Russian Stealth Technology

The mathematical model to calculate RCS, reflection/emission was Russian developed... the US copied it.

Before they read is paper on the concept they built small scale models and hoisted them up in front of real radar and tested them... an extremely slow and expensive way of developing stealth aircraft because they didn't know what worked and what did not without testing it.

they had no way of predicting what would reduce a reflection and what would actually increase it...

Spike management just acknowledges that radar returns are 3D and each angle in 3D creates a different return from a specific direction and angle.

Suggesting these cockpit displays are some how magical is amusing... they wont operate in real time and wont distinguish the effect of different frequencies... for instance a metric wave radar is not effected by shape so the radar return from any angle will be strong... the display in the aircraft will know the direction the radar is coming from but wont actually be able to determine an angle that will reduce the signal from such a radar to evade it...

please explain how Russia has caught up let alone surpassed the US in Stealth Technology??? Since it was behind the US in  Stealth, Sensors, and Weapons even before the collapse of the former Soviet Union then after decades of neglect and with few resources. Followed by the loss large numbers of both Designers and Engineers! Russia is remotely close to the US in Stealth Fighter Designs,, (according to the americans,)That the US has over 50 years experience designing LO (Low Observable) and VLO (Very Low Observable) Aircraft.....Which, includes such notable tyes like the YF-12/SR-71, A-12, B-1, B-2, F-117, Have Blue, F-22, F-35, etc. etc. etc. In comparsion what has Russia done and achieved except the T50. ? Dear admins, please provide more info concerning this subject,, thank u,,

Why dont you learn to google?

Kh-101 is an example. It is stealth tech. Long before PAK FA.

They know the maths model to calculate RCS using computers rather than having to test and model and test and model...

They are also developing the PAK FA with 21st century technology/materials, whereas the F-22 is a 1990s aircraft and the F-35 is stuck in a cold war colonial power mindset too.

The su-34 is stealth from frontal direction.

There is stealth and there is reduced RCS... stealth comes from blueprint design level, while reduced RCS can be applied to an existing design.

Both the Tu-160 and Su-34 have had modifications to their design to reduce RCS, but neither could be called actually stealthy.

The same could be said for the F-18 superhornet and the Rafale and Typhoon.

GarryB wrote:There is stealth and there is reduced RCS... stealth comes from blueprint design level, while reduced RCS can be applied to an existing design.

Both the Tu-160 and Su-34 have had modifications to their design to reduce RCS, but neither could be called actually stealthy.

The same could be said for the F-18 superhornet and the Rafale and Typhoon.

Check the frontal shape of the Su-34.

The Sukhoi designed it to have low frontal RCS.

Isos wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

GarryB wrote:There is stealth and there is reduced RCS... stealth comes from blueprint design level, while reduced RCS can be applied to an existing design.

Both the Tu-160 and Su-34 have had modifications to their design to reduce RCS, but neither could be called actually stealthy.

The same could be said for the F-18 superhornet and the Rafale and Typhoon.

Check the frontal shape of the Su-34.

The Sukhoi designed it to have low frontal RCS.

That's what he said.

Don't think.

The Su-34 was designed to have low frontal RCS.
It is not modified to decrease the RCS.

The Su-34 was first and foremost modified to allow two crew to sit side by side with an excellent forward view.

It was also designed to reduce radar return, but it is not a stealthy design.

There would be little point in actually making the aircraft stealthy considering the number of pylons it carries and the weapons it carries are all external...

The Su-34 is low observable from the frontal direction.

The pylons/wings and so on doesn't matter from that angle.

C'mon.

All "stealth" plant has only limited reduced RCS.

Typical it is the loves from front, and highest from back, and it is the low in a narrow vertical angle, say for +5/-15 degree.


And can anyone identify a NATO aircraft apart from F-22 or F-35 that as stealth as the Su-34?

It is not stealthy.

Operationally it will fly very low and very fast to evade ground based radar so most radar actually detecting the aircraft will be airborne, so most views of it will be from above, but even from a slight angle to the side will make the enormous vertical tails visible... and they are not stealthy by any means.

The Su-34 is a large aircraft... its RCS is not difficult to detect and is by no means stealthy.

An AWACS aircraft detecting it from above and in front might think it could be a MiG-21 but they wont confuse it with a bird or insect... especially when it is travelling close to supersonic speed at low levels.

The shaping is more aerodynamic than stealthy though in a sense both are valid.

The only comments I have read about the aircraft using stealth is where the radar transparent nose has a sealed container with exotic gasses through which high voltages are passed to create plasma, which absorbs in all frequencies.

There is a large radar antenna there so high voltage power is no problem and the nose cone area is normally empty so there would be no practical reason why they could not do that.

The main problems are that when activated radar waves wont go through in either direction, which means your own radar can neither illuminate targets or scan for targets and enemy radar will not penetrate in either, so you can't use your radar to listen or to look while it is on.

Of course the value of being able to hide at the flick of a switch is interesting... when no enemy radar is detected or you are hunting SEAD targets you might want to keep it off.

Isos wrote:

And can anyone identify a NATO aircraft apart from F-22 or F-35 that as stealth as the Su-34?

Rafale, Eurofighter, F-16, F-18 Super hornet, Grippen, Mirage-2000 ...

Check the frontal shape of the Su-34 ,and the other planes.

Magnitude(s) difference.

The frontal shape is huge.

If it was stealthy then why don't the makers call it stealthy?

here is their webpage:

http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su32/history/

And no mention of stealth in the aircraft history or aircraft performance links...

GarryB wrote:The mathematical model to calculate RCS, reflection/emission was Russian developed... the US copied it.

Wrong.

I have Ufimtsev's book in my little library. His work had NOTHING to do with calculating radar cross section (RCS). At most, Ufimtsev mathematically formalized the behaviors of waves upon contact and exit of surfaces. If his work was CLEARLY about radar cross section (RCS) value, Ufimtsev would have been carted off to one of those secret Soviet cities reserved for the political, military, and scientific elites to work on developing 'stealth' aircrafts. Instead, the Soviets tossed off his work as having no military value and allowed him to publish internationally.

GarryB wrote:Before they read is paper on the concept they built small scale models and hoisted them up in front of real radar and tested them... an extremely slow and expensive way of developing stealth aircraft because they didn't know what worked and what did not without testing it.

they had no way of predicting what would reduce a reflection and what would actually increase it...

Partially wrong.

Not just Lockheed, but all the major US aviation powers knew of radar behaviors. The problem was that they had no predictive methods of those behaviors and they had other projects to finance. The major obstacle was the interference issue. They could not reasonably predict when destructive interference or constructive interference would occur. Ufimtsev's work provided that relief.

Isos wrote:

Check the frontal shape of the Su-34 ,and the other planes.

Magnitude(s) difference.

Check your eyes. Su-34 from the front has a nice looking but that doesn't mean it's stealth.




From the front you can see rotor blades, weapons, huge canopy, canards, two huge tailplanes, lack of stealth geometry, lack of stealth paint, maybe some basic RCS reduction in composite materials but that's Nothing compare to a rafale or a Superhornet.

Thank you.

The front of the Su-34 looks like not a cone, as typical on every fighter , but like two bigger radius shape glued together.

The air intake has interesting shape as well, compared to the su-35. Seems like designed to hide the turbine blades.

I can't found any fighter apart from the SR-71 and the f-22/35 that looks similarly like the su-34.

The logical reason why they chose this complicated front geometry is to decrease the forward looking radar reflector surfaces.

havok wrote:

GarryB wrote:The mathematical model to calculate RCS, reflection/emission was Russian developed... the US copied it.

Wrong.

I have Ufimtsev's book in my little library. His work had NOTHING to do with calculating radar cross section (RCS). At most, Ufimtsev mathematically formalized the behaviors of waves upon contact and exit of surfaces. If his work was CLEARLY about radar cross section (RCS) value, Ufimtsev would have been carted off to one of those secret Soviet cities reserved for the political, military, and scientific elites to work on developing 'stealth' aircrafts. Instead, the Soviets tossed off his work as having no military value and allowed him to publish internationally.

By the wiki the chap spent his life with radar technology. The immediate application for this kind of stuff is the wave guides. Military again : )

Blah Blah Blah...

A Russian developed the mathematical model that makes stealth design possible... otherwise it is hit and miss labour intensive model making and testing...

GarryB wrote:Blah Blah Blah...

A Russian developed the mathematical model that makes stealth design possible... otherwise it is hit and miss labour intensive model making and testing...

Blah Blah Blah...

Ufimtsev himself admitted that he had no idea Lockheed would use his math THAT WAY.

I understand that people in this forum either seeks to diminish US accomplishment or ride the coattails of the same, but the reality is that absolutely %100 of the credit for the development of low radar observability platforms belongs to the US.