Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues
![[ F l a n k e d ]](https://2img.net/u/4211/56/72/02/avatars/2138-65.png)
If it can hold 2 of these missiles in one internal bay than it means that it can carry 4 cruise missiles and 2 AA missiles all internally.
[ F l a n k e d ] wrote:
Finally, a missile launch is revealed !
Lockheed brides are frenetically spinning damage control propaganda across all forums. Their reaction ranges from questioning the credibility of the footage to casting doubt over its location
)
KomissarBojanchev wrote:If it can hold 2 of these missiles in one internal bay than it means that it can carry 4 cruise missiles and 2 AA missiles all internally.
Great! This means each bay can hold more than 2 R-77s making the whole 4 R-77 claim officially BS
Mindstorm wrote:
As already explained four years ago, the much more lucid initial concept and design of the ПАК ФА allow today a Су-57, in comparison with a F-35 supposedly optimized for air to ground missions, to deliver on enemy ground targets the double of competitor's air to ground weapons from more than 5 times greater range,each with about 1,5 times the warhead mass, with immeasurably greater approach flight pact selection and immunity to EW and masking countermeasures.
This crushing difference in air to ground potential will become even more marked (with particular reference to warhead's variety, mass and destructive potential) when a direct comparison with ГРОМ...and another product now still not revealed.....will be conducted.
on the other hand, even at the dawn of its career, suffers from fundamental limitations of the base design which are already manifest and inflict unacceptable penalties, if not retrograde performance upon its hapless operators.
Kopp never did RCS modelling of the F-35, when I spoke to him he said it was because the university funding it wasn't going to pay for a third project. He certainly did do the Su-57 and J-20 though, and when one ignores the noise of his skewed conclusions on the F-35 which completely contradict his data results, the analysis of the Su-57 specifically is damning.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2012-03.html
Basically, as per the RCS results from Kopp's simulation, the RCS of the Su-57 is highly problematic. His article mentions the 6 lobe characteristics of the aircraft's side aspect. Given its high operating altitude, its numerous RCS lobes from it's side angles expose it to enemy fire for extended periods of time.
What Kopp doesn't analyse in sufficient detail in his article is what the impacts of lobe A and B in the chart above have on the aircraft's ability to remain undetected. At high altitude, RCS lobe located high on the aircraft (such as A and B) result in the lobe extending further out to the horizon (the higher the aircraft, the further out they extend) meaning radars can detect these lobes at longer ranges than aircraft with lobes situated much lower due to consistent surface angling.
As the lobes also spread out horizontally in a 10 degree arc, a lobe that is detected from range takes much longer to pass over the radar, meaning the target aircraft can be tracked for a much longer period of time.
Image shows how far the highest lobe projects out to for: (top to bottom)
a) F-35 at 36k ft
b) F-22 at 50k ft
c) F-35 at 50k ft
d) Su-57 at 50k ft
Subsequently, networked launchers can fire from greater distances to intercept an aircraft which has lobes that take a long time to sweep over the engagement radars. The image below shows the possible firing distance from launchers to the intercept a pair of aircraft that have their farthest reaching lobe detected from the side aspect from maximum range. The model assumes a missile with a maximum speed of M4 and the Minizap tool was used to model the flight time.
The aircraft on the left is the F-35 flying at M0.8, 36,000ft based on its highest lobe being located 25 degrees below vertical. The right aircraft is the Su-57 supercruising at M1.5, 50,000ft and it's highest lobe is located less than 5 degrees below vertical (the engine nacelles).
As can be seen, the length of time the aircraft is exposed from long range greatly impacts the length of time an IADS has to react to the aircraft.
Below is my own RCS modelling tests of the equivalent cross sections of the side aspects of 3 aircraft. Created by modelling the the angles of the aircraft based on data from numerous sources. All models were built to scale and all represent 0.5m lateral cross sections of the 3 aircraft. The results on the lobe placements are exactly the same as Kopp's findings. While the RCSs don't indicate the actual aircraft RCSs and are all based on exactly the same materials used, these give a reasonable indication of side lobe placement (as does Kopp's analysis, though he never modelled the F-35 nor the F-22).
Finally, the lobe placement on the F-35 for comparison, showing lobe observability range at various altitudes. You can see that strict adherence to set angles makes all the difference.
KomissarBojanchev wrote:Is there a way to debunk this analysis?
These aren't official values but given that the analyser is an aerospace engineer, I cant debunk his mathematical results.
KomissarBojanchev wrote:However I fully expected the Su-57 to have equal or superior front and side RCS compared to the F-22 and F-35.
Militarov wrote:KomissarBojanchev wrote:However I fully expected the Su-57 to have equal or superior front and side RCS compared to the F-22 and F-35.
Wouldnt go that far. US has far greater experience in these matters than Russia, to start with, they invested almost 5 decades into research of this area. Amount of detail they went into making aircraft descrete as possible is just mindblowing. I dont expect Russian ever going to such lenghts regarding it.
Russians tend to have "Its good enough" approach to things in everything.
Militarov wrote:KomissarBojanchev wrote:However I fully expected the Su-57 to have equal or superior front and side RCS compared to the F-22 and F-35.
Wouldnt go that far. US has far greater experience in these matters than Russia, to start with, they invested almost 5 decades into research of this area. Amount of detail they went into making aircraft descrete as possible is just mindblowing. I dont expect Russian ever going to such lenghts regarding it.
Russians tend to have "Its good enough" approach to things in everything.
You're like those americans saying that they dont need artillery and AA because they have air support.US want stealth to let their people they are invicible. Those F-22 and carrier based f35 will be destroyed on the ground by cruise missiles. Only stupid people xan think that one aspect of fighters can make you win a war.
KomissarBojanchev wrote:You're like those americans saying that they dont need artillery and AA because they have air support.US want stealth to let their people they are invicible. Those F-22 and carrier based f35 will be destroyed on the ground by cruise missiles. Only stupid people xan think that one aspect of fighters can make you win a war.
Militarov wrote:KomissarBojanchev wrote:However I fully expected the Su-57 to have equal or superior front and side RCS compared to the F-22 and F-35.
Wouldnt go that far. US has far greater experience in these matters than Russia, to start with, they invested almost 5 decades into research of this area. Amount of detail they went into making aircraft descrete as possible is just mindblowing. I dont expect Russian ever going to such lenghts regarding it.
Russians tend to have "Its good enough" approach to things in everything.
Isos wrote:KomissarBojanchev wrote:You're like those americans saying that they dont need artillery and AA because they have air support.US want stealth to let their people they are invicible. Those F-22 and carrier based f35 will be destroyed on the ground by cruise missiles. Only stupid people xan think that one aspect of fighters can make you win a war.
Can you develop why ? I don't get why you say that.
KomissarBojanchev wrote:Is there a way to debunk this analysis?
These aren't official values but given that the analyser is an aerospace engineer, I cant debunk his mathematical results.
Finally, the lobe placement on the F-35 for comparison, showing lobe observability range at various altitudes. You can see that strict adherence to set angles makes all the difference.
KomissarBojanchev wrote:Isos wrote:KomissarBojanchev wrote:You're like those americans saying that they dont need artillery and AA because they have air support.US want stealth to let their people they are invicible. Those F-22 and carrier based f35 will be destroyed on the ground by cruise missiles. Only stupid people xan think that one aspect of fighters can make you win a war.
Can you develop why ? I don't get why you say that.
You're saying that Russians dont need their fighters to be better than US ones because they have cruise missiles to destroy US fighters on the ground. Americans say they dont need good artillery or AA because US fighters can bomb troops and be AA.
While I have not seriously tried to analyse those results because I find this effort too much of an oversimplification, I think the fact that the aft fuselage of the T-50 and particularly the engine nacelles are roughly cylindrical should lead to wider radiation lobes compared to say a F-22. I am not 100% convinced of how this guy chose the angles for the T-50 and the F-35 but I would not dispute that the first argument could have merit and could indicate the PAK-FA not being an aircraft devised for deep penetration in heavily defended air space. What, based on Russian sources, is consistent with their view of radar stealth as a very limited tool against multi-layered, multi-band IADs. So nothing strange here.[ F l a n k e d ] wrote:
What kind of obscure mathematics has he harnessed to derive these numbers?
Oh right, his "Detection Range" is a purely geometric result that takes no account whatsoever of the radar type, antenna shape, power output, or a myriad other parameters.
Suppose we have an aircraft or a tiny drone with an arrangement featuring an 88 degree angle, using the same genius formula we obtain:
Detection range @
65kft = 65000 * tan(88) * 0,3048 = 567km
55kft = 480km
45kft = 392km
35kft = 305km
25kft = 218km
Wow, who needs ufimtsev or the entire electro-magnetic field theory when you can play with triangles and compute "detection ranges" on the go?
The guy may be Maxwell reborn for all I care, but he's still not interested in rational discourse to support his opinion, resorting instead to crudely cherry picking angles and (unspoken) assumptions with the sole purpose of having a 'cooked' infographic of Su-57 with lots of red thingies around it in order to convey just how rusky baddy it is.
I make no claim of being an expert on the subject, but I can recognize loose ends when I see them.
Mindstorm wrote:
As already explained four years ago, the much more lucid initial concept and design of the ПАК ФА allow today a Су-57, in comparison with a F-35 supposedly optimized for air to ground missions, to deliver on enemy ground targets the double of competitor's air to ground weapons from more than 5 times greater range,each with about 1,5 times the warhead mass, with immeasurably greater approach flight pact selection and immunity to EW and masking countermeasures.
This crushing difference in air to ground potential will become even more marked (with particular reference to warhead's variety, mass and destructive potential) when a direct comparison with ГРОМ...and another product now still not revealed.....will be conducted.
LM apologists have any reason to go for "damage control mode"
RTN wrote:
So you do concede the fact that the Su 57 just like the F -35 is not a stealthy platform, at all ? US DoD realised the limitations of the F-35 & that's why the F -22 will carry out the air to air role against both stealthy & non stealthy aircraft.
The Su 57 will only carry out air to ground attacks, the air to air role over domestic airspace will still be confined to the Mig 31 & maybe the Su 35 to a lesser extent.
The Su 57, hardly being stealthy can easily be detected by the S-400 at BVR. No wonder, once China started deploying S-400 on its border with India, India pulled out of the SU 57 project.
|
|
|
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
