Sukhoi PAK FA

[blackjack]

it is actually, much harder to find a target at lower altitude, since the radar need to pick out target from ground clutter. A target at lower altitude can always hide their return better due to higher noise floor
Furthermore, even with IRST or EO sensor picking out target from sky background is always easier than surface background, because ground surface is hotter and less uniform

That is only if the radar beam touches the ground at a certain distance. The tilt of the beam can be adjusted to avoid the ground at a certain distance. It is very possible to adust radar beams to scan the airspace more than to scan the ground. Not only that but the 2 degree by 2 degree radar beam of a F-22 shows you can even adust the width to avoid ground clutter as well.

If we are being completely honest, the different in altitude make up a very small different in angle.
For example:
let say: F-35 cruising at altitude of 40,000 ft (12.2 km) while Su-57 cruise at 60,000 ft (18.2 km)
18.2-12.2 = 6 km in height.
Using very simple trigonometry, you can see that with 6 km in height
If the 2 aircraft are 400 km apart from each other, the look down angle from Su-57 is 0.85 degree
If the 2 aircraft are 300 km apart from each other, the look down angle from Su-57 is 1.15 degree
If the 2 aircraft are 200 km apart from each other, the look down angle from Su-57 is 1.72 degree
If the 2 aircraft are 100 km apart from each other, the look down angle from Su-57 is 3.4 degree
In other words, the different is very negligible to the point that it hardly matter at all, unless, we are at super close distance, like 30-40 km.
Besides, in case Su-57 looking at F-22/35 from top down, then these fighter will be tracking Su-57 from belly up, which is not exactly clean either. Not to mention that the aircraft at lower altitude will enjoy the high clutter background

Those small degrees matter in RCS returns. If we get the surface area of the F-35 is the wing area taking account of the length and width the surface area is 43 meters. My only suggestion is that the bottom area of stealth aircrafts is that they are treated better for stealth than the topside.
I see angles on the bottom of the Su-57 as I do with the F-22

The mission profile is suited for the Su-57 to carry air to ground missiles than air to air missiles based on its based on its layout. But it will be difficult to get a higher flight ceiling than the Su-57 which will see your worst than your best.

How many Mig-41 currently in production?: Zero
How many Mig-41 prototype currently being tested? Zero
There are as many Mig-41 now as there are SR-72
paper projects doesn't mean anything even if producer claim it will fly at 100 times faster than sound.

In case you dont know how to read I am talking about a project in development nowhere did I say they have set production numbers.
Перехватчик МиГ-41 станет самолетом шестого поколения - Российская газета (rg.ru)
The MiG-41 interceptor will be Russia's first sixth-generation combat aircraft. It is being developed as part of the project of a promising long-range interception aircraft complex (PAK DP), Senator, Deputy Head of the Federation Council Committee on Defense and Security Viktor Bondarev told TASS.

I don't quite understand your proposal?. So somehow Su-57 can just circle around the F-35/F-22 ground at Mach 2, yet invisible to IRST sensor?. What make you think Su-57 will get the 1st initiative to know where F-22/F-35 is?

Well they claimed the F-22 was 0.3 - 0.4m2 while putting the Su-57 at 0.5m2 for average RCS estimates, the 2005 aviation article gave a .0001m2 estimate but said from the Front which suggest they did not give the average RCS of the aircraft. Rostec has developed a stealth material to provide. | Su-57 (PAK FA T-50) / S-70 Okhotnik | VK They made a stealth coating that doesn't need to maintain any kind of restoration like the cracks of some of the coatings we saw on certain stealth aircrafts. With the average RCS of 0.5 being accounted for by just its shape and on the material absorbing 95% we would get a 0.025m2 average RCS (yes they even treated the existing cockpit with some kind of coating and supposedly besides getting new avionics they are getting an upgraded cockpit on the Su-57 for the next batch of aircrafts by 2025)

Assuming the F-22 is searching for a target with supposed claims of 1m2 in a 120 degree radar beam at a distance of either 200km-240kms we can use Dragon029s square root formula to determine that 0.025m2 would be super duper close to the point it looks like a dog fight combat is engaged. The existing OLS-35 was claimed for 30km at the front but this was a long long time ago. They basically created handheld cameras that have high quality shortwave infrared resolution at a 20km range «Росэлектроника» разработала «всевидящую» инфракрасную камеру с дальностью обнаружения до 20 км (ruselectronics.ru)
Then Shvabe made breakthroughs for supposedly next generation infrared systems and that increasing the quality percentage of Germanium allowed better tracking at further ranges.

Besides infrared, The F-22 has to 1st realize it is passively getting tracked before swervingand before the Su-57 pilot turns the radar back on approaching the F-22 at its undesirable angle.

 

[StealthFlanker]

That is only if the radar beam touches the ground at a certain distance. The tilt of the beam can be adjusted to avoid the ground at a certain distance. It is very possible to adust radar beams to scan the airspace more than to scan the ground. Not only that but the 2 degree by 2 degree radar beam of a F-22 shows you can even adust the width to avoid ground clutter as well.

How do you even adjust your radar beam angle so that it won't touch the ground when you want to track a target at lower altitude?. It literally not possible. If you want to point your radar beam so that it avoid the ground surface, that mean you have to point upward, and if you point up, you can't track something at lower altitude

Those small degrees matter in RCS returns. If we get the surface area of the F-35 is the wing area taking account of the length and width the surface area is 43 meters.

Those small degrees are practically irrelevant.
Take for example, this is contour plot of F-35 model without external RAM. The 85 degrees number on the left side is at the elevation center, the 0 degree number at the bottom is horizontal center. It is quite easy to see that moving up and down 1-4 degrees is pretty much irrelevant in term of RCS

My only suggestion is that the bottom area of stealth aircrafts is that they are treated better for stealth than the topside.
I see angles on the bottom of the Su-57 as I do with the F-22
The mission profile is suited for the Su-57 to carry air to ground missiles than air to air missiles based on its based on its layout. But it will be difficult to get a higher flight ceiling than the Su-57 which will see your worst than your best.

In term of radar scattering characteristic, bottom of Su-57 is not better than its top side, it actually worst due to the tunnel between 2 nacelles. You might be right side about bottom better than top side if we are talking about something like a B-2 or YF-23. But Su-57 doesn't fit that example

In case you dont know how to read I am talking about a project in development nowhere did I say they have set production numbers.
Перехватчик МиГ-41 станет самолетом шестого поколения - Российская газета (rg.ru)
The MiG-41 interceptor will be Russia's first sixth-generation combat aircraft. It is being developed as part of the project of a promising long-range interception aircraft complex (PAK DP), Senator, Deputy Head of the Federation Council Committee on Defense and Security Viktor Bondarev told TASS.

And like I said, capability of paper project are irrelevant, especially when we talking about something expensive like aircraft or ship. There are as many Mig-41 as there are SR-72 at this point. They don't even have a prototype yet. The chance they ever go to production is close to zero

 

[StealthFlanker]

Well they claimed the F-22 was 0.3 - 0.4m2 while putting the Su-57 at 0.5m2 for average RCS estimates, the 2005 aviation article gave a .0001m2 estimate but said from the Front which suggest they did not give the average RCS of the aircraft. Rostec has developed a stealth material to provide. | Su-57 (PAK FA T-50) / S-70 Okhotnik | VK They made a stealth coating that doesn't need to maintain any kind of restoration like the cracks of some of the coatings we saw on certain stealth aircrafts. With the average RCS of 0.5 being accounted for by just its shape and on the material absorbing 95% we would get a 0.025m2 average RCS (yes they even treated the existing cockpit with some kind of coating and supposedly besides getting new avionics they are getting an upgraded cockpit on the Su-57 for the next batch of aircrafts by 2025)
Assuming the F-22 is searching for a target with supposed claims of 1m2 in a 120 degree radar beam at a distance of either 200km-240kms we can use Dragon029s square root formula to determine that 0.025m2 would be super duper close to the point it looks like a dog fight combat is engaged.

The average all around RCS doesn't matter because you don't illuminate the aircraft from all direction at the same time. What matter is the median value of the specific direction. For example if they point their nose at you, then the head on median value matter. If they point their side at you, then the side median value matter. ..etc
Anyway, crack matter regardless of material you use, because all type of RAM need to account for boundary condition

The existing OLS-35 was claimed for 30km at the front but this was a long long time ago. They basically created handheld cameras that have high quality shortwave infrared resolution at a 20km range «Росэлектроника» разработала «всевидящую» инфракрасную камеру с дальностью обнаружения до 20 км (ruselectronics.ru)
Then Shvabe made breakthroughs for supposedly next generation infrared systems and that increasing the quality percentage of Germanium allowed better tracking at further ranges.
Besides infrared, The F-22 has to 1st realize it is passively getting tracked before swervingand before the Su-57 pilot turns the radar back on approaching the F-22 at its undesirable angle.

F-35 obviously has advanced EOTS and advanced DAS for passive tracking.
But F-22 also recently get upgraded with IRST pod. On one hand, it could hurt RCS due to the side. On the other hand, those IRST sensor seem to have pretty big aperture that mean it can have pretty good detection range. In short, F-22 can also passively track Su-57 with IRST

 

[blackjack]

How do you even adjust your radar beam angle so that it won't touch the ground when you want to track a target at lower altitude?. It literally not possible. If you want to point your radar beam so that it avoid the ground surface, that mean you have to point upward, and if you point up, you can't track something at lower altitude

Not asking this stupid question to mock you. But has an aircraft ever shot down another aircraft at a lower altitude before? Or perhaps you think ground clutter from a 1000kms away will affect what is a few hundred kilometers away from the aircraft in front of it on how the tilt of the radar beam is pointed at it? Whoever flies to the lowest sounds like both a funny and stupid thing to do for an aerial advantage to avoid ground clutter is that how aerial combat works?

Those small degrees are practically irrelevant.
Take for example, this is contour plot of F-35 model without external RAM. The 85 degrees number on the left side is at the elevation center, the 0 degree number at the bottom is horizontal center. It is quite easy to see that moving up and down 1-4 degrees is pretty much irrelevant in term of RCS

So more degree towards the front but still a reflection where the biggest surface area is in the smaller degrees, got it.

In term of radar scattering characteristic, bottom of Su-57 is not better than its top side, it actually worst due to the tunnel between 2 nacelles. You might be right side about bottom better than top side if we are talking about something like a B-2 or YF-23. But Su-57 doesn't fit that example

the nacelles have an angle to them, glasses perhaps? the curvatures are look like they are going in an angle compared to some existing Sukhoi's where they are completely straight.

and let me guess that supposed radar data came from you but not Sukhoi lol,

And like I said, capability of paper project are irrelevant, especially when we talking about something expensive like aircraft or ship. There are as many Mig-41 as there are SR-72 at this point. They don't even have a prototype yet. The chance they ever go to production is close to zero

You quoted me claiming that I said there are production models while I am quoting a Russian source with an official saying that the project is in development, nothing more and nothing less, I will probably take his word over yours. You are now bringing up expenses out of nowhere while that has still yet to be determined since Putin is making spoke with some officials on a plan to get the Economy ranked for 4th place in 2030. We will know about the expenses later needed for a 6th gen project until we get to that point.

I mean expenses are important but so is the technology progression like Russia and Turkey have flown heavy stealth drones with armed weapons to have them as loyal wingman and I heard no news from the U.S. flying such UAVs besides talking about their planned 6th gen having loyal stealth drone wingmen capable of strike missions.

The average all around RCS doesn't matter because you don't illuminate the aircraft from all direction at the same time. What matter is the median value of the specific direction. For example if they point their nose at you, then the head on median value matter. If they point their side at you, then the side median value matter. ..etc
Anyway, crack matter regardless of material you use, because all type of RAM need to account for boundary condition

I know, I know, but I rather be in this aerial position in tracking a target at a close range than going directly face to face at a supposed .0001m2 claim.

The paint option does not allow me to rotate the Su-57 to a 45 degree angle.

They throw like a 1.2m2 RCS figure for the F-16 but thats the average RCS of the aircraft. while in some cases the RCS is 1m2 and 0.1m2 in the front, some angles less than .001m2 some cases 1000m2 on the sides. We really dont know how that .0001m2 was measured other than saying the front while in most cases the front values depending on angles would always give the lowest RCS returns. But assuming that the Su-57 is a giant flying antenna and gets the 1st initiative to know the direction and speed the F-22 is heading, The Su-57 can remain in passive mode and using the RCS figure of that chart approach it at a 150-120 degree or 60-30 degree angle or get far enough to approach the 160 or 0 degree angle of the aircraft. The 0.5 was the claim of the average RCS of Su-57 while the RAM is assuming the waves get absorbed in that percentage. But if the F-22 is heading north and the Su-57 is heading south it can remain invisible in passive mode while approaching the F-22 in a south east or south west direction than just heading south to face it directly. The RCs can be lower than .025m2 of the Su-57.

F-35 obviously has advanced EOTS and advanced DAS for passive tracking.
But F-22 also recently get upgraded with IRST pod. On one hand, it could hurt RCS due to the side. On the other hand, those IRST sensor seem to have pretty big aperture that mean it can have pretty good detection range. In short, F-22 can also passively track Su-57 with IRST

Hearing that the F-22 has an IRST option is a surprise to me today. whats the IRST called AN/AAR-56 MLD? The DAS and EOTS serves like a MAWs since its a RWR, SWIR and MWIR. Most aircrafts choose systems like OLS-35, Skyward-G and Pirate for LWIR for longer tracking ranges of cooler targets.

 

[StealthFlanker]

Not asking this stupid question to mock you. But has an aircraft ever shot down another aircraft at a lower altitude before? Or perhaps you think ground clutter from a 1000kms away will affect what is a few hundred kilometers away from the aircraft in front of it on how the tilt of the radar beam is pointed at it? Whoever flies to the lowest sounds like both a funny and stupid thing to do for an aerial advantage to avoid ground clutter is that how aerial combat works?

You seem to have this very weird binary way of thinking that "if aircraft have advantage due to XYZ condition, that mean it will always remain victorious due to that advantage" . That just not how air combat work. It not how any type of combat work. Flying at lower altitude will give you advantage of higher clutter to reduce radar and IRST detection range. There is a good reason why radar look up detection range is always greater than look down range regardless of the type.

But there are many other factor in air combat that affect the out come as well, such as training, number, support assets, logistic ..etc are far more important. Flying at lower altitude or higher altitude is not an automatic "I win button".
You also seem to think radar beam is like a lazer beam or like a flash light beam with well defined "beam". But actually, apart from you main lobe, you also have side lobes and reflection from side lobes as well. There is a good reason why a retreating target (tail aspect) is harder to track by radar compared to an incoming target (head on aspect). It also due to this side lobes clutter

So more degree towards the front but still a reflection where the biggest surface area is in the smaller degrees, got it.

I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say.
But anyway, as you can clearly see on the contour, a few degrees off center is practically irrelevant if your goal is getting higher RCS reading.

the nacelles have an angle to them, glasses perhaps? the curvatures are look like they are going in an angle compared to some existing Sukhoi's where they are completely straight.
and let me guess that supposed radar data came from you but not Sukhoi lol

I have never said that the bottom of Su-57 is as bad as Su-27. Of course it is better, Su-57 was designed with signature reduction in mind while Su-27 wasn't. But when compare with itself. The bottom of Su-57 has higher RCS than Su-57 top side due to the tunnel. Simple as that.
Sukhoi have not released any RCS map for Su-57 , and no company will do such a thing. However, if you know the shape of something, you can simulate how radar beam scatter when hitting it. It is just Math and Physic after all

You quoted me claiming that I said there are production models while I am quoting a Russian source with an official saying that the project is in development, nothing more and nothing less, I will probably take his word over yours. You are now bringing up expenses out of nowhere while that has still yet to be determined since Putin is making spoke with some officials on a plan to get the Economy ranked for 4th place in 2030. We will know about the expenses later needed for a 6th gen project until we get to that point.

I mean expenses are important but so is the technology progression like Russia and Turkey have flown heavy stealth drones with armed weapons to have them as loyal wingman and I heard no news from the U.S. flying such UAVs besides talking about their planned 6th gen having loyal stealth drone wingmen capable of strike missions.

I didn't said you claimed there are production Mig-41. I simply pointed out to you that capability of a paper project is pretty much irrelevant, especially consider that there isn't even a prototype yet. Aircraft aren't same as missile or drone. They are very expensive, especially consider something like Mig-41. Frankly, just like SR-72, the chance Mig-41 ever go to production is close to zero.
Also, what make you think USA doesn't have loyal wingman drone?

Hell, they done that sort of thing before it was cool

 

[StealthFlanker]

I know, I know, but I rather be in this aerial position in tracking a target at a close range than going directly face to face at a supposed .0001m2 claim.
View attachment 246824
The paint option does not allow me to rotate the Su-57 to a 45 degree angle.

But the point is: How do you get to that position ? you can't just teleport there. Besides, how do you ensure the F-22 not pointing toward the Su-57?

They throw like a 1.2m2 RCS figure for the F-16 but thats the average RCS of the aircraft. while in some cases the RCS is 1m2 and 0.1m2 in the front, some angles less than .001m2 some cases 1000m2 on the sides. We really dont know how that .0001m2 was measured other than saying the front while in most cases the front values depending on angles would always give the lowest RCS returns. But assuming that the Su-57 is a giant flying antenna and gets the 1st initiative to know the direction and speed the F-22 is heading, The Su-57 can remain in passive mode and using the RCS figure of that chart approach it at a 150-120 degree or 60-30 degree angle or get far enough to approach the 160 or 0 degree angle of the aircraft. The 0.5 was the claim of the average RCS of Su-57 while the RAM is assuming the waves get absorbed in that percentage. But if the F-22 is heading north and the Su-57 is heading south it can remain invisible in passive mode while approaching the F-22 in a south east or south west direction than just heading south to face it directly. The RCs can be lower than .025m2 of the Su-57.

Su-57 can't just magically know the direction/speed of F-22 to have the 1st initiative.
Radar most likely won't be effective consider that F-22 is a stealth aircraft
RWR only work if F-22 use its radar but what if F-22 also fly in passive mode like Su-57?. There are literally more than 30 passive antenna on F-22.
And beside, RWR doesn't care about RCS because it has no active element. It won't give you information of enemy speed either.

Hearing that the F-22 has an IRST option is a surprise to me today. whats the IRST called AN/AAR-56 MLD?

AN/AAR-56 is not an IRST, it is a Missile launch detector, it operate the same way as AN/AAR-60(v)2 on F-16.
DAS is a more advanced version of AAR-56 that can serve as short range omnidirectional IRST.
EOTS is a dual role long range FLIR/IRST but FoV is smaller than DAS for obvious reason.
F-22 just recently get the IRST upgrade in the form of twin small external pod (possibly for passive triangulation)

The DAS and EOTS serves like a MAWs since its a RWR, SWIR and MWIR. Most aircrafts choose systems like OLS-35, Skyward-G and Pirate for LWIR for longer tracking ranges of cooler targets.

Actually
OLS-35, DAS, EOTS are MWIR (the upgraded Advanced EOTS get the additional SWIR sensor)
Skyward-G, Pirate, IRST21 are LWIR
Here is a trick for you to identify which IR sensor operate at what wavelength, just look at the dome window

If the dome/window is transparent with blue-green tin like on OLS-35, EOTS, then it made from Sapphire. That mean the sensor operate from SWIR to MWIR. Sapphire has great transmittance in 0.3-5 microns range, but it is not transparent to LWIR radiation (which is at 8-15 microns range)

If the dome/window is black like on IRST21, Pirate, Skyward then it made from germanium. That mean the sensor operate in LWIR, because germanium allow LWIR transmission (8-15 microns) but significantly less transparent compared to Sapphire at MWIR (3-5 microns range)

Anyway, cooler object emit more LWIR than MWIR. But that does not necessary mean LWIR sensor is superior to MWIR sensor when it come to target detection. Because you have to consider that IR sensor doesn't just see the target. Infrared radiation come not only from the target itself but also from the things behind it, so to detect/track target, you need to be able to separate it from the background. The key point is contrast. This is especially important when you try to find something at lower altitude near clouds or on ground.

MWIR is often used in FLIR pod because of this very reason. It can detect and identity target much easier because the ground/sea surface emit much less MWIR compared to LWIR.
On the other hand to looking up a target flying at higher altitude, the LWIR is better, that because if the background is non cloudy sky, then there is little things to emit LWIR radiation other than the target itself. In which case ability to see cooler target is better.

SWIR is a weird case, because in theory, SWIR is only emitted from very hot object, so most target that isn't missile plumes or aircraft exhaust won't even emit SWIR radiation. However, the Sun is very hot and a significant radiator of SWIR. So even if target is extremely cold, it is still appear very clear on SWIR sensor when it reflect sun light. SWIR also have advantage of being very good at penetration fogs, Haze. The disadvantage is that it would be quite useless at a no moon night

 

[Blademaster]

But the point is: How do you get to that position ? you can't just teleport there. Besides, how do you ensure the F-22 not pointing toward the Su-57?



Su-57 can't just magically know the direction/speed of F-22 to have the 1st initiative.
Radar most likely won't be effective consider that F-22 is a stealth aircraft
RWR only work if F-22 use its radar but what if F-22 also fly in passive mode like Su-57?. There are literally more than 30 passive antenna on F-22.
And beside, RWR doesn't care about RCS because it has no active element. It won't give you information of enemy speed either.





AN/AAR-56 is not an IRST, it is a Missile launch detector, it operate the same way as AN/AAR-60(v)2 on F-16.
DAS is a more advanced version of AAR-56 that can serve as short range omnidirectional IRST.
EOTS is a dual role long range FLIR/IRST but FoV is smaller than DAS for obvious reason.
F-22 just recently get the IRST upgrade in the form of twin small external pod (possibly for passive triangulation)
View attachment 246842


Actually
OLS-35, DAS, EOTS are MWIR (the upgraded Advanced EOTS get the additional SWIR sensor)
Skyward-G, Pirate, IRST21 are LWIR
Here is a trick for you to identify which IR sensor operate at what wavelength, just look at the dome window

If the dome/window is transparent with blue-green tin like on OLS-35, EOTS, then it made from Sapphire. That mean the sensor operate from SWIR to MWIR. Sapphire has great transmittance in 0.3-5 microns range, but it is not transparent to LWIR radiation (which is at 8-15 microns range)

If the dome/window is black like on IRST21, Pirate, Skyward then it made from germanium. That mean the sensor operate in LWIR, because germanium allow LWIR transmission (8-15 microns) but significantly less transparent compared to Sapphire at MWIR (3-5 microns range)

Anyway, cooler object emit more LWIR than MWIR. But that does not necessary mean LWIR sensor is superior to MWIR sensor when it come to target detection. Because you have to consider that IR sensor doesn't just see the target. Infrared radiation come not only from the target itself but also from the things behind it, so to detect/track target, you need to be able to separate it from the background. The key point is contrast. This is especially important when you try to find something at lower altitude near clouds or on ground.
View attachment 246847

MWIR is often used in FLIR pod because of this very reason. It can detect and identity target much easier because the ground/sea surface emit much less MWIR compared to LWIR.
On the other hand to looking up a target flying at higher altitude, the LWIR is better, that because if the background is non cloudy sky, then there is little things to emit LWIR radiation other than the target itself. In which case ability to see cooler target is better.

SWIR is a weird case, because in theory, SWIR is only emitted from very hot object, so most target that isn't missile plumes or aircraft exhaust won't even emit SWIR radiation. However, the Sun is very hot and a significant radiator of SWIR. So even if target is extremely cold, it is still appear very clear on SWIR sensor when it reflect sun light. SWIR also have advantage of being very good at penetration fogs, Haze. The disadvantage is that it would be quite useless at a no moon night
View attachment 246849

Can we host all 3 to be able to take advantage of the pros and maximize them and minimize the cons?

 

[StealthFlanker]

Can we host all 3 to be able to take advantage of the pros and maximize them and minimize the cons?

You could in theory, but everything has a trade off

if you want your IR sensor group to see in SWIR/MWIR/LWIR, you would likely make the dome/window from Zinc Selenide. Zinc Selenide has a yellow color

Of course, that just the dome (window), what more important is the detector. Since no material have good spectral response from SWIR to LWIR, you will need 1 sensor for SWIR and 1 sensor for MWIR+LWIR.
But that also mean the total available aperture/sensor size at each wavelength is reduced. So like I said before, there is trade off for everything

 

[Blademaster]

You could in theory, but everything has a trade off
View attachment 246873
if you want your IR sensor group to see in SWIR/MWIR/LWIR, you would likely make the dome/window from Zinc Selenide. Zinc Selenide has a yellow color
View attachment 246876
View attachment 246877

Of course, that just the dome (window), what more important is the detector. Since no material have good spectral response from SWIR to LWIR, you will need 1 sensor for SWIR and 1 sensor for MWIR+LWIR.
But that also mean the total available aperture/sensor size at each wavelength is reduced. So like I said before, there is trade off for everything
View attachment 246880

what about hosting all three technologies in separate domes with its own windows and detectors optimized for one of each? Ie 3 domes - one dome for SWIR, one dome for MWIR, and one dome for LWIR.

 

[StealthFlanker]

what about hosting all three technologies in separate domes with its own windows and detectors optimized for one of each? Ie 3 domes - one dome for SWIR, one dome for MWIR, and one dome for LWIR.

you can do that, sure
they already do something similar to that on F-15 and F-18E/F

It also possible on F-16 due to the twin pylon under inlet

 

[Super Flanker]

 

[blackjack]

You seem to have this very weird binary way of thinking that "if aircraft have advantage due to XYZ condition, that mean it will always remain victorious due to that advantage" . That just not how air combat work. It not how any type of combat work. Flying at lower altitude will give you advantage of higher clutter to reduce radar and IRST detection range. There is a good reason why radar look up detection range is always greater than look down range regardless of the type.

But there are many other factor in air combat that affect the out come as well, such as training, number, support assets, logistic ..etc are far more important. Flying at lower altitude or higher altitude is not an automatic "I win button".
You also seem to think radar beam is like a lazer beam or like a flash light beam with well defined "beam". But actually, apart from you main lobe, you also have side lobes and reflection from side lobes as well. There is a good reason why a retreating target (tail aspect) is harder to track by radar compared to an incoming target (head on aspect). It also due to this side lobes clutter

So what you are telling me is if I hover 10 meters above the ground with my aircraft, I am safe from an adversary aircraft that is flying at a 10km altitude because I am using ground clutter? Whats the point of having a 5th gen aircraft prioritizing stealth if I can just use a 4th gen to use ground clutter against it?

I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say.
But anyway, as you can clearly see on the contour, a few degrees off center is practically irrelevant if your goal is getting higher RCS reading.

flat surfaces with a big surface area exposure will still give a reading as it is still better to have an adversary radar only reflect from the front of your aircrafts face than having that adversary get a reading from the aircrafts front face with partial top side readings. Now if we play by your logic that lower altitude is better and somehow you want to decide to BS your way out of this saying the readings will still be exactly the same with no difference in aircraft height taking radar RCS readings, than this means that the Kizelma and Grom UAVs are far superior designs to the F-35 in its air to air and air to ground combat roles. Both drones shapewise look like the F-35, slap the same level of RAM on them like the F-35, and because they are smaller than the F-35 in size that will automatically account to a smaller radar signature than the F-35. I am just playing by your own rules here. Hell the Russians would cancel their Su-70 and Su-75 UAV version as well. https://new.fips.ru/registers-doc-view/fips_servlet?DB=RUPAT&DocNumber=2807558&TypeFile=html

I have never said that the bottom of Su-57 is as bad as Su-27. Of course it is better, Su-57 was designed with signature reduction in mind while Su-27 wasn't. But when compare with itself. The bottom of Su-57 has higher RCS than Su-57 top side due to the tunnel. Simple as that.
Sukhoi have not released any RCS map for Su-57 , and no company will do such a thing. However, if you know the shape of something, you can simulate how radar beam scatter when hitting it. It is just Math and Physic after all

I am using the Su-27 as an example of how the nacelles appear more towards RCS reduction, it's still more preferable to have your stealth aircraft be seen from the bottom than the top if the bottom prioritize more stealth than the topside which can't be adjusted physically.

I didn't said you claimed there are production Mig-41. I simply pointed out to you that capability of a paper project is pretty much irrelevant, especially consider that there isn't even a prototype yet. Aircraft aren't same as missile or drone. They are very expensive, especially consider something like Mig-41. Frankly, just like SR-72, the chance Mig-41 ever go to production is close to zero.
Also, what make you think USA doesn't have loyal wingman drone?

You need to quote me where I said it before you start making stuff up on the spot that I said it was getting designed than produced, only thing being said in the articles I posted was proposed production dates of a model. We need to know a price tag on a gen aircraft 1st, Russias GDP growth was 4% last year, build businesses in their new territory and european countries going back to purchasing fuel soon makes Putins proposed 2030 plan of putting the country 4th place economically would seem feasible. Its easier to sell F-35s to your own allies which are doing good economically and dont possess radar chambers or to make their own stealth aircraft, but it's worth would be measured more if they got successfully sold to Turkey or India who seem rather neutral and possess radar chambers to make stealth aircrafts. I am sure the price proposal of the Su-75 would rather make them design their own single engine stealth aircraft based on the F-35s costs, fuel costs and what a bird can do in price repairs. We don't know the price tag on a mig-41 project for a single prototype just yet only the understanding of where Russia's economy may be in the late 20s if they will endeavor into it.

But the point is: How do you get to that position ? you can't just teleport there. Besides, how do you ensure the F-22 not pointing toward the Su-57?

Yes the F-22 can point in front of the Su-57 but this is using public data of the F-22s own radar and the public data of what RCS they gave the Su-57 with what the RAM proposes that wasnt involved in the patent along with the front RCS. I also did say earlier that the F-22 and Su-57 would be heading either south and north towards each other.

Su-57 can't just magically know the direction/speed of F-22 to have the 1st initiative.
Radar most likely won't be effective consider that F-22 is a stealth aircraft
RWR only work if F-22 use its radar but what if F-22 also fly in passive mode like Su-57?. There are literally more than 30 passive antenna on F-22.
And beside, RWR doesn't care about RCS because it has no active element. It won't give you information of enemy speed either.

Didnt I already tell you on the earlier post both would operate with their radars and RWRs on? The F-22 can choose to turn its radar off(for whatever reason that may be) but if that was a 4th gen than a 5th gen I dont think that would be a bright idea since you would be surprised how much distance can be covered when each aircraft travels at mach 2 to each other and the 4th gen radar also turned its radar off(getting your 5th gen into a dog fight with a 4th gen defeats its purpose as a 5th gen right?). The RWRs is outdated on the F-22 than the amount of modules there are on the Su-57. RWR's are used to track emitting targets where they are at and where they are heading

 

[StealthFlanker]

So what you are telling me is if I hover 10 meters above the ground with my aircraft, I am safe from an adversary aircraft that is flying at a 10km altitude because I am using ground clutter? Whats the point of having a 5th gen aircraft prioritizing stealth if I can just use a 4th gen to use ground clutter against it?

Clutter help reduce radar/infrared detection range, but it doesn't make your aircraft invisible
An F-15 flying at 10 m above ground is a lot harder to detect compared to an F-15 cruising at 50k ft. But that doesn't mean it is as stealthy as an F-35 or B-2.
There are several reasons why investment in stealth is needed instead of everyone relying on low altitude
1- Lower altitude mean higher air density, higher air density lead to higher fuel consumption, which mean shorter combat radius and lower loiter time.
2- Lower altitude mean MANPADS and small cannon can easily reach your aircraft, so now instead of worrying about 3-4 long range SAM batteries, you have to worry about 3000-4000 small arms fire and MANPADS on your way to target
3- Lower altitude mean smaller potential energy (along with higher air density), which mean your gliding bomb and missile can't go as far. For example, AASM can fly 50 km when released from high altitude but barely 15 km when launched from low altitude.

With that being said, low altitude fly is still a viable tactic on modern battlefield, you just have to look at what currently happen in Ukraine-Russia war now. You have aircraft such as Su-34, Su-25 and attack helicopter like Ka-52 fly at extreme low altitude.
You even have attack using a drone which is basically a re-purpose Cessna 172 fly 1200 km deep into Russia territory. Cessna can't fly at supersonic, it is not super agile or super stealthy either, so how could a simple aircraft venture that deep into Russia territory despite super thick air defense?. Is that because Russia AD is useless?. Of course not. It because tracking and detecting aircraft at low altitude is not easy, it just get worse in a target rich environment

flat surfaces with a big surface area exposure will still give a reading as it is still better to have an adversary radar only reflect from the front of your aircrafts face than having that adversary get a reading from the aircrafts front face with partial top side readings.

The problem is that: if you somehow can get reading from adversary top side, then by the simple line of sight principle, they will be looking at your bottom side.

Now if we play by your logic that lower altitude is better and somehow you want to decide to BS your way out of this saying the readings will still be exactly the same with no difference in aircraft height taking radar RCS readings, than this means that the Kizelma and Grom UAVs are far superior designs to the F-35 in its air to air and air to ground combat roles. Both drones shapewise look like the F-35, slap the same level of RAM on them like the F-35, and because they are smaller than the F-35 in size that will automatically account to a smaller radar signature than the F-35. I am just playing by your own rules here. Hell the Russians would cancel their Su-70 and Su-75 UAV version as well. https://new.fips.ru/registers-doc-view/fips_servlet?DB=RUPAT&DocNumber=2807558&TypeFile=html

https://new.fips.ru/registers-doc-view/fips_servlet?DB=RUPAT&DocNumber=2807558&TypeFile=html
Yes, if they all use the same kind of RAM/RAS then Kizelma, Grom, XQ-58, X-47 ..etc would have lower RCS than F-22, F-35, Su-57, Su-75, J-20..etc. It quite obvious.
But then the problem with using drone is that you have to deal with latency issue, unless you can make a perfect AI.

I am using the Su-27 as an example of how the nacelles appear more towards RCS reduction, it's still more preferable to have your stealth aircraft be seen from the bottom than the top if the bottom prioritize more stealth than the topside which can't be adjusted physically.

It is very airframe specific because it depend on the shape, some airframe such as YF-23 would have lower RCS when viewed from the bottom side, whereas consider Su-57 shape, it would have lower RCS when viewed from the top side

 

[StealthFlanker]

You need to quote me where I said it before you start making stuff up on the spot that I said it was getting designed than produced, only thing being said in the articles I posted was proposed production dates of a model. We need to know a price tag on a gen aircraft 1st, Russias GDP growth was 4% last year, build businesses in their new territory and european countries going back to purchasing fuel soon makes Putins proposed 2030 plan of putting the country 4th place economically would seem feasible.
Its easier to sell F-35s to your own allies which are doing good economically and dont possess radar chambers or to make their own stealth aircraft, but it's worth would be measured more if they got successfully sold to Turkey or India who seem rather neutral and possess radar chambers to make stealth aircrafts. I am sure the price proposal of the Su-75 would rather make them design their own single engine stealth aircraft based on the F-35s costs, fuel costs and what a bird can do in price repairs. We don't know the price tag on a mig-41 project for a single prototype just yet only the understanding of where Russia's economy may be in the late 20s if they will endeavor into it.

Firstly, extremely fast aircraft are expensive, like very expensive both from the material stand point and operational stand point. They are also very niche in their use. There a good reason why the world is populated with slower aircraft like Su-27/30/35, F-15, F-16, Eurofighter ..etc. You don't see a lot of Mig-31, SR-71, things like Avro arrow doesn't even go to production

Secondly, what make you think F-35 buyers doesn't have anechoic chamber?.
Even if I only take into account the aircraft size anechoic chamber (and not the smaller size anechoic chamber or open air ranges which can also be used for RCS evaluation)
There are 2 aircraft size anechoic chamber in UK alone located in Warton, Lancashire and Boscombe Down There is 1 aircraft size anechoic chamber in Italy located in Turin airport
There is also 1 aircraft size anechoic chamber in Korea located in Seosan AFB

Yes the F-22 can point in front of the Su-57 but this is using public data of the F-22s own radar and the public data of what RCS they gave the Su-57 with what the RAM proposes that wasnt involved in the patent along with the front RCS. I also did say earlier that the F-22 and Su-57 would be heading either south and north towards each other.
Didnt I already tell you on the earlier post both would operate with their radars and RWRs on? The F-22 can choose to turn its radar off(for whatever reason that may be) but if that was a 4th gen than a 5th gen I dont think that would be a bright idea since you would be surprised how much distance can be covered when each aircraft travels at mach 2 to each other and the 4th gen radar also turned its radar off(getting your 5th gen into a dog fight with a 4th gen defeats its purpose as a 5th gen right?). The RWRs is outdated on the F-22

1- What sort of data that give you the conclusion that Su-57 radar can detect F-22 (or F-35) at the distance the other two can't detect it?
2- Fighter don't cruise at Mach 2, even with supercruise ability, flying supersonic is still consume extremely high quantity of fuel. Not to mention that going at Mach 2 will make you shine very bright on IRST as well especially at high altitude.
3- What make you think F-22 ALR-94 is outdated? and even assuming it is old, that doesn't mean it suddenly lost the ability to detect and track radar signal. Hell, RC-135 is much older yet still a very vital part of SEAD/DEAD
Not to mention that F-22 will literally get an EW upgrade as well

BAE Wins F-22 Electronic Warfare System Sustainment Contract

Lockheed Martin has awarded BAE Systems a five-year sustainment contract for the AN/ALR-94 advanced digital electronic warfare system.

www.thedefensepost.com

the amount of modules there are on the Su-57. RWR's are used to track emitting targets where they are at and where they are heading

ALR-94 has more than 30 passive antenna, how many passive antenna are there on Su-57?.

 

[blackjack]

Clutter help reduce radar/infrared detection range, but it doesn't make your aircraft invisible
An F-15 flying at 10 m above ground is a lot harder to detect compared to an F-15 cruising at 50k ft. But that doesn't mean it is as stealthy as an F-35 or B-2.
There are several reasons why investment in stealth is needed instead of everyone relying on low altitude
1- Lower altitude mean higher air density, higher air density lead to higher fuel consumption, which mean shorter combat radius and lower loiter time.
2- Lower altitude mean MANPADS and small cannon can easily reach your aircraft, so now instead of worrying about 3-4 long range SAM batteries, you have to worry about 3000-4000 small arms fire and MANPADS on your way to target
3- Lower altitude mean smaller potential energy (along with higher air density), which mean your gliding bomb and missile can't go as far. For example, AASM can fly 50 km when released from high altitude but barely 15 km when launched from low altitude.

1. this absolutely means the Su-57 will have higher reliance using lower altitudes with the 2nd stage variable engine than what the current combat radiuses are of either the F-22 or F-35. Before you come out with the claim of it will use ADVENT that has yet to implemented into any production models of the F-35 so we already can safely assume the F-22.
2. We are talking about airspace combat more than about SAMs.
3. same as point 2.

1- What sort of data that give you the conclusion that Su-57 radar can detect F-22 (or F-35) at the distance the other two can't detect it?
2- Fighter don't cruise at Mach 2, even with supercruise ability, flying supersonic is still consume extremely high quantity of fuel. Not to mention that going at Mach 2 will make you shine very bright on IRST as well especially at high altitude.
3- What make you think F-22 ALR-94 is outdated? and even assuming it is old, that doesn't mean it suddenly lost the ability to detect and track radar signal. Hell, RC-135 is much older yet still a very vital part of SEAD/DEAD
Not to mention that F-22 will literally get an EW upgrade as well

1. Looking at the radar data of its export with assumption the new received radars than 2009 will have a better function with that along with this.

There was a publication that came out in 2003 that gave rough estimates of the angles of the F-22 and F-35 which become spot on with the front angle estimates they gave the F-22 in that 2005 aviation article and the initial design of the Su-57 was done in December 2004. 2009 they threw estimates than average RCS in all angles was 0.3-0.4m2 for the F-22 and gave the Su-57 a 0.5m2 estimate. if we are going to throw around 1m2 at 200kms for radar dection for a full 120 degree beam of either aircraft and throw around -40 decibels for RCS in a 0-20 degree angle of a face to face approach for both aircraft, than we have basically entered dog fighting territory and that is when manueverability becomes important correct?
2. well that will depend on what is the better infrared system for that kinetic heat but also F-22 and Su-57 can supercruise at around mach 2 without after burners which is why I gave that estimate.
3. if we are talking about how much antennas that are for RWRs besides talking about he EW Himalayas system in the back. the side arrays will have like 400-500 antennas to use, and 2025 new avionics will arrive which will segway me to another conversation or rather information you might need to know.

@StealthFlanker How well does the F-22, F-35 or NGAD work against 100ghz radars?

-Kret had their own website with news articles talking about photonic radars, gets nuked from web.
-Vega had their own website with news articles talking about photonic radars, gets nuked from web.
-aorti.ru website of RTI had their own website with news articles talking about photonic radars, gets nuked from web.
-Advanced research foundation had display of the photonic radar antennas with news info about them, cant open webpage
https://fpi.gov.ru/press/news/razra...ntenna-voshla-v-top-10-izobreteniy-2020-goda/
-https://youtu.be/a2lOyCbTUl4 31:50 timestamp
-have a planned production date for PICs in 2024 from 2023 article.


https://tass.com/defense/1323823

"In the upgraded version of the fighter as part of the Megapolis research and development project, a completely upgraded cockpit with the most advanced avionics will be installed. In addition, the aircraft will be equipped with a second stage power unit. It is planned that mass production of the upgraded Su-57 will start from 2025," the source said.

Radars are basically transceivers that transmit and receive radio waves and their transceivers using PICs which use 100ghz waves will offer them 1000 Gbps and that the PICs must be better operable than MMICs using 100ghz waves without the signal loss. Eventually they will brainstorm the idea of using PICs to make a 6G network possible and if they do they will design radars from it. So is there anyway stealth would work against 100ghz waves if those radars don't suffer signal losses more than firecontrol radars at the same long ranges?

 

[StealthFlanker]

1. this absolutely means the Su-57 will have higher reliance using lower altitudes with the 2nd stage variable engine than what the current combat radiuses are of either the F-22 or F-35. Before you come out with the claim of it will use ADVENT that has yet to implemented into any production models of the F-35 so we already can safely assume the F-22.
2. We are talking about airspace combat more than about SAMs.
3. same as point 2.

1. I'm not entire sure what you are trying to say with the word "higher reliance" in this context?. You mean higher reliability? or what exactly you trying to say?
2. Fighters jet are not designed to perform in a vacuum. They don't just go 1 vs 1 with the enemy aircraft. This is especially true in the context of multirole aircraft with ability to use air to surface missiles/bombs. In fact, the chance of you fighting against surface targets is far greater compared to the chance of you fighting adversary aircraft

1. Looking at the radar data of its export with assumption the new received radars than 2009 will have a better function with that along with this.
View attachment 248149
There was a publication that came out in 2003 that gave rough estimates of the angles of the F-22 and F-35 which become spot on with the front angle estimates they gave the F-22 in that 2005 aviation article and the initial design of the Su-57 was done in December 2004. 2009 they threw estimates than average RCS in all angles was 0.3-0.4m2 for the F-22 and gave the Su-57 a 0.5m2 estimate. if we are going to throw around 1m2 at 200kms for radar dection for a full 120 degree beam of either aircraft and throw around -40 decibels for RCS in a 0-20 degree angle of a face to face approach for both aircraft, than we have basically entered dog fighting territory and that is when manueverability becomes important correct?

I still don't see how that give you the conclusion that Su-57 can detect F-35/F-22 with radar and the other two can't do the opposite. Both F-22 and F-35 also have upgraded radar, they don't use the same one that they were introduced with.
Nevertheless, I do agree that if both side with stealth fighter only use their radar, then sure, they will likely enter visual range where agility and luck is important (since you have HOBS missiles). However, they all have IRST, so they could detect each other before merged

2. well that will depend on what is the better infrared system for that kinetic heat but also F-22 and Su-57 can supercruise at around mach 2 without after burners which is why I gave that estimate.

The aircraft skin get extremely hot even at Mach 1.8, so you become a bright target on IRST regardless if you decided to go that fast. Not to mention, it consume a lot of fuel at Mach 2 even with supercruise ability

3. if we are talking about how much antennas that are for RWRs besides talking about the EW Himalayas system in the back. the side arrays will have like 400-500 antennas to use, and 2025 new avionics will arrive which will segway me to another conversation or rather information you might need to know.

The antenna on the side array of Su-57 is used for the side looking radar (for SAR mode). It is not the same as the wide band receive antenna used for RWR/ESM. The most obvious different is the band width.
Of course, you can use radar as ESM/RWR system in passive mode, even the ancient AWG-9 can be used in passive tracking mode let alone the modern AESA like APG-81/85, APG-77 or N036 . However radar antenna does not have the extremely wide band width that ESM/RWR system have, and they don't have the needed spacing at low frequency either, so Fire control radar antenna can't replace ESM/RWR antenna.
If you want to talk about in band receiver of Fire control radar, then APG-77 have roughly 2000 T/R modules, APG-81 has 1626 T/R modules. So head on sector, they both have more T/R modules than N036 at 1514 T/R modules. Of course, with that being said, it doesn't matter either way, their RWR (whether it is F-22, F-35, or Su-57) should be more than capable of detecting radar signal from one another before being detected themselves by said radar, since we are talking about stealth aircraft here, the level of radar power need to detect them at decent distance would be quite high

 

[StealthFlanker]

@StealthFlanker How well does the F-22, F-35 or NGAD work against 100ghz radars?
View attachment 248151
View attachment 248152
-Kret had their own website with news articles talking about photonic radars, gets nuked from web.
-Vega had their own website with news articles talking about photonic radars, gets nuked from web.
-aorti.ru website of RTI had their own website with news articles talking about photonic radars, gets nuked from web.
-Advanced research foundation had display of the photonic radar antennas with news info about them, cant open webpage
https://fpi.gov.ru/press/news/razra...ntenna-voshla-v-top-10-izobreteniy-2020-goda/
-https://youtu.be/a2lOyCbTUl4 31:50 timestamp
-have a planned production date for PICs in 2024 from 2023 article.


https://tass.com/defense/1323823

"In the upgraded version of the fighter as part of the Megapolis research and development project, a completely upgraded cockpit with the most advanced avionics will be installed. In addition, the aircraft will be equipped with a second stage power unit. It is planned that mass production of the upgraded Su-57 will start from 2025," the source said.

Radars are basically transceivers that transmit and receive radio waves and their transceivers using PICs which use 100ghz waves will offer them 1000 Gbps and that the PICs must be better operable than MMICs using 100ghz waves without the signal loss. Eventually they will brainstorm the idea of using PICs to make a 6G network possible and if they do they will design radars from it. So is there anyway stealth would work against 100ghz waves if those radars don't suffer signal losses more than firecontrol radars at the same long ranges?

Firstly, There is no long/medium range search or fire control radar operating at 100 GHz, because that frequency get absorbed too much by the atmosphere, it can’t see far. There are certain radar operating at 94 Ghz but their role is mostly to observe cloud, glacier… and on sensor of air to ground missile like Brimstone, since they don’t need long detection range and they only want high resolution.

Secondly,100 Ghz would be horrible against any stealth aircraft, because their return would be purely of specular type with very narrow reflection lobes, it will much worse than X band at detecting stealth aircraft.

Thirdly, higher frequency generally give you higher bandwidth, which mean you can transfer data at higher speed. In layman term, you can think of it as follow: 10 Hz is 10 cycle per second, 100 Ghz is 100 billions cycle per second, which would be easier for you to encode your data in?. Obviously 100 Ghz. That why higher frequency give you higher data rate. But it doesn’t mean it can travel longer distance than lower frequencies, because lower frequencies get absorbed less by atmosphere.

 

[Super Flanker]

I was talking capability wise. Su-57 is not a true 5th gen fighter. its stealth, sensor, radar are more less less Rafale F3R class i guess.

I apologise to barge in but with the amount of mis-information being spewed here on the topic of the Su-57, I couldn't help but intervene with the intention of clearing the misconceptions here because this is not the first time and it certainly won't be the last time that this nonsense about the Su-57's capabilities is peddled here.

First of all, for starters read the following points very carefully.
1.Every aircraft built till today obeys the same laws of physics.
2. Physics remains the same be it an American, French, Chinese or Russian Fighter.
3. Just because something is western doesn't mean that it will disobey the laws of physics and suddenly become superior to something that is non-western.
4. I admit that Su-57 has a troubled development history riddled with delays and fund issues so it's only obvious that there will still be problems but instead of objectively understanding the issue, it's way over exaggerated to the point of giving an impression that the Su-57 is outright junk in the name of an aircraft.

The "Su-57 is as stealthy (basically claimed to have the same RCS as a 4th gen aircraft) as any 4th gen aircraft such an F/A-18 or Rafale" is outright BS but considering how much the world has been Liberalised and how much strong the footing of the western media is globally, it's only normal that such nonsense down-grading Russian equipment is rampant across the internet. You can go and larp such nonsense on some Western forum such as f-16.net but on DFI, you won't get away with it, now enough wasting time, I will get to the point.

The Su-57's airframe design is much more optimised for stealth than any 4th generation aircraft in existence: That is, it will reflect less radar waves towards the source + deflect most of the waves away from the source because that is the ultimate goal of a stealth aircraft in order to delay detection by an enemy radar system.

Even a metal model of the Su-57 would be more stealthy than a metal replica of F/A-18/Rafale. Even a metallic F-117 can have very low RCS.

The best way to confirm this is to compare their radar contours. Important thing to take into account here: In the comparison of both the fighter's radar contour, there is no RAM used, both the aircraft are considered as perfect electrical conductor which reflect radio waves like a metallic object so if RAM was taken into account then both aircraft would reflect less but still the Su-57 will be more stealthy than any 4th generation aircraft in clean configuration because it was designed that way from the start by Sukhoi.

To end this debate:

• In Stealth "90 degree" angles are the worst for stealth because they reflect far more radar waves towards the source.
• The Rafale has a lot more 90 degree angles on its airframe than the Su-57, the Su-57 has a lot more RAM than the Rafale (The absorbing characteristics of Western & Russian RAM is still a debate & I need to read more but let's for the sake of argument assume they are equally effective), the Airframe of Su-57 is much more better for stealth than Dassault's Rafale but still according to western enthusiasts, the Su-57 has the same RCS as a 4th gen aircraft (in clean configuration).
• The Su-57 can carry Weopons internally, Rafale cannot but I think Su-57 also has a beast mode wherein it can carry Weopons on external pylons.
• Su-57 has NO36 AESA radar with more than 1500 T/R modules whereas the Rafale has the RBE2 radar with less than 1000 T/R modules. More the T/R modules, more is the range so Su-57 has a more powerful radar than the Rafale, Rafale doesn't come close. Quality of T/R modules is debatable but I think Su-57's radar will still have superior detection capabilities.
• Su-57 has far more sensors than the Rafale, again the Rafale doesn't even come close.

Here is where I am sure you got this nonsense:
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/did...-and-1000-times-bigger-than-that-of-the-f-35/

Somehow according to westerners a fighter like the Rafale or F-18 has the same/less RCS than an aircraft like the Su-57 which has less discontinuities, less 90⁰ angles, more RAM, an airframe better at deflecting radar waves away from the source, yeah. Totally Believable.

 

[slayingheaven]

I apologise to barge in but with the amount of mis-information being spewed here on the topic of the Su-57, I couldn't help but intervene with the intention of clearing the misconceptions here because this is not the first time and it certainly won't be the last time that this nonsense about the Su-57's capabilities is peddled here.

First of all, for starters read the following points very carefully.
1.Every aircraft built till today obeys the same laws of physics.
2. Physics remains the same be it an American, French, Chinese or Russian Fighter.
3. Just because something is western doesn't mean that it will disobey the laws of physics and suddenly become superior to something that is non-western.
4. I admit that Su-57 has a troubled development history riddled with delays and fund issues so it's only obvious that there will still be problems but instead of objectively understanding the issue, it's way over exaggerated to the point of giving an impression that the Su-57 is outright junk in the name of an aircraft.

The "Su-57 is as stealthy (basically claimed to have the same RCS as a 4th gen aircraft) as any 4th gen aircraft such an F/A-18 or Rafale" is outright BS but considering how much the world has been Liberalised and how much strong the footing of the western media is globally, it's only normal that such nonsense down-grading Russian equipment is rampant across the internet. You can go and larp such nonsense on some Western forum such as f-16.net but on DFI, you won't get away with it, now enough wasting time, I will get to the point.

The Su-57's airframe design is much more optimised for stealth than any 4th generation aircraft in existence: That is, it will reflect less radar waves towards the source + deflect most of the waves away from the source because that is the ultimate goal of a stealth aircraft in order to delay detection by an enemy radar system.

Even a metal model of the Su-57 would be more stealthy than a metal replica of F/A-18/Rafale. Even a metallic F-117 can have very low RCS.

The best way to confirm this is to compare their radar contours. Important thing to take into account here: In the comparison of both the fighter's radar contour, there is no RAM used, both the aircraft are considered as perfect electrical conductor which reflect radio waves like a metallic object so if RAM was taken into account then both aircraft would reflect less but still the Su-57 will be more stealthy than any 4th generation aircraft in clean configuration because it was designed that way from the start by Sukhoi.

To end this debate:

• In Stealth "90 degree" angles are the worst for stealth because they reflect far more radar waves towards the source.
• The Rafale has a lot more 90 degree angles on its airframe than the Su-57, the Su-57 has a lot more RAM than the Rafale (The absorbing characteristics of Western & Russian RAM is still a debate & I need to read more but let's for the sake of argument assume they are equally effective), the Airframe of Su-57 is much more better for stealth than Dassault's Rafale but still according to western enthusiasts, the Su-57 has the same RCS as a 4th gen aircraft (in clean configuration).
• The Su-57 can carry Weopons internally, Rafale cannot but I think Su-57 also has a beast mode wherein it can carry Weopons on external pylons.
• Su-57 has NO36 AESA radar with more than 1500 T/R modules whereas the Rafale has the RBE2 radar with less than 1000 T/R modules. More the T/R modules, more is the range so Su-57 has a more powerful radar than the Rafale, Rafale doesn't come close. Quality of T/R modules is debatable but I think Su-57's radar will still have superior detection capabilities.
• Su-57 has far more sensors than the Rafale, again the Rafale doesn't even come close.

Here is where I am sure you got this nonsense:
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/did...-and-1000-times-bigger-than-that-of-the-f-35/

Somehow according to westerners a fighter like the Rafale or F-18 has the same/less RCS than an aircraft like the Su-57 which has less discontinuities, less 90⁰ angles, more RAM, an airframe better at deflecting radar waves away from the source, yeah. Totally Believable.

In Side Profile, the Su-57 can be quite stealthy but in rear and front aspects, it is not stealthy because the engine blades are visible. In rear, the long titanium exhuasts reflect a lot. So I place its structural stealth a bit above Rafale by virtue of its Platform Alignment, Angled Rudders, Internal Weapons Bay.
Truth is somewhere in Middle. For that idiotic article what use does a Maggotic "Clean Super Hornet" WORTH if it doesn't carry any respectable fuel tanks to match half the range of Su-57 or Missiles on Pylons. I once again amuse by this "Muh Clean Super Hornet" as Should we use that as some parade piece? Because I know when we put Missiles and External Fuel Tanks, it RCS would be like a lighthouse. A Internal Weapons Bay is most important aspect of a Low Observable Platform( Iam not using 5th Gen here). Without that IWB, everything is jhumla and Reduced Observable only like KF-21 or Super Hornet.
But that doesn't mean India has to buy this. It's not worth the price Russians are duping us. Atmost 40M$ is worth for it and that too if Russians allow us to make entire Airframe from raw materials from India itself and restricting themselves to sub critical components like Engines. For all other Avionics, we had superior alternatives here developed domestically.

 

[BON PLAN]

Su-57 has NO36 AESA radar with more than 1500 T/R modules whereas the Rafale has the RBE2 radar with less than 1000 T/R modules. More the T/R modules, more is the range so Su-57 has a more powerful radar than the Rafale, Rafale doesn't come close. Quality of T/R modules is debatable but I think Su-57's radar will still have superior detection capabilities.

Rafale radar has slightly more than 1000 modules. It is said for years.
What is the power of the russian T/R module compared to the one of Rafale, or F22, or F35 ? No one know.
To have modules is one thing, the software to drive them all is another.

Another fact is that russia is late in AESA. very late.
USA is N°1
Japan status is unknown but probably at a high level. N°1 bis ?
France is second.

For T/R modules it is as for crystal blades : there are differents generations....