Sukhoi PAK FA

[StealthFlanker]

Wrong, the DAS is a discontinuity. Which creates corner reflectors from obtuse angles as well as edge diffraction. Even rough flat surfaces create RCS spikes. Everything on an aircraft has a potential to be seen on radar depending on angles, range and frequency. A ground based radar is more likely to see a RCS ‘hot spot’ from the F-35 DAS then from the SU-57s IRST based on location of sensors.




View attachment 55748

The DAS probably has a smaller RCS but as I mentioned earlier it is a discontinuity that creates large corner reflectors. The DAS is also about 20x larger then the IRST found on the SU-57, size and location also plays a role and those are things that are not in the DAS favor. The most stealthy sensor is one that doesn’t exist.

Su-57 actually has sensors relatively similar to DAS but most of them are UV instead of IIR and generally a bit bumpier

101KS-V

101KS-O

101KS-U 01 and 02

101KS-P

 

[StealthFlanker]

claims about the DAS being “stealthy”

DAS is quite stealthy as it blended quite well into the airframe actually, of course that doesn't mean 101KS series will suddenly make Su-57 unstealthy

 

[Neptune]

DAS is quite stealthy as it blended quite well into the airframe actually, of course that doesn't mean 101KS series will suddenly make Su-57 unstealthy
View attachment 55780

Any disruption on a surface is a discontinuity no matter if it’s a DAS, 101KS or bay door, antenna or something else. Unfortunately every aircraft has various discontinuities as a necessity, like flaps, canopy, sensors ect, with size, shape and numbers of discontinuities varying and effecting RCS. Unlike a discontinuity, like for instance, a bay door the DAS also has corner reflectors from the obtuse angle of DAS and fuselage as well as corner reflectors.

So in case things get lost in translation, everything can spike RCS. The best sensor for RCS is one that doesn’t exist. Here the size of only one DAS sensor, it puts into context the size of corner reflectors and number of corner reflectors.

 

[Steven Rogers]

Firstly the SU-57 doesn’t have 15.7 meter weapons bay, that’s over 51 feet. Secondly. Is it the SU-57s fault now that it can store long range cruise missiles internally but the F-35 can’t. Notice how you are attacking the SU-57s better capabilities by making excuses for the F-35s short falls.






Wrong, the DAS is a discontinuity. Which creates corner reflectors from obtuse angles as well as edge diffraction. Even rough flat surfaces create RCS spikes. Everything on an aircraft has a potential to be seen on radar depending on angles, range and frequency. A ground based radar is more likely to see a RCS ‘hot spot’ from the F-35 DAS then from the SU-57s IRST based on location of sensors.




View attachment 55748






The DAS probably has a smaller RCS but as I mentioned earlier it is a discontinuity that creates large corner reflectors. The DAS is also about 20x larger then the IRST found on the SU-57, size and location also plays a role and those are things that are not in the DAS favor. The most stealthy sensor is one that doesn’t exist.

As I said you messed up things just by seeing it rather going back where the debate started.... Comparison of su57 internal bay wrt to F35 wasn't even the topic but as the good friend keep on moving to the other things than stealth solely which is rather absurd as the aircrafts are not in the same class,however that doesn't change the stealth principles..

You must been saying all that about the EOTS and not the DAS,one who has gone to the high school and has studied physics,he must been familiar with the wave optics,how wave propagates,if refractive and incident angles sums up the obtuse,surely the radar waves isn't going back to the source....EOTS has minimal gain in the RCS due to its design itself moreover the exposed part is in the continuity of the main body....

The DAS probably has a smaller RCS but as I mentioned earlier it is a discontinuity that creates large corner reflectors. The DAS is also about 20x larger then the IRST found on the SU-57, size and location also plays a role and those are things that are not in the DAS favor. The most stealthy sensor is one that doesn’t exist.

DAS is larger yet has smaller radar cross-section and contributes way much smaller than round IRST protruding outside the body with no continuity with the main body...also for every ground strike mission Su57 will have to carry the Pod based sensor which sums up the philosophy of its mission and what people trying to push on forums.

“No initial clearance” who decides that? Did Russian pilots hijack the SU-57 and fly it to Syria, did they need your permission for clearance?

Your second question. The SU-57 launched an Kh-59MK2 cruise missile. The Russian Ministry of Defense released a short clip and if that is “propaganda” then the F-35 surpasses the SU-57 in propaganda by a factor of a million since there is very little information or even pictures of the SU-57 compared to the F-35.

View attachment 55749







You can repeat all you want but you are wrong on almost everything you have claimed. Do you have evidence that radar block restrict “ideal flight” and “angle of attack” you don’t even know the design of the radar blockers or how boundary layer airflow, vortexes or levons effect airflow into the engine and at what speed, flight regime or altitude this happens at so how could you make such a clown statement?

The sending of a prototype of an incomplete aircraft in a war torn country was itself a desperate attempt by the russians,not only it risked the test pilot but also the aircraft....Su57 fired Kh59 was not in Syria,it was a mere speculations by the speculators like you and many,the news of firing came in May and the Su57s were sent in feb for a short period...
Yes go through the countering stealth thread and read full on the radar blockers use in inlet or in exhaust.
Putting a Radar blockers in the inlet itself is problematic for the continuous air flow and has potential to degrade performance at several angle of attacks,meanwhile their is no confirmation of the use of radar blockers in the Sukhoi 57,not so far ... Will again say,LEVCON on the Su57 is a control surface which is discontinuous with the plane's fuselage,it could add much more when in the use and so far its edges are plain

......

It’s actually DSI intakes that are detrimental to performance and that is a fact. There is a reason most aircraft have movable intake ramps and not fixed DSI intakes and that is because variable I stakes can change the velocity of boundary airflow at different flight regimes. I have come to expect these types of statements from you, after all, in the past you claimed the Rafale RCS is similar to SU-57 despite the Rafale having no faceting, edge alignment, Spectra sensors bulging from all over the aircraft and no weapon a bays.








Where did you get that egregious lie from, F-16.net? The following article is more then 3 years old:




Here is the original in Russian:

Ростех запустил производство нитрид-галлиевых (GaN) транзисторов для создания сетей связи 5G, квадрокоптеров и новых РЛС | ТЕХНОЛОГИИ, ИНЖИНИРИНГ, ИННОВАЦИИ

бизнес-планирование, математическое моделирование горения и взрыва, бизнес-план, моделирование гидродинамики и газодинамики, разработка электроники, разработка станков, измеритель диаметра, лазерная

integral-russia.ru

View attachment 55761








This is the stupidest statement ever

The majority of weapons systems, even ones that have been out for years or decades are still highly secret. We still don’t have pictures of most of the B-2s avionics and it been around for decades. The X-37B is a mystery, spy satellites are almost never even allowed to be photographed. We still don’t even have pictures of SU-57 real cockpit.

No you're absolutely incorrect,DSI provide excellent performance and transonic,and supersonic speeds, acceleration is better specially from transonic to supersonic with lesser drag due to no movable part...in the today's age,supercruise is way more important than aircraft without the supercruise but with 2.5mach top speed,the top speed is never required in any kind of mission in today's world,mirage2000 has much higher top speed than the Rafale(Rafale speed is restricted to mach 1.8 but in can supercruise)but the requirement never occurs in any mission unless it is the pilots fantasy or a test flight for the testing of engine at that speed ....F35 was never intended to supercruise,but it is possible with the engine upgrade,all the new designs which are emphasizing on the supercruise are opting for the DSI....

And this is from the last year

They were using Huwawei technology in the 2018 for their 5g testing and not the so called rostec made semiconductors,also your link itself says that they developed and manufactured prototypes

...
B2 cockpit

Mysterios X37B:-
Su57 future cockpit display :-

Now do us a favor,and please show us the prototype picture of the ROFAR radar and the current radar of the Su57.....

 

[Steven Rogers]

Any disruption on a surface is a discontinuity no matter if it’s a DAS, 101KS or bay door, antenna or something else. Unfortunately every aircraft has various discontinuities as a necessity, like flaps, canopy, sensors ect, with size, shape and numbers of discontinuities varying and effecting RCS. Unlike a discontinuity, like for instance, a bay door the DAS also has corner reflectors from the obtuse angle of DAS and fuselage as well as corner reflectors.

So in case things get lost in translation, everything can spike RCS. The best sensor for RCS is one that doesn’t exist. Here the size of only one DAS sensor, it puts into context the size of corner reflectors and number of corner reflectors.


View attachment 55781

This is not DAS but EOTS,it combines,Laser designator,targetting and IRST functions and is found singular on every f35,you should talk about the exposed part in the flight than the whole sensor itself...

 

[StealthFlanker]

Any disruption on a surface is a discontinuity no matter if it’s a DAS, 101KS or bay door, antenna or something else. Unfortunately every aircraft has various discontinuities as a necessity, like flaps, canopy, sensors ect, with size, shape and numbers of discontinuities varying and effecting RCS. Unlike a discontinuity, like for instance, a bay door the DAS also has corner reflectors from the obtuse angle of DAS and fuselage as well as corner reflectors.

So in case things get lost in translation, everything can spike RCS. The best sensor for RCS is one that doesn’t exist. Here the size of only one DAS sensor, it puts into context the size of corner reflectors and number of corner reflectors.


View attachment 55781

Firstly, that is not DAS, that is EOTS. Don't confuse them
the thing inside the yellow circle is DAS, the one inside the red circle is EOTS

Secondly, the issue with corner reflector is the potential of it to be a perpendicular angle, with a right angle, the radar wave make a double bounce, so the RCS can be high over a wide aspect. An acute or obtuse angle doesn't have this issue. That also why you often see normal aircraft such as F-15, Su-27 have their vertical stabilator perpendicular to the horizontal stabilator. Whereas, on stealth aircraft such as F-35, Su-57 the vertical tail often make a V shape.

 

[scatterStorm]

Ahh no you seem upset that I keep stating RCS reduction features with also the benefit of efficient maneuverability. Than you seem to be trusting a USAF pilot who has served in the vietnam war opinion for an adversary nation. Thats like trusting John McCain and we all know how that guy is saying some very positive stuff about Russia so your opinion is already easily discarded. Thats like asking a random Pakistani or Chinese soldier what they think about India on this thread. You do not even know that there are different Su-57 prototypes(go figure) with different features that have reduced RCS estimates on engines and IRST systems and that has also became quite apparent with your su-70 statement that I will address here later. I can bring up the Su-70 here because that is the loyal wingman of the Su-57 but of course U.S. fanboys have a tendency like yourself to go bring up different aircrafts like F-35s on this thread. 2014-2015 was the creation of the ROFAR radar with 3.5 years of testing, than further testing has to be done on an aircraft which they are pushing to be integrated in the mid-2020s the same god damn timeframe they announced new avionics(you cant be that dense I hope). Getting an avionics update with this upgrade can be done. The F-22 had a 3rd generation radar that was integrated to the aircraft in 1998 than had a 4th gen radar integrated in 2005 than 2 years after testing it became functional with the aircraft. And for some reason you like to believe that it is stuck with a 2009 radar with no replacements in 2022 with 2 years of additional testing. This is why no one can here can take you seriously like this next post for example.



I already addressed this to you this was their goal image and that the antenna was to be removed.

View attachment 55747

Look at the X-47A and X-47B even though its a cancelled project it has undergone changes in its design. And that is the other reason no one can take you that seriously because you do not think that they are capable of putting new designs and replacements and that they stick with original even though you have already been proven wrong constantly here. As a snake oil salesman your reputation has been hurt.

Agreed, production aircrafts do change structurally too. Take the case of J20 type-B variant that are about to roll-out. Very likely that its radar and sensor suits will be smoothed out on the surface along with its engine nozzle.

 

[Steven Rogers]

Ignore if already posted....

 

[Steven Rogers]

 

[panzerfeist1]

Official mumbo jumbo...all it takes is one picture of the so called ROFAR radar...regarding rcs,you're friend is already black and blue...

You already made it quite apparent to everyone you have no idea what you are talking about and that I am already black and blue the fact that you went silent when I mentioned this image below must also mean I am still right by your logic.

Yes I am not joking but Lockheed actually marketed an image of the F-35 like this so are they being negligent on stealth for doing this? RTI and KRET have similar news updates about the photonic industry and radars based on it which they have been consistent on delivering that news throughout that chronological order I have never concluded that it will receive it but it being the most likely candidate based on those events. And yet you still hold your head up high repeating the same shit on those physical features even though Neptune had to correct you on every deficiency you have made you poor thing.

 

[Steven Rogers]

You already made it quite apparent to everyone you have no idea what you are talking about and that I am already black and blue the fact that you went silent when I mentioned this image below must also mean I am still right by your logic.

View attachment 55812

Yes I am not joking but Lockheed actually marketed an image of the F-35 like this so are they being negligent on stealth for doing this? RTI and KRET have similar news updates about the photonic industry and radars based on it which they have been consistent on delivering that news throughout that chronological order I have never concluded that it will receive it but it being the most likely candidate based on those events. And yet you still hold your head up high repeating the same shit on those physical features even though Neptune had to correct you on every deficiency you have made you poor thing.

F35 is marketed with this also....and Su57 flies like this also

 

[Neptune]

You must been saying all that about the EOTS and not the DAS,one who has gone to the high school and has studied physics,he must been familiar with the wave optics,how wave propagates,if refractive and incident angles sums up the obtuse,surely the radar waves isn't going back to the source....EOTS has minimal gain in the RCS due to its design itself moreover the exposed part is in the continuity of the main body....

My claims are all backed by physics. It’s a well established phenomenon how corner reflectors effect radar cross section. The DAS/EOTS is not immune to this. You keep ignoring this, as well as size of the DAS/EOTS and the corners it presents. Not to mention the location of the DAS/EOTS being conducive to ground radars.

DAS is larger yet has smaller radar cross-section and contributes way much smaller than round IRST protruding outside the body with no continuity with the main body...also for every ground strike mission Su57 will have to carry the Pod based sensor which sums up the philosophy of its mission and what people trying to push on forums.

What pods would the SU-57 carry? It clearly fired cruise missiles without a “pod”. Those cruise missile use satellites to navigate, there is no need for any pod. You are confused with the SU-57 “pod” used for videotaping weapons releases.



This is not the 101KS-N

The S-70 is likely meant to go in and hit ground targets first. The SU-57 can carry a targeting pod, it can also carry external weapons and even unguided bombs. It doesn’t mean the SU-57 would use use externally mounted unguided bombs with targeting pod. It only offers that capability just like no expects the F-35 to seriously use external weapons and external fuel tanks.

The sending of a prototype of an incomplete aircraft in a war torn country was itself a desperate attempt by the russians,not only it risked the test pilot but also the aircraft....Su57 fired Kh59 was not in Syria

So you are saying the KH-59 was not fired in Syria but you have no proof whatsoever but Im wrong because I rely on the Russian Ministry of Defense (MOD) and Sergey Shoigu confirming the use of the KH-57 in February, the same time the MOD confirmed SU-57s were deployed to Syria and many new weapons were tested in Syria. The MOD then played a short clip of the SU-57 firing the KH-57. Russia tests many prototypes of weapons in Syria, they don’t need anyone’s permission to test weapons.

,it was a mere speculations by the speculators like you and many,the news of firing came in May and the Su57s were sent in feb for a short period...

Yes go through the countering stealth thread and read full on the radar blockers use in inlet or in exhaust.

Putting a Radar blockers in the inlet itself is problematic for the continuous air flow and has potential to degrade performance at several angle of attacks,meanwhile their is no confirmation of the use of radar blockers in the Sukhoi 57,not so far ... Will again say,LEVCON on the Su57 is a control surface which is discontinuous with the plane's fuselage,it could add much more when in the use and so far its edges are plain......

How many times do I need to repeat myself? A LEVCON is a discontinuity, there are many things I listed that are exactly that. The Rafale has dozens of discontinuities and so does the F-35, for instance an intake, a nozzle, a refueling probe, a fan door, a rudder all of those are examples of discontinuities and I never for one second denied the SU-57 or it’s LEVCONs were never discontinuities.



And again I don’t take threads or opinions of people on the internet to determine how a radar blocker works or it’s effectiveness, especially when those internet armchair generals have never seen the radar blocker in question or ever tested in a wind tunnel. There is a reason wind tunnels and CAD is used to get data on air flow and not internet opinions.

And this is from the last year
They were using Huwawei technology in the 2018 for their 5g testing and not the so called rostec made semiconductors,also your link itself says that they developed and manufactured prototypes

That link just says that Rostelocom was testing Huwawei 5G network. You are completely trying to bring in unrelated topics and twist facts. Huwawei is used in over 170 countries including many western countries. So does this suddenly mean the west can not develop GaN technology because it uses Huwawei?



The topic was about GaN radars and not Chinese telecommunications companies.

...

B2 cockpit

I said show B-2 avionics, by that I meant things like mission computers or even the APQ-181 (not a fake dummy or mock-up) on the B-2. I didn’t ask for a picture of a cockpit with a bunch of analog gauges.

Mysterios X37B:-

That is a long video with rockets, can you point out where in the video is the video I can see the X-37B avionics? Which is not a rocket.

Su57 future cockpit display :-

Like I said Sukhoi has never revealed the real cockpit of the SU-57, at best we have fake mockups made for MAKS for civilians to interact with. The actual modern simulator that Sukhoi pilots use was blurred out in a video. No I'm not talking about the older SU-35 cockpit mascaraing as an SU-57 cockpit either.

Now do us a favor,and please show us the prototype picture of the ROFAR radar and the current radar of the Su57.....

Like I said, you are ignoring official press releases from Russian companies. You refuse to believe it’s tru and instead demand people post pictures of classified projects. Again I’m still waiting for you to post classified pictures of known and operational American aircraft with highly classified avionics. Because you can’t find the pictures does it mean the US is lying?

 

[Steven Rogers]

My claims are all backed by physics. It’s a well established phenomenon how corner reflectors effect radar cross section. The DAS/EOTS is not immune to this. You keep ignoring this, as well as size of the DAS/EOTS and the corners it presents. Not to mention the location of the DAS/EOTS being conducive to ground radars.

First you need to go back on table and learn what corner reflectors are..two surfaces intersecting at right angle cause counter reflection of the radar waves...

Now look at the EOTS,not a single intersecting surfaces are at the 90 degrees...

So much of a corner reflection expert

pods would the SU-57 carry? It clearly fired cruise missiles without a “pod”. Those cruise missile use satellites to navigate, there is no need for any pod. You are confused with the SU-57 “pod” used for videotaping weapons releases.



This is not the 101KS-N



View attachment 55813



The S-70 is likely meant to go in and hit ground targets first. The SU-57 can carry a targeting pod, it can also carry external weapons and even unguided bombs. It doesn’t mean the SU-57 would use use externally mounted unguided bombs with targeting pod. It only offers that capability just like no expects the F-35 to seriously use external weapons and external fuel tanks.

For dropping the LGB equipped bombs,F35 carries LGB inside it's weapons bay the thing Su57 can't without carrying the pod externally... ...

So you are saying the KH-59 was not fired in Syria but you have no proof whatsoever but Im wrong because I rely on the Russian Ministry of Defense (MOD) and Sergey Shoigu confirming the use of the KH-57 in February, the same time the MOD confirmed SU-57s were deployed to Syria and many new weapons were tested in Syria. The MOD then played a short clip of the SU-57 firing the KH-57. Russia tests many prototypes of weapons in Syria, they don’t need anyone’s permission to test weapons.

How many times do I need to repeat myself? A LEVCON is a discontinuity, there are many things I listed that are exactly that. The Rafale has dozens of discontinuities and so does the F-35, for instance an intake, a nozzle, a refueling probe, a fan door, a rudder all of those are examples of discontinuities and I never for one second denied the SU-57 or it’s LEVCONs were never discontinuities.

Do you have any proof that it was fired in syria,what a Hypocrisy,first watch your ass whether you're correct or not,none of the Russia officials said that the missile is fired in syria and that's too it was fired first time from Sukhoi 57...

The difference is in the f35 the discontinuities are focused on smaller hotspot concentrated at one point ,in the sukhoi's it is all on the body and wings...

And again I don’t take threads or opinions of people on the internet to determine how a radar blocker works or it’s effectiveness, especially when those internet armchair generals have never seen the radar blocker in question or ever tested in a wind tunnel. There is a reason wind tunnels and CAD is used to get data on air flow and not internet opinions.

Exactly then,no one is waiting for your opinion,shut your ass and get out of the forum..and forget Radar blockers,I'm sure you havent seen even the basic sensors such as MAWS,antennas for real....people with low IQ who doesn't even know why forums are for come everyday to blabber as if the scientists share CFD data with them and include their ass for the expert opinion...

That link just says that Rostelocom was testing Huwawei 5G network. You are completely trying to bring in unrelated topics and twist facts. Huwawei is used in over 170 countries including many western countries. So does this suddenly mean the west can not develop GaN technology because it uses Huwawei?



The topic was about GaN radars and not Chinese telecommunications companies.










I said show B-2 avionics, by that I meant things like mission computers or even the APQ-181 (not a fake dummy or mock-up) on the B-2. I didn’t ask for a picture of a cockpit with a bunch of analog gauges.









That is a long video with rockets, can you point out where in the video is the video I can see the X-37B avionics? Which is not a rocket.










Like I said Sukhoi has never revealed the real cockpit of the SU-57, at best we have fake mockups made for MAKS for civilians to interact with. The actual modern simulator that Sukhoi pilots use was blurred out in a video. No I'm not talking about the older SU-35 cockpit mascaraing as an SU-57 cockpit either.













Like I said, you are ignoring official press releases from Russian companies. You refuse to believe it’s tru and instead demand people post pictures of classified projects. Again I’m still waiting for you to post classified pictures of known and operational American aircraft with highly classified avionics. Because you can’t find the pictures does it mean the US is lying?

How easily one dodges his own idiocy is laughable,your own link was based on 5G communication which doesn't even fulfilled their requirements and Huwawei was called upon........how many GaN radar does Russia operates forget what's on Sukhoi but how many in total....the fact is Russians arent even show casing the dummy of their airborne radar for sukhoi,they had all the time to show case FGA35 and it's variant for mig35......the whole Russians claims themselves are fake,they couldn't present a simple picture of their product which will be offered in exports....

 

[Neptune]

Firstly, that is not DAS, that is EOTS. Don't confuse them
the thing inside the yellow circle is DAS, the one inside the red circle is EOTS
View attachment 55796

Secondly, the issue with corner reflector is the potential of it to be a perpendicular angle, with a right angle, the radar wave make a double bounce, so the RCS can be high over a wide aspect. An acute or obtuse angle doesn't have this issue. That also why you often see normal aircraft such as F-15, Su-27 have their vertical stabilator perpendicular to the horizontal stabilator. Whereas, on stealth aircraft such as F-35, Su-57 the vertical tail often make a V shape.
View attachment 55798

What point are you trying to make? That obtuse angles are exempt from laws of physics?

All corner reflectors can spike radar returns, this was one of the likely reasons that the Rafale HUD picked up an F-22 at moments.

V-tails absolutely cause RCS to spike at certain angles and traditional vertical stabilizers also do. A V-tail is much better then a flat 90 degree reflector.


In a monostatic radar case, the orthogonal dihedral corners have high RCS value, which becomes a drawback for target stealth. Therefore, many stealth targets are in non-right angle dihedral structures. In this section, the obtuse dihedral corners are analysed. The propagation path of an obtuse dihedral corner is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Propagation path of radar wave in the obtuse dihedral corner.


Obviously, it is hard for the monostatic radar to receive the echo reflected from the upper plane. To catch this echo, the receiver can no longer be located at the same position with the transmitter. Assuming the opening angle of the dihedral corner is 2β and the incident angle is θi, the main energy of the radar wave is reflected along the direction of 4β+θi−πaccording to the specular reflection law. Therefore, if we detect the dihedral structure using a radar with a bistatic angle of
α = 4β−π
(7)
the strong energy could be obtained, and the RCS will become higher.
When the radar wave hits at point A with incident angle θi, the location of point A in the transmitter coordinate system is

Accurate Analysis of Target Characteristic in Bistatic SAR Images: A Dihedral Corner Reflectors Case

The dihedral corner reflectors are the basic geometric structure of many targets and are the main contributions of radar cross section (RCS) in the synthetic aperture radar (SAR) images. In stealth technologies, the elaborate design of the dihedral corners with different opening angles is a...

www.mdpi.com

 

[Steven Rogers]

What point are you trying to make? That obtuse angles are exempt from laws of physics?

All corner reflectors can spike radar returns, this was one of the likely reasons that the Rafale HUD picked up an F-22 at moments.

V-tails absolutely cause RCS to spike at certain angles and traditional vertical stabilizers also do. A V-tail is much better then a flat 90 degree reflector.


In a monostatic radar case, the orthogonal dihedral corners have high RCS value, which becomes a drawback for target stealth. Therefore, many stealth targets are in non-right angle dihedral structures. In this section, the obtuse dihedral corners are analysed. The propagation path of an obtuse dihedral corner is shown in Figure 2.


View attachment 55829

Figure 2. Propagation path of radar wave in the obtuse dihedral corner.


Obviously, it is hard for the monostatic radar to receive the echo reflected from the upper plane. To catch this echo, the receiver can no longer be located at the same position with the transmitter. Assuming the opening angle of the dihedral corner is 2β and the incident angle is θi, the main energy of the radar wave is reflected along the direction of 4β+θi−πaccording to the specular reflection law. Therefore, if we detect the dihedral structure using a radar with a bistatic angle of
α = 4β−π
(7)
the strong energy could be obtained, and the RCS will become higher.
When the radar wave hits at point A with incident angle θi, the location of point A in the transmitter coordinate system is

Accurate Analysis of Target Characteristic in Bistatic SAR Images: A Dihedral Corner Reflectors Case

The dihedral corner reflectors are the basic geometric structure of many targets and are the main contributions of radar cross section (RCS) in the synthetic aperture radar (SAR) images. In stealth technologies, the elaborate design of the dihedral corners with different opening angles is a...

www.mdpi.com

This all is true for a radar system whose transmitter and receivers are distributed in a vast area not for the set of AWACS or set of singular radars....such distribution is only possible in the lower frequency radars which have huge antennas for transmit and receive....

 

[StealthFlanker]

My claims are all backed by physics. It’s a well established phenomenon how corner reflectors effect radar cross section. The DAS/EOTS is not immune to this. You keep ignoring this, as well as size of the DAS/EOTS and the corners it presents. Not to mention the location of the DAS/EOTS being conducive to ground radars.

I don't really want to interfere again but EOTS and DAS are two different groups of sensors. DAS is the group of 6 IIR sensor around the airframe while EOTS is CCD, IIR, laser spot tracker and laser designator
EOTS is basically the counterpart of 101KS-V + 101KS-N
DAS is the counterpart of 101KS-U + 101KS-P
Furthermore, corner reflector on stealth aircraft generally referred to 90 degree corner or corner with high possibility of secondary redirect bounce like the images I posted earlier. The location of EOTS and the fact that it makes an obtuse angle with the airframe mean it is very unlikely that a secondary bounce would happen. Secondly, taking about the size, EOTS and DAS would be quite a bit smaller than the wing bump

How many times do I need to repeat myself? A LEVCON is a discontinuity, there are many things I listed that are exactly that. The Rafale has dozens of discontinuities and so does the F-35, for instance an intake, a nozzle, a refueling probe, a fan door, a rudder all of those are examples of discontinuities and I never for one second denied the SU-57 or it’s LEVCONs were never discontinuities.
What pods would the SU-57 carry?

That correct but the discontinuity segment of stealth aircraft are often treated with nonspecular RAM or being serrated so that the magnitude of reflection lobes could be reduced or redirect away from radar source

 

[StealthFlanker]

What point are you trying to make? That obtuse angles are exempt from laws of physics?
All corner reflectors can spike radar returns, this was one of the likely reasons that the Rafale HUD picked up an F-22 at moments.
V-tails absolutely cause RCS to spike at certain angles and traditional vertical stabilizers also do. A V-tail is much better then a flat 90 degree reflector.

In a monostatic radar case, the orthogonal dihedral corners have high RCS value, which becomes a drawback for target stealth. Therefore, many stealth targets are in non-right angle dihedral structures. In this section, the obtuse dihedral corners are analysed. The propagation path of an obtuse dihedral corner is shown in Figure 2.


View attachment 55829

Figure 2. Propagation path of radar wave in the obtuse dihedral corner.


Obviously, it is hard for the monostatic radar to receive the echo reflected from the upper plane. To catch this echo, the receiver can no longer be located at the same position with the transmitter. Assuming the opening angle of the dihedral corner is 2β and the incident angle is θi, the main energy of the radar wave is reflected along the direction of 4β+θi−πaccording to the specular reflection law. Therefore, if we detect the dihedral structure using a radar with a bistatic angle of
α = 4β−π
(7)
the strong energy could be obtained, and the RCS will become higher.
When the radar wave hits at point A with incident angle θi, the location of point A in the transmitter coordinate system is

Accurate Analysis of Target Characteristic in Bistatic SAR Images: A Dihedral Corner Reflectors Case

The dihedral corner reflectors are the basic geometric structure of many targets and are the main contributions of radar cross section (RCS) in the synthetic aperture radar (SAR) images. In stealth technologies, the elaborate design of the dihedral corners with different opening angles is a...

www.mdpi.com

I didn't say obtuse angles ignore the law of physics, it actually very simple basic geometry
A right angle corner reflector is terrible for stealth because from very wide angle, the radar wave will travel directly back to the source, in short, your RCS is high from a wide range of aspects.

By contrast, a corner with an obtuse and acute angle doesn't cause that effect.

In fact, even your own example pointed that out, and I quote:
"Propagation path of radar wave in the obtuse dihedral corner.
Obviously, it is hard for the monostatic radar to receive the echo reflected from the upper plane. To catch this echo, the receiver can no longer be located at the same position with the transmitter"
and about 99.999% radar have the transmitter and receiver at the same location aka monostatic, pretty much the only type of radar that has transmitter and receiver at two separate location are ground based over horizon radar, and their antenna aperture are often several km long and wide. They are so big that they are always stationary.

View attachment 55854

 

[MiG-29SMT]

 

[Steven Rogers]

View attachment 55874

Is the displays layout like this one(DCS)...

 

[Neptune]

First you need to go back on table and learn what corner reflectors are..two surfaces intersecting at right angle cause counter reflection of the radar waves...View attachment 55823
Now look at the EOTS,not a single intersecting surfaces are at the 90 degrees...
View attachment 55824

There are many types of corner reflectors such as dihedral and trihedral that have various intensity based on line of sight (LOS) and shape or degrees of corner reflector. @StealthFlanker as well as Steven Rogers, you both commented that the source/image I posted would have to have a bistatic radar to work. Okay I will post an obtuse corner reflector using monostatic radar measured by synthetic aperture radar (SAR).

Clearly a abuse angle is very visible to radar. The LOS is the most important factor as the illustration above shows the transmitter/receiver is sending out and receiving a signal. The ‘double bounce’ and various reflectors is for illustration only, they are real and there is more then just a ‘double bounce’ with certain corner reflectors but people overlook the obvious, the X Y axis of 0. Any corner reflector will be picked up on radar if the angles are right. While Intensity will vary on the types of corner reflectors.

Like this, which shows a 90 degree corner, which has the ‘double bounce, but also pay attention to the part in red:

For dropping the LGB equipped bombs,F35 carries LGB inside it's weapons bay the thing Su57 can't without carrying the pod externally... ...View attachment 55827

Okay, let’s assume that’s the case. Does that make the SU-57 inferior? I would prefer to hit the target from much further away then not. Having internal cruise missiles with much greater range then internal laser guided bombs or even worse external cruise missile with shorter range is better in my opinion. To add to that the S-70 is likely going to be the spearheading ground attacks by relaying information back to the SU-57 or hitting the targets itself.

Do you have any proof that it was fired in syria,what a Hypocrisy, first watch your ass whether you're correct or not,none of the Russia officials said that the missile is fired in syria and that's too it was fired first time from Sukhoi 57...

I need to “watch my ass”? Okay internet tough guy, in real life you wold never say that to my face, I mean do you want my ass or something? I don’t give up my ass to men


You have been nothing short of acting belligerent and hot tempered by name calling and threats.As for Syria and the KH-57, I explained it many times before, you obviously didn’t read or forgot what I said. The Ministry of Defense (MOD) stated that they were testing new weapons in Syria at the time the SU-57s were there. They also played a video clip of the SU-57 firing the cruise missile. It is an admission of what happened, what is dental, however; is you ignoring the statements by the MOD and the evidence they released. So it’s you that is a hypocrite.

The difference is in the f35 the discontinuities are focused on smaller hotspot concentrated at one point ,in the sukhoi's it is all on the body and wings...

You obviously are blind, you think that the EOTS is “smaller” then the 101KS-V? Or perhaps you mean that the EOTS is the only hot spot? The F-35 have plenty hot spots or corner reflectors, obviously the SU-57 has the same problems too.

Exactly then,no one is waiting for your opinion,shut your ass and get out of the forum..

Someone is frustrated and angry

Guess what, this is an SU-57 forum, you have been trolling and now got challenged and don’t like it.

and forget Radar blockers,I'm sure you havent seen even the basic sensors such as MAWS,antennas for real....people with low IQ who doesn't even know why forums are for come everyday to blabber as if the scientists share CFD data with them and include their ass for the expert opinion...

What are you blabbing about? I told you no one knows how those radar blockers look, how they work, how boundary layer airflow will effect them yet you are pretending you know how the radar blockers will behave and now are telling me to shut up because you know you can’t defend your position. I would hope everyone show some level of logic and courtesy. And yes forums are to “blabber” yet you tell me to shut up and call me “low IQ” and then tell me to go “read” what some random people on Internet forums say. Why not just use sources and formulate good arguments yourself?

How easily one dodges his own idiocy is laughable,your own link was based on 5G communication which doesn't even fulfilled their requirements and Huwawei was called upon........

I was focused on the GaN part for radars which the link clearly mentions. Huawei operated in 170 countries, many of the countries that Huawei operates in or formally operated in were countries with strong semiconductor industries yet you ignore this and twist reality. In terms of business and work shares companies and countries also collaborate and split work like EF-2000 or F-35 or Huawei and Ruselectronics.

Let me reverse your tactics, why does China purchase the S-400 and other systems if Russia is so backwards and Chinese electrics are better? Reality is Russia is a world class developer of surface to air batteries, radars and command. This is why even NATO countries and India opt for Russian systems. In the same sense Huawei is a leader in the telecommunications sector.

how many GaN radar does Russia operates forget what's on Sukhoi but how many in total....the fact is Russians arent even show casing the dummy of their airborne radar for sukhoi,they had all the time to show case FGA35 and it's variant for mig35......the whole Russians claims themselves are fake,they couldn't present a simple picture of their product which will be offered in exports....

Russia has been using AESA radars for years, like the NEBO SVU ground based radar or Poliment 5P-20K on the frigates dubbed project 22350. Or the Zaslon AESA on corvettes dubbed project 20385. The A-100 also is an AWACS that is either operational or will be this year and then there are the fighter based AESAs, three of them, as well as AESAs for missiles in development. The TU-214R probably is also equipped with AESA.

Russian AESA development has certainly been slowed down by sanctions, where as many countries in Europe, Asia and even America itself can buy, sell and collaborate with other countries. It’s quite juvenile for an Indian to mock Russia when pretty much everything India developed was sourced from parts and technical assistance from Russia, Israel, America and Europe.