SAC - FC-31 Grey Falcon Stealth aircraft for PAF : Updates & Debate

[gambit]

I have a question?
Where is the STEALTH of this Aircraft, when one can even saw them with a naked eyes?

Waiting for a decent answer.
Thanks in advance

There are many ways to perceive an object. Take a ball, for example.

If you hold the ball, then you are perceiving it thru direct 'skin to skin' contact.

If the ball is on the table and you are looking at it, then you are perceiving it thru a specific range of the electromagnetic spectrum.

The keyword here is 'perception'.

What everybody casually calls 'stealth' is technically correct as 'low radar observability' or 'low radar perceivable'.

With radar, you are perceiving the ball or the aircraft thru a specific but different range of the electromagnetic spectrum.

So an aircraft designed to be 'stealth' would be shaped to make perception difficult in the microwave range of the EM spectrum.

Hope that helped.

 

[X_Killer]

You mean something like how elsewhere you were comparing the Tejas mistake with JF-17 and instead calling the JF-17 a junk fighter.........

Excuse never be a answer

Leave it, if you Don't have the answer
Good day

OJ!! So you are talking about the smoke?
Why beat about the bush then mate, you can come out and say it out loud! No one is going to hurt you.

Yes, the smoke trail is a problem but this is not the only plane to have faced this at initial stage of evolution. Also these are not visible as they are in these images taken as close shots. Flying and thousands of feet, there is no chance to spot the smoke from ground. Also remember that when one if looking for a smoke trail in the WHOLE sky full of sunshine and clouds and what not, it is essentially more than looking for a needle in a hay stack.

Yup, I usually saw this smoke trail on migs but they are not STEALTHY , so that is why we can put them away from stealth fighter category.
There is a well-known quote " hope for the best, Prepare for the worst". But if if we only think about favourable climate ALLL tha time than it will not going to be possible

There are many ways to perceive an object. Take a ball, for example.

If you hold the ball, then you are perceiving it thru direct 'skin to skin' contact.

If the ball is on the table and you are looking at it, then you are perceiving it thru a specific range of the electromagnetic spectrum.

The keyword here is 'perception'.

What everybody casually calls 'stealth' is technically correct as 'low radar observability' or 'low radar perceivable'.

With radar, you are perceiving the ball or the aircraft thru a specific but different range of the electromagnetic spectrum.

So an aircraft designed to be 'stealth' would be shaped to make perception difficult in the microwave range of the EM spectrum.

Hope that helped.

This is what I can call a "decent" answer.

But
All current stealth aircraft were designed to counter X-Band radars, but those shapes are getting ineffective if a radar operates in S-band and even more ineffective when the radar operates in L-band. The reason for the stealth aircraft to be detected is the wavelength of the radar, a radar operating in L-band produces wavelengths with comparable size to the aircraft itself and should exhibit scattering in the resonance region rather than the optical region, so that most of the existing stealth aircraft will turn from invisible, to visible.

It will be difficult to detect those STEALTH Aircrafts from another Aircraft is difficult but it will be quite easier to detect them from Ground based L-BAND and S-band Radars & Also by airborne RADARS

 

[Windjammer]

Excuse never be a answer

Leave it, if you Don't have the answer
Good day

Oh i do have the answer, but it's you jumping the gun by comparing an RD93 powered prototype with some mature platforms. Firstly this engine is well known to have smoke issues, MiG-29 is a prime example.
The JF-17 sufferers from same problem but in it's last display the smoke was totally absent so much so that onlookers were thinking that it must have had a newer engine installed, however the display pilot disclosed that an aircraft emitting smoke also has to do with atmospheric environment.. @gambit

 

[Arsalan]

Excuse never be a answer

Leave it, if you Don't have the answer
Good day


Yup, I usually saw this smoke trail on migs but they are not STEALTHY , so that is why we can put them away from stealth fighter category.
There is a well-known quote " hope for the best, Prepare for the worst". But if if we only think about favourable climate ALLL tha time than it will not going to be possible



This is what I can call a "decent" answer.

But
All current stealth aircraft were designed to counter X-Band radars, but those shapes are getting ineffective if a radar operates in S-band and even more ineffective when the radar operates in L-band. The reason for the stealth aircraft to be detected is the wavelength of the radar, a radar operating in L-band produces wavelengths with comparable size to the aircraft itself and should exhibit scattering in the resonance region rather than the optical region, so that most of the existing stealth aircraft will turn from invisible, to visible.

It will be difficult to detect those STEALTH Aircrafts from another Aircraft is difficult but it will be quite easier to detect them from Ground based L-BAND and S-band Radars & Also by airborne RADARS

LOLZ!!
You are talking about somke and optical visibility, he told you about radar signature and electronic visibility (same as mentioned in first post) but his is a decent answer and mine is a baseless argument because he carries a US flag while i carry a green one. Cool, i get what you are looking for. Sorry, call me uneducated but i do not have anything else to add.

 

[X_Killer]

Oh i do have the answer, but it's you jumping the gun by comparing an RD93 powered prototype with some mature platforms. Firstly this engine is well known to have smoke issues, MiG-29 is a prime example.
The JF-17 sufferers from same problem but in it's last display the smoke was totally absent so much so that onlookers were thinking that it must have had a newer engine installed, however the display pilot disclosed that an aircraft emitting smoke also has to do with atmospheric environment.. @gambit

I know it RD-93 produce more smoke comparable with other Engines . Also I found the same issue (smoke) in J-20. I'm not sharing them here due to different thread but I can share if someone raise a request.

Back to the point, how can we call these FIGHTER AIRCRAFTS a genuine "STEALTH Aircraft " with smoking trails.

LOLZ!!
You are talking about somke and optical visibility, he told you about radar signature and electronic visibility (same as mentioned in first post) but his is a decent answer and mine is a baseless argument because he carries a US flag while i carry a green one. Cool, i get what you are looking for. Sorry, call me uneducated but i do not have anything else to add.

Dude, Don't worry.
I'm not Racist. I need a genuine answer.
I know none of the Aircraft is completely stealthy and superior forever. But we should know about pros and cons About all familiar machines

 

[Windjammer]

I know it RD-93 produce more smoke comparable with other Engines . Also I found the same issue (smoke) in J-20. I'm not sharing them here due to different thread but I can share if someone raise a request.

Back to the point, how can we call these FIGHTER AIRCRAFTS a genuine "STEALTH Aircraft " with smoking trails.

Seems you haven't exactly caught the idea of what stealth in essence means, i doubt it has anything to do with a naked eye, besides with newer engines becoming available, the smoke issue would be addressed.

stealth
(chiefly of aircraft) designed in accordance with technology which makes detection by radar or sonar difficult.

 

[Sully3]

I have a question?
Where is the STEALTH of this Aircraft, when one can even saw them with a naked eyes?

Waiting for a decent answer.
Thanks in advance

photoshopped images. indians getting excited for no reason. sit back down !

 

[gambit]

But
All current stealth aircraft were designed to counter X-Band radars, but those shapes are getting ineffective if a radar operates in S-band and even more ineffective when the radar operates in L-band. The reason for the stealth aircraft to be detected is the wavelength of the radar, a radar operating in L-band produces wavelengths with comparable size to the aircraft itself and should exhibit scattering in the resonance region rather than the optical region, so that most of the existing stealth aircraft will turn from invisible, to visible.

It will be difficult to detect those STEALTH Aircrafts from another Aircraft is difficult but it will be quite easier to detect them from Ground based L-BAND and S-band Radars & Also by airborne RADARS

The problem for longer wavelengths is decreasing target resolutions.

- Altitude
- Speed
- Heading
- Aspect angle

As the wavelengths gets longer, those above resolutions degrades.

There are three main wavelengths:

- Volume search: longest wavelengths
- Tracking
- Targeting: shortest wavelengths

Missiles always have the 'Targeting' wavelengths.

Using an airport as example. Volume search will help the traffic controllers sees the inbounds. Tracking is more focused and helps the controllers assign waiting altitudes. Targeting is when the controllers needs to focus on a single aircraft to help him land safely.

It is the targeting freqs that 'stealth' fighters are shaped against. You can see me, but you cannot shoot me.

 

[X_Killer]

The problem for longer wavelengths is decreasing target resolutions.

- Altitude
- Speed
- Heading
- Aspect angle

As the wavelengths gets longer, those above resolutions degrades.

There are three main wavelengths:

- Volume search: longest wavelengths
- Tracking
- Targeting: shortest wavelengths

Missiles always have the 'Targeting' wavelengths.

Using an airport as example. Volume search will help the traffic controllers sees the inbounds. Tracking is more focused and helps the controllers assign waiting altitudes. Targeting is when the controllers needs to focus on a single aircraft to help him land safely.

It is the targeting freqs that 'stealth' fighters are shaped against. You can see me, but you cannot shoot me.

@Sully3
“Stealth is ‘delayed detection’ and that delay is getting shorter. SAM (Surface-to-Air Missile) radars are shifting their frequencies into lower frequency bands

When it comes to S-400, the fact remains that even if Russian low-frequency search and acquisitions radars can detect and track tactical fighter-sized stealth aircraft such as the F-22 or F-35, fire control radars operating in C, X and Ku bands cannot paint low observable (LO) jets except at very close ranges. Stealth is not—and never has been—invisibility, but it does offer greatly delayed detection so that a fighter or bomber and can engage a target and leave before the enemy has time to react.

In case of US' B-2 &B-21, to counter lower frequency radars, a larger flying-wing stealth aircraft design like the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit or the B-21 Raider—which lacks many of the features that cause a resonance effect.
If we compare J-20 & J-31 with F-22 and F-35 , both lag behind in many terms of stealth.

Hence I can say that, with high end tech, if I can see you than I can also track and destroy you.

 

[DARING]

ideal choice for pak

 

[Kompromat]

More pictures please.

 

[Fawadqasim1]

The problem for longer wavelengths is decreasing target resolutions.

- Altitude
- Speed
- Heading
- Aspect angle

As the wavelengths gets longer, those above resolutions degrades.

There are three main wavelengths:

- Volume search: longest wavelengths
- Tracking
- Targeting: shortest wavelengths

Missiles always have the 'Targeting' wavelengths.

Using an airport as example. Volume search will help the traffic controllers sees the inbounds. Tracking is more focused and helps the controllers assign waiting altitudes. Targeting is when the controllers needs to focus on a single aircraft to help him land safely.

It is the targeting freqs that 'stealth' fighters are shaped against. You can see me, but you cannot shoot me.

there can/must be some tactics which mid tech air forces can use against them. If I can see you I can get you eg point defence interceptions can be scrambled against them with irst and dual sensors iir missiles just a thought what do you say sir

 

[gambit]

there can/must be some tactics which mid tech air forces can use against them. If I can see you I can get you eg point defence interceptions can be scrambled against them with irst and dual sensors iir missiles just a thought what do you say sir

Currently, all tactics that claimed to be effective against 'stealth' are nothing more than speculations. For starter, you can safely assume that the US have thought a great deal about those tactics simply because we have '4th gen' platforms to test against 'stealth'.

 

[nomi007]

we need to take 1 j-31 for testing and evaluation purposes

 

[HannibalBarca]

No new news about FC-31? Articles? Pics? ...