-35s and SU-57s on any day under any conditions without probably suffering a single loss. They are just too technologically advanced, just look at their trials against F-15s, Eurofighters and Rafales.

It is better for Russia to realise this, before ending up in a situation where the Russian Air Force will be humiliated.