Forum: Technology

tank_top wrote:

Don't get me wrong here, I think PAK-FA has a less than stellar chance of becoming a production fighter, if it ever flies. Some seem to think the Russians can build something to compete with the F-22, those need to tap their heels together three times. However, if they can build something that has an RCS of >0.1m2 a functional AESA and even a limited super cruise with internal weapons it would be a pain in the a$$ to deal with. It doesn't need to be some quantum leap in aircraft design, if it can barely limp into the 5th gen class, it will require a considerable amount of resources to deal with. Two Cents

I would suspect even such a budget stealth fighter that you describe would be far out of reach of mass production for the Russians, I'd imagine they could perhaps afford 15 - 30 of a limited stealth fighter, even less of a full on F-22 style fighter, perhaps just 10 or 12 .
Also I can't imagine them having workers skilled enough to manufacture and assemble such craft and certainly not the ability to set up fairly rapid production runs, the factory will probably churn them out at the same rate as the Tu-160's at the moment... Razz

F-16.net Sponsor

IMHO the Russians could take the basic MIG-21, do some drastic redesigns (blended body, enough for two internal A2A missiles) do a crazy amount of RAM paint and get it a pretty small RCS. MASS produce it and sell it cheap to everyone! Something like that would be a headache at the very least. They may not pose a major threat to our 5th gen planes, but they would have to be dealt with. Hunting down a bunch of "stealth darts" would eat up tons of air power. The Russians should do what they're good at and mass produce a rugged, "stealthy", small econo-jet. It doesn't have to be great, just has to be good enough to distract our fighters from their main mission, taking out strategic targets. Shrug

Code3 wrote:

Sorry, but this quote is wrong. First, whoever said the Flanker's RCS was 15m2 was being much, much too kind. The Flankers RCS is SIGNIFICANTLY larger than this. But to claim that it's 3m2...that's laughable.

Oh, seems you have correct numbers for Su-27 RCS?
Reality check:

toan wrote:

Boeing had made the study for reducing the frontal RCS of F-15, and the result showed that the frontal RCS of F-15 could be reduced to 1~3m2 class if USAF wanted. However, it is obvious that USAF doesn't not think this upgrade deserves its price...

Thoughts that RCS reduction means are in embryonal state in Russia, are the same mistake many did till they saw, say, BAe studies like Replica, or Dassault Petit Duc.

Boeing clearly spouted obvious BS with the RCS claim for the F-15SE, my 5 year old could work that out I should think.
I don't see Replica or Small Duck doing much other than looking pretty either, nice to brag about on the face of it but pretty useless, well infact utterly useless in reality.
The last I saw of a Russian stealth aircraft was the aptly named SKAT which lets face it was a rather pathetic creation/ balsa wood model and far from the quality of the Replica or Petit Duc.
It seems Russia sucks badly at LO aircraft, I doubt the PAK-FA will improve on that and if it did it would have to take what many regard as a miricle to make it happen. It's pretty much going to be a fail plane in regards to being stealthy.

shep1978 wrote:

Boeing clearly spouted obvious BS with the RCS claim for the F-15SE, my 5 year old could work that out I should think.

I'm sure you are much more advanced in RCS science than Phantom Works guys, no questions. BTW, recent Graham Warwick ARES post on SE

Quote:

[...]saying it could match the frontal-aspect radar cross-section of the Lockheed Martin F-35. Now the company is fleshing out that claim with trade studies and chamber tests. The issue is not what level of RCS reduction can be achieved, says program manager Brad Jones, but what the U.S. government will release for export - and that will depend on the customer. So Boeing is conducting the studies to generate data on the different levels of RCS reduction possible. That data in hand, the company will begin licensing discussions with the U.S. government, he says.

shep1978 wrote:

The last I saw of a Russian stealth aircraft was the aptly named SKAT which lets face it was a rather pathetic creation/ balsa wood model and far from the quality of the Replica or Petit Duc.
It seems Russia sucks badly at LO aircraft, I doubt the PAK-FA will improve on that and if it did it would have to take what many regard as a miricle to make it happen. It's pretty much going to be a fail plane in regards to being stealthy.

May be, the reason is SKAT is all you have been allowed to see - never asked that question to yourself? You are making very serious statements of aircraft no one have seen before. Very smart-alecky.

I've also never seen Santa, but I could make some assumptions about his sleighs RCS. They are both fictional until I see one... If it does exist it has never left the ground, has a radar that doesn't work and engines that haven't been invented! The only thing the Russians have that's proven is IR, and I'd like to see them network it to with systems they can't get right. Then have them network it to an air defense network we can't jam! Even if they get the stealthy part close ti's a generation behind F-22/F-35 before it even fly's Poke

Here's a thought: what if the Russians only went for frontal hemisphere stealth on the PAK FA instead of all-aspect stealth in order to keep the costs down? The leading edges would be planform aligned, the engine faces hidden, the skin coated with RAM, and the weapon bays internal. However, the shaping from the rear and side hemispheres could be left more conventional.

Kryptid wrote:

Here's a thought: what if the Russians only went for frontal hemisphere stealth on the PAK FA instead of all-aspect stealth in order to keep the costs down? The leading edges would be planform aligned, the engine faces hidden, the skin coated with RAM, and the weapon bays internal. However, the shaping from the rear and side hemispheres could be left more conventional.

Frontal only LO treatment would be failry easily exploited by any half clever enemy I would imagine but I do get where you're coming from with the idea.

flateric wrote:

May be, the reason is SKAT is all you have been allowed to see - never asked that question to yourself? You are making very serious statements of aircraft no one have seen before. Very smart-alecky.

Oh please, thats the standard excuse all Russian fans give, Russia is well known for gloating over successes in aerospace fields when it makes them yet no gloating over the Scat and there is a blindingly obvious reason for that. I doubt it will ever be anything more than a 1 off prototype or will remain as a balsa wood joke.
I guess you consider any old balsa wood mockup of an aircraft project to be far far ahead of what it actually is without having a single shredd of proof, how nieve.

flateric wrote:

Oh, seems you have correct numbers for Su-27 RCS?
Reality check

***INITIATE REALITY CHECK***

***REALITY CHECK IN PROGRESS***

***CODE3'S REALITY CHECKS GOOD***

Yes I do, and it's a HUGE biotch on radar. If you are going to argue that its RCS is not huge, then it is obvious that it is YOU who has no idea what the Flanker's RCS is. I mean, I guess you could argue it, but it would be like arguing that the Mt. Everest is just a small hill...have fun trying to sound reasonable doing that Rolling Eyes

.

Last edited by flateric on Jun 16, 2009 - 06:37 PM; edited 1 time in total

You know, term 'HUGE bitch on radar' is uncommon in RCS language.. Seems that you should work as radar at RATSCAT or whatever - you are able to measure a/c RCS just looking at photo.

If you don't have exact numbers (that I have), I'd prefer to end this fruitful discussion.

Attached, BTW, Western aircrafts RCS as it was calculated by our DoD spookies from 4th NII VVS.

flateric wrote:

You know, term 'HUGE bitch on radar' is uncommon in RCS language.. Seems that you should work as radar at RATSCAT or whatever - you are able to measure a/c RCS just looking at photo.

If you don't have exact numbers (that I have), I'd prefer to end this fruitful discussion.

While, I would agree with the poor choice of words. Clearly, the Flanker has a huge RCS. Especially, when fitted with AAM's. Even a layman would understand that........... Wink

Well, why do you think that Flanker RCS would not be reduced a-la it was made for F-15C or F-16 under Have Glass II?

flateric wrote:

Well, why do you think that Flanker RCS would not be reduced a-la it was made for F-15C or F-16 under Have Glass II?

The Super Hornets RCS was reduced by making several compromises. Which, in the end have little effect. Because once you start hanging external stores underneath the aircraft. Said benefits are near useless..........

In short they look good on paper but have little benefit in the real world....

If I read that graph correctly the Raptor is supposed to have a slightly worse RCS as compared to the F-117 and only just beats the Tiffy and some sort of Viper, neither of which are supposed to be even slightly stealthy. According to THAT scale, whatever it is, I suppose the Flanker(s) can get a decent RCS too as it can´t really have that much to do with reality. Wink

Forum: Technology

Sukhoi PAK FA