Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Fighters RCS measurement

    Share
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 454
    Points : 468
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Fighters RCS measurement

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Jun 07, 2011 1:20 pm

    AFAIK, the Su-35's RCS (without Plasma stealth as it's a myth) is about 1 to 3 m2 on the front using X-bands. It has a very low RCS for a Russian plane, but compared to "comparable' European and American planes, they're very close RCS wise, but the Su-35 still has a slightly bigger RCS (Eurofighter estimated at 0.1 - 0.5 m2 , Rafale estimated at 0.1 - 0.2 m2 , and F-18 estimated at 0.1 m2)
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Fighters RCS measurement

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:50 am

    AFAIK, the Su-35's RCS (without Plasma stealth as it's a myth) is about 1 to 3 m2 on the front using X-bands. It has a very low RCS for a Russian plane, but compared to "comparable' European and American planes, they're very close RCS wise, but the Su-35 still has a slightly bigger RCS (Eurofighter estimated at 0.1 - 0.5 m2 , Rafale estimated at 0.1 - 0.2 m2 , and F-18 estimated at 0.1 m2)

    How would you know what the Su-35s RCS is?

    You are just guessing and the fact you suggest it has a low RCS "for a Russian plane" shows you have a bias against Russian planes.

    By giving a hard figure you make it sound like you actually know when it is clearly a case of the opinion of someone who doesn't have a high opinion of Russian aircraft or their designers and engineers.

    Austin

    Posts : 6235
    Points : 6641
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Fighters RCS measurement

    Post  Austin on Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:06 am

    The amusing part of RCS debate when I see those 0.1 m2 and 0.5 m2 for Eurofighter and Rafale is when PAK-FA chief designer mentioned that its RCS will be no worse than F-22 and will be 0.3 - 0.4 m2.

    Now considering PAK-FA is a fighter designed from ground up using shape optimised for Stealth , and Rafale and Eurofighter has no such requirenment when it was designed in late 80's , F-22 certainly did.

    Its really hard to see how Typhoon and Rafale can come up with those figures and its pretty meaning less for a fighter that cannot carry internal weapons but 10 -12 external HP , the careful stealth goes for toss.

    Truth be told only F-22 ,PAK-FA and JSF are stealth aircraft in true sense , while Typhoon , Rafale are just some best figures obtained at certain optimium angle for certain band and is more of marketing stuff. The best RAM in the world can still produce band specific stealth.

    For reference according in Yefim Gorgon latest book on Russian Strategic Aviation the rcs figures for Russian cruise missile KH-101 is 0.01m2 and 0.2-0.3 m2 for Kh-55/555
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 454
    Points : 468
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Fighters RCS measurement

    Post  IronsightSniper on Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:34 am

    GarryB wrote:
    AFAIK, the Su-35's RCS (without Plasma stealth as it's a myth) is about 1 to 3 m2 on the front using X-bands. It has a very low RCS for a Russian plane, but compared to "comparable' European and American planes, they're very close RCS wise, but the Su-35 still has a slightly bigger RCS (Eurofighter estimated at 0.1 - 0.5 m2 , Rafale estimated at 0.1 - 0.2 m2 , and F-18 estimated at 0.1 m2)

    How would you know what the Su-35s RCS is?

    You are just guessing and the fact you suggest it has a low RCS "for a Russian plane" shows you have a bias against Russian planes.

    By giving a hard figure you make it sound like you actually know when it is clearly a case of the opinion of someone who doesn't have a high opinion of Russian aircraft or their designers and engineers.

    Don't be so outright ignorant now.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/su-35bm-design.htm

    Beyond these changes, radar absorbent material of greater durability allied with the structural changes, mean that it is expected that the RCS of the aircraft will be equivalent of a F-16, that is, around 1m (Reduced RCS (b/w F-16 (about 1m^2).

    If you didn't know that the Su-27 and it's derivatives have always had a larger RCS than their Western counterpart you aren't looking at their dimensions correctly.

    Austin wrote:The amusing part of RCS debate when I see those 0.1 m2 and 0.5 m2 for Eurofighter and Rafale is when PAK-FA chief designer mentioned that its RCS will be no worse than F-22 and will be 0.3 - 0.4 m2.

    Now considering PAK-FA is a fighter designed from ground up using shape optimised for Stealth , and Rafale and Eurofighter has no such requirenment when it was designed in late 80's , F-22 certainly did.

    Its really hard to see how Typhoon and Rafale can come up with those figures and its pretty meaning less for a fighter that cannot carry internal weapons but 10 -12 external HP , the careful stealth goes for toss.

    Truth be told only F-22 ,PAK-FA and JSF are stealth aircraft in true sense , while Typhoon , Rafale are just some best figures obtained at certain optimium angle for certain band and is more of marketing stuff. The best RAM in the world can still produce band specific stealth.

    For reference according in Yefim Gorgon latest book on Russian Strategic Aviation the rcs figures for Russian cruise missile KH-101 is 0.01m2 and 0.2-0.3 m2 for Kh-55/555

    You have to remember that there's a big difference between a PAK-FA and a T-50, one is stealthy, the other isn't. The Eurofighter and Rafale along with the Superbug probably got their low RCS ratings from either minimal or no external stores and plain good aircraft designing.

    Austin

    Posts : 6235
    Points : 6641
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Fighters RCS measurement

    Post  Austin on Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:02 am

    IronsightSniper wrote:You have to remember that there's a big difference between a PAK-FA and a T-50, one is stealthy, the other isn't. The Eurofighter and Rafale along with the Superbug probably got their low RCS ratings from either minimal or no external stores and plain good aircraft designing.

    What is the BIG difference , PAK-FA is just a Russian Acronym for the project and T-50 is a prototype , much is JSF is for F-35 , they are are the same thing.

    You should note that when Eurofighter , Rafale were designed aerodynamic quality was the key driving point and not stealth , same for Su-35 which is an advanced flanker derivative which superior aerodynamic quality and not real attention to stealth beyond RAM coating and perhaps radar blocker if at all.

    Those are like great marketing figures , can make a good talking point but in real combat its advantage is not great but nominal.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Fighters RCS measurement

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:18 am

    If you didn't know that the Su-27 and it's derivatives have always had a larger RCS than their Western counterpart you aren't looking at their dimensions correctly.

    Actually the intakes on the F-15 are similar to the Tu-22M3 bomber... and the shape of them increased the RCS of the Backfire by 25%.

    The Mig-21 and Mig-23 did not have larger RCS than the F-4 and F-16s that were contemporary equivelents.

    The Mig-25 and F-15 are incredibly similar in external shape and most likely have near identical RCS.

    You insinuated all Russian aircraft had higher RCS than their european and US equivelents.

    The example you give... the Su-27 had US equivelents in the F-14 and F-15 which are hardly better in any respect. In fact the more modern blending of wing and fuselage on the Flanker should lead to better RCS characteristics than either the F-14 and F-15.


    BTW if you had read the first post you would know that when they mention plasma they are talking about a surface coating technique to apply a RAM coating to the aircraft and the weapons it carries.
    avatar
    ahmedfire

    Posts : 704
    Points : 876
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: Fighters RCS measurement

    Post  ahmedfire on Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:11 pm

    Stealth
    As mentioned earlier, Sukhoi learned that a large RCS does not help the plane, as such, to the refinement of the lines, Sukhoi allied other Stealth measures:
    _ Use of RAM layers throughout the structure.
    _ Treatment of the air inlets with a RAM layer with a thickness between 0.7 and 1.4 mm.
    _ Treatment of the face of the engine with RAM material
    _Treatment of the canopy with electro conductive materials that prevent reflection of radar waves.
    These measures mean a RCS between 0.7 and 1 m2.
    In terms of the thermal signature Sukhoi should have used ceramic materials in parts that reach higher temperatures, such as in the exhaust of the engine.

    http://sukhoitributeenglish.blogspot.com/
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 454
    Points : 468
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Fighters RCS measurement

    Post  IronsightSniper on Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:51 pm

    Austin wrote:
    IronsightSniper wrote:You have to remember that there's a big difference between a PAK-FA and a T-50, one is stealthy, the other isn't. The Eurofighter and Rafale along with the Superbug probably got their low RCS ratings from either minimal or no external stores and plain good aircraft designing.

    What is the BIG difference , PAK-FA is just a Russian Acronym for the project and T-50 is a prototype , much is JSF is for F-35 , they are are the same thing.

    You should note that when Eurofighter , Rafale were designed aerodynamic quality was the key driving point and not stealth , same for Su-35 which is an advanced flanker derivative which superior aerodynamic quality and not real attention to stealth beyond RAM coating and perhaps radar blocker if at all.

    Those are like great marketing figures , can make a good talking point but in real combat its advantage is not great but nominal.

    There are a couple of differences, one being that the PAK-FA has "unclean" engine intakes which increases it's RCS, and the other that, AFAIK, the PAK-FA doesn't have it's RAM yet, probably due to maintenance costs.

    You are correct in that the Eurofighter and Rafale's RCS are "nominal", but only because pretty much the world's Gen 4+ (or Gen 4.5, whichever you prefer) has tried to reduce it's RCS dramatically (with the F-15 Silent Eagle being the most dramatic). They won't fair that much better v.s. a full on Stealth plane, but it helps.

    GarryB wrote:
    If you didn't know that the Su-27 and it's derivatives have always had a larger RCS than their Western counterpart you aren't looking at their dimensions correctly.

    Actually the intakes on the F-15 are similar to the Tu-22M3 bomber... and the shape of them increased the RCS of the Backfire by 25%.

    The Mig-21 and Mig-23 did not have larger RCS than the F-4 and F-16s that were contemporary equivelents.

    The Mig-25 and F-15 are incredibly similar in external shape and most likely have near identical RCS.

    You insinuated all Russian aircraft had higher RCS than their european and US equivelents.

    The example you give... the Su-27 had US equivelents in the F-14 and F-15 which are hardly better in any respect. In fact the more modern blending of wing and fuselage on the Flanker should lead to better RCS characteristics than either the F-14 and F-15.


    BTW if you had read the first post you would know that when they mention plasma they are talking about a surface coating technique to apply a RAM coating to the aircraft and the weapons it carries.


    (If you noticed, I said Su-27 derivatives, don't go off topic with MiGs).

    Modern stealth adaptations to the F-15 would give it a far smaller RCS than even the "big modernization" of the Su-27, or in other words, make the F-15 stealthier than the Su-35. I'm not saying the Su-35 has a huge RCS like older Russian planes, I'm simply saying it's still larger than it's modern counterparts.

    Lastly, plasma stealth has been, and still is, a myth. There is no proof out there other than old Internet articles that the Russians are even pursuing it anymore. If you have any article or modern evidence that they are, please come forth. Otherwise, Plasma stealth remains to be a myth, and even if it were implemented, you can detect it's ion trail farther than you can see it on your radar.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Fighters RCS measurement

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:12 am

    You said (the Su-35) ...
    has a very low RCS for a Russian plane,

    Suggesting that Russian planes have high RCS.

    There are a couple of differences, one being that the PAK-FA has "unclean" engine intakes which increases it's RCS, and the other that, AFAIK, the PAK-FA doesn't have it's RAM yet, probably due to maintenance costs.

    It is a flying prototype... two of at least 12. Stealth is hardly going to be tested on every prototype... they can do that with models including full sized models, for the flying prototypes they are more interested in flight performance, engines, radar, systems integration, weapons etc.

    They won't fair that much better v.s. a full on Stealth plane, but it helps.

    If a LO wont fare much better than a normal 4th or 4.5 gen fighter then it doesn't help... making a plane is expensive and a compromise in design.

    Modern stealth adaptations to the F-15 would give it a far smaller RCS than even the "big modernization" of the Su-27, or in other words, make the F-15 stealthier than the Su-35.

    Can you back that up with evidence or is it just your opinion?

    The blended fuselage/wing design of the Flanker should already make its RCS from most angles smaller than that of the Eagle.

    Lastly, plasma stealth has been, and still is, a myth. There is no proof out there other than old Internet articles that the Russians are even pursuing it anymore.

    Don't really care what you believe, it was designed initially to generate ionised gas fields around warheads... there were articles in the 1990s just like there were articles about all sorts of things they wanted foreigners to invest money into to keep the programs going. Now the articles stop you can think the programs are dead all you want... happy in the secure knowledge that if it were even possible for a Russian to have an idea that might work, or that there is any alternative to the path the US has blazed in stealth technology that obviously you would be told on CNN or Fox News... because they have fair and balanced reporting and keep Americans well informed about things that matter.

    If you have any article or modern evidence that they are, please come forth.

    Wouldn't if I did... I don't think you are interested in such things for the same reasons I am. Would just say that the Russians were printing articles and putting out lots of info on scramjet research in the 1990s too... not so much now. All you hear is scramjet powered Brahmos II. If there were no collaborative program with India we wouldn't even hear about that. So that is proof they are not working on scramjet technology either.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 454
    Points : 468
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Fighters RCS measurement

    Post  IronsightSniper on Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:13 am

    GarryB wrote:You said (the Su-35) ...
    has a very low RCS for a Russian plane,

    Suggesting that Russian planes have high RCS.

    "suggesting" hahaha, did I not say Su-27 derivative as the conversation went on?

    There are a couple of differences, one being that the PAK-FA has "unclean" engine intakes which increases it's RCS, and the other that, AFAIK, the PAK-FA doesn't have it's RAM yet, probably due to maintenance costs.

    It is a flying prototype... two of at least 12. Stealth is hardly going to be tested on every prototype... they can do that with models including full sized models, for the flying prototypes they are more interested in flight performance, engines, radar, systems integration, weapons etc.

    No one's doubting that Garry, all I'm saying is that because no PAK-FAs that we know of have a complete Stealth package, you can't completely estimate it's RCS. Sukhoi's current claim (most likely without the 2 stealth features I mentioned) is probably based on a PAK-FA's shaping, which is also probably why Western Gen 4.5 planes have about the same RCS too.

    They won't fair that much better v.s. a full on Stealth plane, but it helps.

    If a LO wont fare much better than a normal 4th or 4.5 gen fighter then it doesn't help... making a plane is expensive and a compromise in design.

    Actually, a Su-35 will kill every Su-27 there are. A F-18E/F will kill every F-18 there are. A F-15SE will kill every F-15 there are. Gen 4.5 planes with some Stealth features are very much so better than their generic Gen 4 counterparts.

    Modern stealth adaptations to the F-15 would give it a far smaller RCS than even the "big modernization" of the Su-27, or in other words, make the F-15 stealthier than the Su-35.

    Can you back that up with evidence or is it just your opinion?

    The blended fuselage/wing design of the Flanker should already make its RCS from most angles smaller than that of the Eagle.

    For the Su-35's RCS estimate, look to the link above (1 m2 on the Front with X-band).

    And for the F-15SE's:

    "the Silent Eagle offers the same level of front-aspect stealth than the "international release version" of the JSF"
    http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/en/export-variants/f-15se-silent-eagle/1641-f-15se-differences

    Unfortunately I was unable to find a RCS estimate of the export F-35.

    Lastly, plasma stealth has been, and still is, a myth. There is no proof out there other than old Internet articles that the Russians are even pursuing it anymore.

    Don't really care what you believe, it was designed initially to generate ionised gas fields around warheads... there were articles in the 1990s just like there were articles about all sorts of things they wanted foreigners to invest money into to keep the programs going. Now the articles stop you can think the programs are dead all you want... happy in the secure knowledge that if it were even possible for a Russian to have an idea that might work, or that there is any alternative to the path the US has blazed in stealth technology that obviously you would be told on CNN or Fox News... because they have fair and balanced reporting and keep Americans well informed about things that matter.

    I don't care what your opinion is, I want facts!

    If you have any article or modern evidence that they are, please come forth.

    Wouldn't if I did... I don't think you are interested in such things for the same reasons I am. Would just say that the Russians were printing articles and putting out lots of info on scramjet research in the 1990s too... not so much now. All you hear is scramjet powered Brahmos II. If there were no collaborative program with India we wouldn't even hear about that. So that is proof they are not working on scramjet technology either.

    So you aren't denying there's no evidence that the Russians are even pursuing Plasma Stealth? Thank you.
    avatar
    nightcrawler

    Posts : 535
    Points : 651
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: Fighters RCS measurement

    Post  nightcrawler on Thu Jun 09, 2011 10:26 pm

    Look no need to be jingoistic what I know & every body can observe that Sukhois are large birds made by a different school of thought with a different take on contemporary technology & defence tactics. One must acknowledge that we cant giv exact figures regarding RCS of even the age old SR-71...however, what we can observe as general public that Russian planes in general are large & are accustomed to carry big loads of AAMs & thus have relatively high RCS (look I ain't giving any figures here)
    avatar
    nightcrawler

    Posts : 535
    Points : 651
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: Fighters RCS measurement

    Post  nightcrawler on Thu Jun 09, 2011 10:32 pm

    Austin wrote:

    For reference according in Yefim Gorgon latest book on Russian Strategic Aviation the rcs figures for Russian cruise missile KH-101 is 0.01m2 and 0.2-0.3 m2 for Kh-55/555

    ...& now I assume you are going to provide a downloading link I love you
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Fighters RCS measurement

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 10, 2011 5:51 am

    "suggesting" hahaha, did I not say Su-27 derivative as the conversation went on?

    You gave the Su-27 as an example and then compared it with later aircraft used in different roles like the Rafale and F-18, rather than the F-15 which is the only western aircraft directly comparable to it.

    Actually, a Su-35 will kill every Su-27 there are. A F-18E/F will kill every F-18 there are. A F-15SE will kill every F-15 there are. Gen 4.5 planes with some Stealth features are very much so better than their generic Gen 4 counterparts.

    We were discussing their effect against stealth aircraft where you suggested the upgrades were both useful and worthless.

    For the Su-35's RCS estimate, look to the link above (1 m2 on the Front with X-band).

    And for the F-15SE's:

    "the Silent Eagle offers the same level of front-aspect stealth than the "international release version" of the JSF"
    http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/en/export-variants/f-15se-silent-eagle/1641-f-15se-differences

    Unfortunately I was unable to find a RCS estimate of the export F-35.

    Totally worthless information for aircraft that carry weapons externally.

    I don't care what your opinion is, I want facts!

    Interesting you will accept opinions from the web links you post above but my opinion is worthless.
    Good to know.

    So you aren't denying there's no evidence that the Russians are even pursuing Plasma Stealth? Thank you.

    No I am not. But clearly we are drawing different conclusions from this fact.
    Now that they probably have proper funding what purpose would their be to publishing results now?
    Actually now that I think about it there was mention of using Plasma Stealth to reduce RCS that was to be applied to the Su-35 and Su-34. I have had a discussion on this forum about it with someone else, but I am not in the mood to help you find it right now. Normally I am happy to share info, but when things become argumentative and I am challenged to prove something wrong I sort of feel like I am being manipulated to be their library B!tch to search for info just to prove myself.
    I don't do that.

    You don't need to believe me... remaining ignorant is your problem, not mine.

    Look no need to be jingoistic what I know & every body can observe that Sukhois are large birds made by a different school of thought with a different take on contemporary technology & defence tactics.

    That is a bit of a generalisation. The Flanker is large because its mission requires range and a significant weapon load. The B-2 proves physical size has nothing to do with RCS. Is the Mig-21 a big plane? It was Russian, how about those big Sukhois like the Su-9 and Su-11, or the Su-7 for that matter.

    however, what we can observe as general public that Russian planes in general are large & are accustomed to carry big loads of AAMs & thus have relatively high RCS (look I ain't giving any figures here)

    Big weapon loads? Compare a Mig-29 with an F-18. A Mig-23 has a tiny front on profile.

    The article above talks about a coating that can be applied to external ordinance to reduce RCS too.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 454
    Points : 468
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Fighters RCS measurement

    Post  IronsightSniper on Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:40 pm

    [quote="GarryB"]
    "suggesting" hahaha, did I not say Su-27 derivative as the conversation went on?

    You gave the Su-27 as an example and then compared it with later aircraft used in different roles like the Rafale and F-18, rather than the F-15 which is the only western aircraft directly comparable to it.

    Right, so instead of discussing history I should of discussed more modern matters; such as the Su-35 and it's larger RCS compared to comparable planes.

    Actually, a Su-35 will kill every Su-27 there are. A F-18E/F will kill every F-18 there are. A F-15SE will kill every F-15 there are. Gen 4.5 planes with some Stealth features are very much so better than their generic Gen 4 counterparts.

    We were discussing their effect against stealth aircraft where you suggested the upgrades were both useful and worthless.

    You keep thinking I'm suggesting anything, I mean what I say, a Gen 4.5 craft will fare better than it's Gen 4 counterpart.

    For the Su-35's RCS estimate, look to the link above (1 m2 on the Front with X-band).

    And for the F-15SE's:

    "the Silent Eagle offers the same level of front-aspect stealth than the "international release version" of the JSF"
    http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/en/export-variants/f-15se-silent-eagle/1641-f-15se-differences

    Unfortunately I was unable to find a RCS estimate of the export F-35.

    Totally worthless information for aircraft that carry weapons externally.

    Nope. The Su-35's frontal RCS is estimated to be 1 m2, I think, with minimal external stores, while the F-15SE's is what it is with it's internal stores.

    I don't care what your opinion is, I want facts!

    Interesting you will accept opinions from the web links you post above but my opinion is worthless.
    Good to know.

    I hazard you don't have any real military experience? Thus it is your opinion!

    So you aren't denying there's no evidence that the Russians are even pursuing Plasma Stealth? Thank you.

    No I am not. But clearly we are drawing different conclusions from this fact.
    Now that they probably have proper funding what purpose would their be to publishing results now?
    Actually now that I think about it there was mention of using Plasma Stealth to reduce RCS that was to be applied to the Su-35 and Su-34. I have had a discussion on this forum about it with someone else, but I am not in the mood to help you find it right now. Normally I am happy to share info, but when things become argumentative and I am challenged to prove something wrong I sort of feel like I am being manipulated to be their library B!tch to search for info just to prove myself.
    I don't do that.

    You don't need to believe me... remaining ignorant is your problem, not mine.

    Ha, remaining arrogant is your problem and remaining open minded is mine. Don't pretend to be right all the time because you know you're wrong and just want to save face from this plenty ole' American.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Fighters RCS measurement

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 11, 2011 3:29 am

    Right, so instead of discussing history I should of discussed more modern matters; such as the Su-35 and it's larger RCS compared to comparable planes.

    So why compare to Rafale and F-18... they are comparable to Mig-29SMT and Mig-35...

    The only comparable plane in service right now to the Su-35 would be the F-15C.

    The F-15E being comparable to the Su-34.

    You keep thinking I'm suggesting anything, I mean what I say, a Gen 4.5 craft will fare better than it's Gen 4 counterpart.

    We were talking about comparing LO with Stealth. If you wanted to compare LO with 4th gen then that would be a separate point which you tried to make later.

    Nope. The Su-35's frontal RCS is estimated to be 1 m2, I think, with minimal external stores, while the F-15SE's is what it is with it's internal stores.

    The proper production Silent Eagle doesn't exist. All they have is a modified F-15E and plans. It is currently vapourware.


    I hazard you don't have any real military experience? Thus it is your opinion!

    Military service only makes a difference when the subject is the topic of experience.

    Serving in the New Zealand Armed forces will tell me squat about secret Russian military programs.

    Ha, remaining arrogant is your problem and remaining open minded is mine.

    Sorry, but that made me laugh. You are the one that claims Russian pilots getting 100 hours of flight time a year cannot be classed as well trained and you are calling me arrogant and asking me if I served in the military.

    Such personal attacks will not make me be your research b!tch either. Razz
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 798
    Points : 882
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 29
    Location : Indonesia

    Fighters RCS measurement

    Post  Stealthflanker on Mon Jun 13, 2011 12:25 pm

    Well it's obvious that something like this is needed to solve everyone's problem ..



    http://stealthflanker.deviantart.com/art/The-Three-MajorGraphs-D-171127782

    However it seems no one take his time making this kind of graphs... i would like to do it.. problem is i lacked suitable computer specs and the POFACETS program that i use to produce above graphs are buggy... i can't load new models that i made there Sad

    Sponsored content

    Re: Fighters RCS measurement

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Aug 22, 2017 3:44 am