Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    RCS of PAK-FA

    Share
    avatar
    RussianStalinist

    Posts : 2
    Points : 4
    Join date : 2011-05-07
    Age : 24
    Location : The Holy Rus'

    RCS of PAK FA

    Post  RussianStalinist on Sat May 07, 2011 9:23 pm

    Sorry if something similar to this has already been asked, but here it goes:

    On the Sukhoi website, they state that the RCS of the F-22 is 0.3sqm. An Indian General (I believe) said that the PAK FA had an RCS of 0.5sqm.

    The 0.3sqm for the F-22 contrasts sharply what America has said the rcs of the f-22 really is (they said something like 0.0001sqm). Why is this? Is it because Russia calculates rcs differently?

    If that's the case, then what would the PAK FA's rcs be if it was calculated using the Western method?

    Thanks for any answers!
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: RCS of PAK-FA

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 08, 2011 3:13 am

    The US figure is likely the best figure for the aircraft at the specific frequency the design is designed to defeat.

    Unless it is a perfect sphere... which it clearly isn't, from different angles it will have different RCS figures.

    Needless to say it is perfectly visible in optical wavelengths and its cross section from above in optical frequencies is dozens of square metres... it is huge.

    The Russian figure is likely an average figure which gives an indication but is hardly accurate either.

    Average figures by their very nature are always wrong.

    If you have four people... two are 25 years old, one is 30 years old, and one is 6 years old... the average is 25 + 25 + 30 + 6 = 86 / 4 = 21.5.

    The average for the group is twenty one and a half years old yet none of the people are that age.
    avatar
    nightcrawler

    Posts : 534
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 28
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: RCS of PAK-FA

    Post  nightcrawler on Mon May 09, 2011 2:37 am

    We can't speculate as of yet; these figures are so much surreptitious & Pak-FA test beds are tailored for aerodynamic testing & RCS figures aren't yet tested; that, one can plainly observe
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2191
    Points : 3083
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: RCS of PAK-FA

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon May 09, 2011 6:57 am

    RussianStalinist wrote:Sorry if something similar to this has already been asked, but here it goes:

    On the Sukhoi website, they state that the RCS of the F-22 is 0.3sqm. An Indian General (I believe) said that the PAK FA had an RCS of 0.5sqm.

    The 0.3sqm for the F-22 contrasts sharply what America has said the rcs of the f-22 really is (they said something like 0.0001sqm). Why is this? Is it because Russia calculates rcs differently?

    If that's the case, then what would the PAK FA's rcs be if it was calculated using the Western method?

    Thanks for any answers!

    F-22 is far less than .3m^2. That is the RCS of a clean Rafale. F-22 is said to be marble to golf ball which is like .004m^2 at its largest. There is no official figure for F-22 but the references have been given by Lockheed. PAK FA RCS was stated by Sukhoi officials giving a debrief to Russian officials visting the production site on the dawn of their decision to sign the JV production MoU. Ajay Shukla reported they said .5m^2.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: RCS of PAK-FA

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 09, 2011 9:05 am

    RCS is more than just shaping and materials.

    It is also about manufacturing quality and maintainence standard.

    An F-117 with a few screws not properly tightened can turn a tennis ball into a basket ball.

    Even water or ice on the airframe will effect RCS.


    It is very much governed by the law of diminished returns.

    It is a bit like speed... in the early 1950s designers started focusing on speed. Planes able to fly mach 3 and faster were designed in those years and it was simply thought that planes would just keep getting faster and faster and by the 1980s we'd have planes zipping around at mach 5 or more.

    The problem is that once you get to a certain speed things get harder... the best example is propeller driven aircraft. You get the biggest engine you can find and put it in your fighter. To get that plane to fly 100 mile an hour faster you need to double the engine power. If you double the engine power again you only get another 60 miles an hour faster. Double it again and you only get another 30 miles an hour in speed till eventually you double the engine power and the tips of the props are supersonic and instead of developing power or thrust they start developing noise and drag.
    The real unseen problem is that every time you double the engine power the cost goes up on a log scale.. first double in power = 10,000 dollars, second double in power is 100,000 dollars, third double of power is 1,000,000 dollars and the fourth is 10 million dollars etc etc.
    Pretty soon you are spending billions for a very small increase in performance.

    Look at the replacements for the F-15 and F-14... the F-16 and the F-18... they are both slower and shorter ranged than the aircraft they replaced and that was on purpose to keep costs down. The F-16 is a mach2 bird, and the F-18 is limited to mach 1.8 to keep the costs down... a choice was made at the design stage that the effort and cost to make both aircraft mach 2.5 birds wasn't worth it because modern fighters rarely travel at such speeds because it wastes fuel. By making them slower they possibly saved billions of dollars in design complication and operating costs.

    Clearly Sukhoi have decided that a super stealthy aircraft wasn't worth the extra cost and effort. The result is a much cheaper aircraft that might serve in rather larger numbers than the 189 odd F-22s.

    As technology improves reductions in RCS can be applied to further reduce the RCS of the design.

    Obviously there is also the possibility that the .5 squ m figure is a very conservative estimate, and of course being a single figure it is clearly an average anyway.
    avatar
    RussianStalinist

    Posts : 2
    Points : 4
    Join date : 2011-05-07
    Age : 24
    Location : The Holy Rus'

    Re: RCS of PAK-FA

    Post  RussianStalinist on Tue May 10, 2011 4:09 pm

    How could the RCS of the PAK FA be that low? I think that Saab announced that the Gripen gets an rcs of something like 0.3sqm.

    I think that a plane designed with the intention of making it vlo would have a significantly lower rcs.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3245
    Points : 3331
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: RCS of PAK-FA

    Post  medo on Tue May 10, 2011 4:24 pm

    How could the RCS of the PAK FA be that low? I think that Saab announced that the Gripen gets an rcs of something like 0.3sqm.

    I think that a plane designed with the intention of making it vlo would have a significantly lower rcs.

    We still don't know exact RCS. Maybe Sukhoi intentionally give to big RCS or that numbers go for shapes of the plane without coating when first prototype fly without colors. Also we don't know if PAK FA prototypes have RAM coating and if it is the same as the one for serial planes etc. We don't know even what will be actual RCS of serial Su-35, how than for serial PAK FA, which is designed for low RCS? The time will tell.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: RCS of PAK-FA

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 12, 2011 2:10 am

    How could the RCS of the PAK FA be that low? I think that Saab announced that the Gripen gets an rcs of something like 0.3sqm.

    A Gripen clean with a RCS of 0.3sqm will be in trouble against a PAK FA armed with AAMs.



    The point is that the Gripen carrys weapons externally and while the PAK FA can it normally wont.

    Perhaps the 0.5sqm for the PAK FA is with external weapons?
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: RCS of PAK-FA

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat May 14, 2011 9:04 am

    Uh, Carlo Kopp estimates that RCSs are:

    F-22: 0.00004 m2
    F-35: 0.0001 m2
    PAK-FA: 0.001 m2


    Those are all in the Frontal Section with X-band radars. In general, the design philosophy of the T-50 is not to be the stealthiest plane in the sky, but rather just stealth enough to get close where it'll win almost all the time v.s. the F-35 and have a chance v.s. the F-22.
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 806
    Points : 888
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 29
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: RCS of PAK-FA

    Post  Stealthflanker on Sat May 14, 2011 1:12 pm

    IronsightSniper wrote:Uh, Carlo Kopp estimates that RCSs are:

    F-22: 0.00004 m2

    this is new to me... commonly quoted figure is 0,0001 Sqm
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: RCS of PAK-FA

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 15, 2011 3:20 am

    In general, the design philosophy of the T-50 is not to be the stealthiest plane in the sky, but rather just stealth enough to get close where it'll win almost all the time v.s. the F-35 and have a chance v.s. the F-22.

    Exactly... and the main purpose of setting the bar below the F-22 is so that it is not too expensive and while it is very unlikely that they will build as many T-50s as there are F-35s made, they will likely produce more than 189 T-50s.

    Mig and UAC keep talking about a light 5th gen fighter they are developing that is seperate from the Mig 1.42/1.44. They mention that actual production work will not happen till the T-50 is fully ready for production so that the new design doesn't delay the T-50. This perhaps suggests that by 2025 they might have a heavy and light 5th gen fighter pair... with UCAVs and probably a few Su-35/Mig-35.

    BTW isn't 35 a popular number... F-35, Mig-35, Su-35...
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: RCS of PAK-FA

    Post  IronsightSniper on Mon May 16, 2011 12:42 am

    Stealthflanker wrote:
    IronsightSniper wrote:Uh, Carlo Kopp estimates that RCSs are:

    F-22: 0.00004 m2

    this is new to me... commonly quoted figure is 0,0001 Sqm

    Tbh, I forgot the last number in the F-22's Front RCS figure but I only remember that it starts with 4 0s Very Happy

    havok

    Posts : 73
    Points : 70
    Join date : 2010-09-20

    RCS of PAK-FA

    Post  havok on Sun Jul 24, 2011 9:48 pm

    RussianStalinist wrote:Sorry if something similar to this has already been asked, but here it goes:

    On the Sukhoi website, they state that the RCS of the F-22 is 0.3sqm. An Indian General (I believe) said that the PAK FA had an RCS of 0.5sqm.

    The 0.3sqm for the F-22 contrasts sharply what America has said the rcs of the f-22 really is (they said something like 0.0001sqm). Why is this? Is it because Russia calculates rcs differently?

    If that's the case, then what would the PAK FA's rcs be if it was calculated using the Western method?

    Thanks for any answers!
    You are asking a very loaded question. There is no such thing as a 'Western' or 'non-Western' method of calculating the radar cross section (RCS) of a complex body. The RCS question/value rests on how many tools you have and how effectively do you use them.

    For starter...



    In radar detection, the simplest body is the sphere. On this body, there are only four possible behaviors:

    - Specular
    - Surface wave
    - Leaky wave
    - Creeping wave

    You can guess the matches from the illustration above. The fourth behavior -- creeping wave -- is conditional. There is a rule call the 'ten lambda' rule. Lambda is the Greek symbol for wavelength -- ANY wavelength. The 'ten lambda' rule states that if the diameter of the sphere (or cylinder) is greater than 'ten lambda' then the creeping wave effect will not occur. This is because of the leaky wave effect. The surface is called the 'electrical path' and the longer this path the greater the leaky wave loss mechanism, hence the creeping wave effect may or may not occur.

    In contrast, an aircraft is a much more complex body than a sphere...



    It is well known that Physical Optics (PO) is good only for specular reflections but not for anything else. Even the Iranians know this...



    For cavities such as engine inlet/exhaust tunnels, more sophisticated tools have been developed, such as Iterative Physical Optics (IPO)...

    http://www.jpier.org/PIER/pier.php?paper=07110803
    Abstract:
    It is always a challenge to predict Radar Cross Section (RCS) of a full scale military platform with a good accuracy. Most of the time antennas and cavities are the main contributors of aircrafts RCS. Several methods have been developed to compute the RCS of cavities such as analytical methods (modal methods) and asymptotic methods (geometrical optics (GO) methods and physical optics (PO) methods). This article presents the Iterative Physical Optics (IPO) method which consists in an iterative resolution of the Magnetic Field Integral Equation (MFIE) to compute the currents on the inner walls of the cavity. This method allows computing arbitrarily shaped cavity with a good accuracy even for cavity with a depth inferior to the wavelength. Comparisons of IPO results with Rays and Finite element methods show a better accuracy of IPO than Rays especially for cross polarization. But computation time represents one of the main limitations of the IPO method. We present here a new formulation of the Segmented IPO method which coupled with the generalized reciprocity theorem decreases significantly the complexity of the method and consequently the computation time. The S-IPO method has been validated by comparisons with Modal method and measurements. We have observed that the repartition of the electric currents density on the inner walls of the cavity is quite the same with IPO and S-IPO computations. Lastly we propose an evolution of the IPO method we have developed to compute the RCSof cavities under radome. This method has been validated by comparison with finite element results.

    Ufimtsev developed the edge diffraction method that gave US the F-117. Edge diffraction calculations is another tool.

    So your loaded question rests upon the tester's knowledge of how many behaviors are there on a complex body, how they interact with each other, how many tools available, and how good is the tester's usage of them. If there are deficiencies in any of those knowledge, and the problem here is that those deficiencies may not be known to the tester, in other words, he does not know he is wrong, the entire enterprise is compromised and a 'non-true' RCS will result. The next problem is that once as complex a body like an aircraft is considered 'complete' a project, meaning ready for volume production, you may not be able to make changes and/or corrections to that complex body without the possibility of creating negative aerodynamic compromises.

    So here is a possibility: You designed a 'stealth' aircraft using only Physical Optics (PO) as your measurement tool. You did not know about edge diffraction or surface wave behaviors. You shaped your aircraft in ways to deflect specular reflections away from the seeking radar's position. Then you publish the RCS value and call the design ready for production. On the other hand, your potential adversary spent a lot of money and much more time than you developing his 'stealth' aircraft with as many available tools, known and unknown to you, as he can. It is inevitable that he will create a superior 'stealth' aircraft than yours. His may not be as fast or may not carry as much ordnance as yours but because he can bypass radar networks with greater ease his 'stealth' aircraft can greater affect the war than yours can.

    Other considerations are the hardware used in running these tools. The more powerful the computers, the greater your knowledge on the interactions between these behaviors because these reflections and diffracted signals have to come off the individual bodies such as antennas or flight control surfaces some time. In a complex body, those signals will impact other surfaces at different angles and that may create a different behavior. Powerful computers can help you observe and record these complex interactions in a larger time span compared to breaking down the complex body into discrete segments and try to patch these smaller bodies together later.

    This is why it is not as easy in making and/or measuring a 'stealth' aircraft as many have come to falsely believe. The US have no problem with anyone making any claims about our 'stealth' aircrafts regarding their RCS values. The critics can make those values as high or as low as they wish.
    avatar
    Pierre Sprey

    Posts : 34
    Points : 40
    Join date : 2017-02-01

    Those who question the stealth features of the PAK-FA

    Post  Pierre Sprey on Sat Feb 04, 2017 1:44 am

    There is a rather larger contingent of pundits out there who love to go over the Pak Fa's stealth features and look for holes. And they always compare it to the Raptor. If the Raptor has it and the Pak Fa doesn't then the Pak Fa ain't stealth is how it goes. They make these long blathering posts that question aspects of the Pak Fa. Most of them think, just by eye balling certain angles or little details, that they've uncovered a stealth deal breaker. When in reality, its usually just lame little details that they are totally blowing out of proportion. And they become so sure of themselves. I call them stealth absolutists.

    And the worst part is, that they don't even realize that they are questing the very stealth designation of the Pak Fa. Do they think that the Russian MOD was bluffing when they stipulated stealth or something ? Do they think that Sukhoi is lying when they say that the aircraft has met the terms of the tender ?

    One example is the air intake of course. That one famous picture that shows some of what they believe is the 1st stage of the engine. These guys say that this is a deal breaker. When in reality, the YF 23 had superior all aspect stealth than the F-22 Raptor and it has more engine exposed than the Pak Fa.

    Does anyone here question the stealth of the Pak ?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: RCS of PAK-FA

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 04, 2017 8:50 am

    The design of the US aircraft (F-22 and F-35) are 100% compromised on favour of stealth.

    The PAK FA is from the start a stealth fighter hunter... hense it keeps the IRST despite the reduction in stealth, it has long wave radar antennas in its wings.

    Priority number one is manouver performance, stealth is important but it wont be the most stealthy aircraft that wins... when AAMs are defeated by jamming and cannons are the last resort my money would be on the PAK FA and Su-35 and MiG-35 with their cannon.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 641
    Points : 639
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: RCS of PAK-FA

    Post  hoom on Sat Feb 04, 2017 9:43 am

    I do question the stealthiness, at least of the prototypes we've seen.
    There really are a bunch of obvious failures to align panel edges/minimise gaps & that means it clearly can't have as low an RCS as F-22/F-35.

    If the production version actually applies this level of detailing all over then T-50 should be well up there with the US fighters in RCS reduction


    On the other hand I also question widely thrown about RCS numbers 0.0x m^2 or lower for F-22/35 when you have ~0.4m^2 radar antennae like this on the front

    These are literally designed to be excellent Radar Reflectors & I really can't see any reason that they would bounce back significantly less than equal-area RCS (without severely limiting capability), certainly no way they can be orders of magnitude less than their literal area.

    But on the basis of what we've seen I don't think full effort at frontal RCS minimisation is a particularly important factor in T-50 design:
    F-35 puts nearly all eggs in the frontal RCS basket
    F-22 also has excellent manoeuvrability to fall back on.
    There is almost certainly enough RCS reduction to give T-50 the jump on T4 gen planes 1v1.

    T-50 shifts a lot of emphasis to 360deg situational awareness via cheek & rear antennae, extra Optical coverage & L-band wing leading edge antennae.

    (not sure there are actually antennae for all those lobes/frequencies Suspect)

    When you read scenarios where F-22/35 get their massive test/exercise victories vs G4 planes the G4 planes have no idea where the stealth planes are which allows the stealth planes to get on flank/rear & launch surprise attacks.

    I think the Russian intent is that they're going to have at least a rough idea where the stealth planes are via wing-embedded L-band radars &/or operating defensively in range of ground based L-band radar &/or will be facing enemy AWACS.
    Various articles over the years have pointed out that long wavelength radar with modern signal processing as seen on AWACS & Russian ground radar can easily locate stealth planes to within a few hundred meters which totally destroys those scenarios.

    Meanwhile those cheek radars allow a high range of defensive avoidance manoeuvre for the T-50 to dodge inbound missiles while still providing guidance to outbound missiles & maintaining strong warning/EW/ECM in direction of threat (F-22/35 lose a lot outside 120deg frontal AESA arc).
    avatar
    Pierre Sprey

    Posts : 34
    Points : 40
    Join date : 2017-02-01

    Open letter to su 57 fans. Stop making concessions on the stealth.

    Post  Pierre Sprey on Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:49 am

    Dear fellow su 57 fans

    We should all realize by now that everything that has been said about the Pak Fa's stealth in the last 10 years , is pure f-ing nonsense. Whether its the uncovered engines (covered now) non serrated tips (almost done) or the famous nonsense about the engine face exposure (YF 23 had engine exposure yet had better stealth than the Raptor. Boeing X 32 had engine exposure too)

    These little gimmicks got totally blown out of proportion by the haters that Pak Fa fans started to believe it. There is NOTHING here. This is as bad as Trump-Russia.

    Seriously. Many pro Russian commentators and analysts got sucked into this. This has to stop. Don't give an INCH.

    The facts are this. The Russian Federation put up a tender for a 5th gen STEALTH aircraft. Sukhoi delivered that stealth aircraft. To believe otherwise is to think that the Pak Fa is a conspiracy. Was it a fake tender and a fake delivery ? NO.

    Even a 6 year old can see that there is SOMETHING about the Pak Fa that makes it look very much like the F-22, J-20 or F-35. And something about it doesn't look like 4th gen aircraft. What is it ? STEALTH designed fuselage. The jet was designed on the computer, to have the right angling to be stealth just like the F-22 was. That makes the Pak Fa stealth. Stealth does NOT mean "achieving invisibility". Stealth is NOT magic. Stealth is simply the scince of making things smaller on radar than they are in real life.

    If anything, the Pak Fa with its tiny all moving vertical stabs and ultra low profile design (it is lower profile, by measurement) is MORE stealthy than the F-22. There's no way that there is more than a 5% difference in stealth between the 2 jets. So don't let anyone convince you otherwise.

    The USA was designing the F-22 when the USSR was still around. It stands to reason that, like always, Russia had spy assets overlooking the program. These spy assets are the only ones who've ever put a number on the F-22's RCS. They say its about .03M2 and the Pak Fa is .05M2. Yet all that is ever said by the US is "its the size of a golf ball" The only reason that came out was for shows like the Discovery Channel to have something to work with. Its not serious. The real number is what the Russians have and they USED this number to make the Pak Fa within range of the F-22. Otherwise whats the point ? why make an inferior product ? The Americans actually have the audacity to claim that the F-22 is the golf ball and the Pak Fa is .05m2. Therefore the Pak Fa is way worse right ? NONSENSE.

    One more thing. Its funny when westerners mock the plasma stealth idea that Russia was working on. The irony here of course is that in the first days of the Pak Fa debut , it was the western media who rightly surmised that plasma stealth had failed. Their evidence ? The careful shape of the Pak Fa (their words) was proof that Russia had to do stealth the hard way.

    Early days the western defense media said "haha, plasma stealth failed and haha , its a Raptor clone" It was called the Raptorski for a couple years.

    Yet now, the Pak Fa "looks nothing like the Raptor" "cant be stealth"

    Respectfully

    Pierre Sprey.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: RCS of PAK-FA

    Post  GarryB on Tue Oct 31, 2017 5:12 am

    Ionised gas absorbs radio waves of all frequencies. The main problem is that for a fast moving fighter ionising the air in front of the aircraft is difficult when you are flying forwards through that ionised gas, so you need to keep ionising the gas in front of the aircraft as you keep flying forward.

    The biggest problem for most aircraft is that large flat antenna in the nose, behind that radar transparent dome that lets radar waves in and out.

    Simply by making that radome only radar transparent in the frequencies the radar inside operates at means it will be very stealthy against other frequencies.

    If you put a capsule inside the hollow radome and fill it with exotic gases that are excited (ie ionised) when a powerful electric current is passed through it then you get a radar wave blocker.

    The radar is in the nose so all the electrical power you might need is already going there anyway.

    When it is on you are super stealthy, when it is off you can transmit and listen for emissions only in the frequencies your radar operates at.

    Also keep in mind that this operates in both directions so the radar signal from a NATO radar is reduced as it passes in through the plasma, but after it bounces off the radar antenna and reflects back through the plasma its energy is reduced again...

    Hopefully however the western experts will not trust me or any pro Russian person and keep drinking the coolaide of the US MIC so when they have their moment of realisation it will be too late to do anything about it....


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    marcellogo

    Posts : 78
    Points : 84
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Re: RCS of PAK-FA

    Post  marcellogo on Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:10 am

    Let's start from the RCS figures discrepancies: the 0,000etcetera are the best possible one at a certain well determined angle (typically 45 °/ 315°) against a X band radar at a determined quote: its a developmental phase standard used to compare concurrent designs not something you would ever meet on a battlefield.
    Just happened that they (the industries and the top brass involved in the acquisition process) sold it instead as it were like so to the public in order to sell the product better.
    Russians (that have not to "sell" anything given that all the parts involved are state owned) talked instead above the average values they expect the respective planes to have in the frontal (i.e. the whole sector from + 45° to -45°) and rear ( from +135° to +225 °) aspects i.e. something that has a real operative value (and without revealing what there are their best RCS values instead Razz ).
    So when you see the Rafale 0,3 sqm let's bet they are its best angle value, not an average one.
    Actually all planes after the F-22A beginning from the F-35 itself are designed to privilegiate the frontal aspect instead that the average 360° one and
    for a very good reason.
    To put it simple the mission patterns according to the F-22A but also the F-117A and the B-2A were designed up i.e. penetrate deeply an enemy controlled zone and in the case of the F-22  to stay there are simply considered impossible to get given the progresses that were made by AD systems, above all into counter stealth operative procedures than in the still notable hardware performance enhancement themselves.

    Stealth is still a very valuable asset as it work also today way better than any ECM based approach but also having such planes, they are however expected to operate instead along  the ages old get in straight, drop load and haul ass operative pattern not about going inside carelessly.
    An average high 360° RCS is redundant (or even counter productive if it come at the expense of max frontal one) there while a  radar return increased by 0,1 to 1 sqm passing from a front on to a tail on engagement is easily compensated by the doppler effect turning positive for the plane.
    avatar
    Pierre Sprey

    Posts : 34
    Points : 40
    Join date : 2017-02-01

    Re: RCS of PAK-FA

    Post  Pierre Sprey on Wed Nov 01, 2017 3:39 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    How could the RCS of the PAK FA be that low? I think that Saab announced that the Gripen gets an rcs of something like 0.3sqm.

    A Gripen clean with a RCS of 0.3sqm will be in trouble against a PAK FA armed with AAMs.



    The point is that the Gripen carrys weapons externally and while the PAK FA can it normally wont.

    Perhaps the 0.5sqm for the PAK FA is with external weapons?

    This whole theory that the 4th gen Gripen or Rafele have a ticket to the stealth club is just bunk. There's no way a 4th gen is under 2 M2.

    How could anyone seriously claim that the RCS of the Pak Fa is higher than those 4th gens ?

    The USSR espionage apparatus was still around when the Raptor was being designed. They say that the RCS of the Raptor is between .03 and .05 M2. And they wanted their 5th gen to be a minimum of .05. Is the Raptor a tad better ? Perhaps. But they are close.

    Why wouldnt Russia just make the Pak Fa more like the Raptor if there was such a big advantage RCS wise ? They could even get the basic layout from magazines like they did on other copies. They have the computer ability to get the right angles. The true S duct setup is easy. Russia did 2 true S duct setups on the su 37 and Mig 1.44.

    This whole idea that the Raptor is more than 5% better RCS than the Pak Fa is bunk
    avatar
    Pierre Sprey

    Posts : 34
    Points : 40
    Join date : 2017-02-01

    Re: RCS of PAK-FA

    Post  Pierre Sprey on Wed Nov 01, 2017 3:49 pm

    marcellogo wrote:Let's start from the RCS figures discrepancies: the 0,000etcetera are the best possible one at a certain well determined angle (typically 45 °/ 315°) against a X band radar at a determined quote: its a developmental phase standard used to compare concurrent designs not something you would ever meet on a battlefield.
    Just happened that they (the industries and the top brass involved in the acquisition process) sold it instead as it were like so to the public in order to sell the product better.
    Russians (that have not to "sell" anything given that all the parts involved are state owned) talked instead above the average values they expect the respective planes to have in the frontal (i.e. the whole sector from + 45° to -45°) and rear ( from +135° to +225 °) aspects i.e. something that has a real operative value (and without revealing what there are their best RCS values instead Razz ).
    So when you see the Rafale 0,3 sqm let's bet they are its best angle value, not an average one.
    Actually all planes after the F-22A beginning from the F-35 itself are designed to privilegiate the frontal aspect instead that the average 360° one and
    for a very good reason.
    To put it simple the mission patterns according to the F-22A but also the F-117A and the B-2A were designed up i.e. penetrate deeply an enemy controlled zone and in the case of the F-22  to stay there are simply considered impossible to get given the progresses that were made by AD systems, above all into counter stealth operative procedures than in the still notable hardware performance enhancement themselves.

    Stealth is still a very valuable asset as it work also today way better than any ECM based approach but also having such planes, they are however expected to operate instead along  the ages old get in straight, drop load and haul ass operative pattern not about going inside carelessly.
    An average high 360° RCS is redundant (or even counter productive if it come at the expense of max frontal one) there while a  radar return increased by 0,1 to 1 sqm passing from a front on to a tail on engagement is easily compensated by the doppler effect turning positive for the plane.

    People really do believe that stealth is magic. Anyone who looks at the Raptor and the Pak Fa side by side and believes that the Raptor can have multiple standard deviations lower RCS despite having a higher profile, thinks that stealth is magic.

    Russia either has a functioning computer power to optimize a fuselage design for stealth or it doesn't. dunno

    Even a 6 year old can tell that there's something about the Pak fa that makes it look like a Raptor and not a 4th gen. What is that ? Stealth angled design.

    And if these 4th gen Rafele's and Gripens are anywhere near under 2 M2, without computer optimized stealth design , its because they are simply smaller. Which throws even more cold water on the idea that the Raptor can be bigger in profile than the Pak Fa, yet have multiple standard deviations smaller RCS.
    avatar
    Pierre Sprey

    Posts : 34
    Points : 40
    Join date : 2017-02-01

    Re: RCS of PAK-FA

    Post  Pierre Sprey on Thu Nov 02, 2017 6:32 pm

    In the lead up to the Raptor winning the design competition for the US 5th gen plane, the industry itself, determined that the YF 23 would have better stealth than the F-22 just by the poll model.



    The fact that the industry determined the stealth qualities mostly by the poll model says something. It says that the shape of the aircraft is the biggest determining factor in the stealth of an aircraft.

    Yet a certain segment of the enthusiast community things that the cosmetic details like how well hidden the engine is, or how the wings are clipped, or the canopy frame, are the biggest determining factor.

    Clearly they are NOT. So 90% of the stuff that they come up with to degrade the Pak Fa, is periphery stuff and is NOT going to markedly change the RCS of the aircraft. But the relentless attacks on the Pak Fa, have led even tpak fa supporters, to believe some of this trash
    avatar
    Pierre Sprey

    Posts : 34
    Points : 40
    Join date : 2017-02-01

    Re: RCS of PAK-FA

    Post  Pierre Sprey on Thu Nov 02, 2017 6:37 pm

    Vladimir79 wrote:
    RussianStalinist wrote:Sorry if something similar to this has already been asked, but here it goes:

    On the Sukhoi website, they state that the RCS of the F-22 is 0.3sqm. An Indian General (I believe) said that the PAK FA had an RCS of 0.5sqm.

    The 0.3sqm for the F-22 contrasts sharply what America has said the rcs of the f-22 really is (they said something like 0.0001sqm). Why is this? Is it because Russia calculates rcs differently?

    If that's the case, then what would the PAK FA's rcs be if it was calculated using the Western method?

    Thanks for any answers!

    F-22 is far less than .3m^2.  That is the RCS of a clean Rafale.  F-22 is said to be marble to golf ball which is like .004m^2 at its largest.  There is no official figure for F-22 but the references have been given by Lockheed.  PAK FA RCS was stated by Sukhoi officials giving a debrief to Russian officials visting the production site on the dawn of their decision to sign the JV production MoU.  Ajay Shukla reported they said .5m^2.  

    Every point made in this post cannot be right. Theres NO WAY that a non stealth jet is lower than 2m2. Golf ball refernce was for kids on the Discovery Chanel.
    avatar
    Pierre Sprey

    Posts : 34
    Points : 40
    Join date : 2017-02-01

    Re: RCS of PAK-FA

    Post  Pierre Sprey on Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:24 am

    Vladimir79 wrote:
    RussianStalinist wrote:Sorry if something similar to this has already been asked, but here it goes:

    On the Sukhoi website, they state that the RCS of the F-22 is 0.3sqm. An Indian General (I believe) said that the PAK FA had an RCS of 0.5sqm.

    The 0.3sqm for the F-22 contrasts sharply what America has said the rcs of the f-22 really is (they said something like 0.0001sqm). Why is this? Is it because Russia calculates rcs differently?

    If that's the case, then what would the PAK FA's rcs be if it was calculated using the Western method?

    Thanks for any answers!

    F-22 is far less than .3m^2.  That is the RCS of a clean Rafale.  F-22 is said to be marble to golf ball which is like .004m^2 at its largest.  There is no official figure for F-22 but the references have been given by Lockheed.  PAK FA RCS was stated by Sukhoi officials giving a debrief to Russian officials visting the production site on the dawn of their decision to sign the JV production MoU.  Ajay Shukla reported they said .5m^2.  

    F-22 is far less than .3m^2. That is the RCS of a clean Rafale.

    That is totally untrue. The USSR espionage records says that the Raptor is between .3m2 and .5m2. Thats why the original tender for the 5th gen USSR/Russia jet was set at a minimum of .5m2. Why would they make the RCS way worse, like way out of the ballpark ?

    The marble figure was just put out there because the Discovery Channel wanted a reference.

    Anyone who believes that the F-22 can have multiple standard deviations lower RCS than the Pak Fa simply does not understand what stealth is. It is not magic.

    Think about what you are saying. You are saying that a remote control replica F-22 has the same stealth as a full size Pak Fa.

    avatar
    Pierre Sprey

    Posts : 34
    Points : 40
    Join date : 2017-02-01

    Re: RCS of PAK-FA

    Post  Pierre Sprey on Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:36 am

    RussianStalinist wrote:How could the RCS of the PAK FA be that low? I think that Saab announced that the Gripen gets an rcs of something like 0.3sqm.

    I think that a plane designed with the intention of making it vlo would have a significantly lower rcs.

    Because Russia is the ONLY one so far to actually disclose a real number.

    However the hell the French and Swedes are measuring RCS, its not even close to a real measurement. The Gripen is probably a 3.00 m2. Not .03 m2. But even 3 is probably too low. The su 27 is around 10.00 m2 I think. The number going around for a clean Rafele is probably 5.00 m2. Not .05 m2.

    And the F-22 Raptor is probably .03 m2 while the Pak Fa is .05 m2. The whole marble reference is not intended to be taken literally at all.

    Sponsored content

    Re: RCS of PAK-FA

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:02 pm