{PS: i forgot to mention , if the thread continues on with the ''your source is wrong and the russians are lying because me and my eyeballs dont feel like it then i'm not continuing to take part in this discussion.This is just a message to any anonymous reader reading this thread to inform himself about the su-57 , not continuing to argue is not out of shortage of evidence , but because i dislike discussions where im bringing evidence and the other part uses guess work and fortune telling (which actually forms the basis of all su57 stealth criticisms).}
as i was thinking in not taking part of this discussion due to my absolute distaste for conversations in which gut feelings , personal guesses , and fortune telling based on pictures is put in the same regard and importance as actual legitimate sources , and official statements from the companies specialised in the matter (those , in return , get dismissed by more gut feelings and guesses that they are all conspiring and lying) , [USER=22288]@1635yankee[/USER] came in and injected a healthy dose of common sense , saying that no one has enough data to claim any thing about who is stealthier than who .
lets get to it ,
a reduction of 10-15 sqm to 0.4 implies about twice less detection range. Very significant. Furthermore , 0.4 sqm stated by davydenko is an overall value , meaning that the actual RCS from the front is going to be significantly lower.
Nno one said they are rounding up literally very angle. It can be perfectly reasonable that they are avoiding the two extremes , neither using an uselessly narrow , front only , one angle only perspective in which the rcs is obviously going to be pea sized , and not using literally every angle because the summation of deflected energy will then just add up. Think of it as aircraft weight , no one sees empty weight as a combat practical metric , and no one sees absolute max take off weight as an actually combat relevant metric , since aircraft burn fuel on their way , may drop their tanks , may have used their BVR missiles before dogfighting ...
which is exactly what is done in the Su-57's design , and that is not my guess, the patent literally says so :
"........The shape of the theoretical contours and the layout diagram of the airframe made it possible to reduce the amount of energy of reflected EM waves in individual foreshortenings due to the redistribution of the maxima of the backscatter diagram to the minimum number of directions and to the least dangerous sectors......"
frontal RCS is very important however beginning in equal hights is rather questionable. Even a slight difference in height can impact the angle of irradiation , and reveal things that are not revealed when looking directly from the front.Then thres the fact that certain aircraft can fly higher than others, and will not hesitate using that to their advantage , as the lesser drag associated with flying higher is attractive in terms of missile kinematics. The argument then may arise , you see an aircraft from above, then it sees you from below , also revealing details , but that just further bolseters my argument : a purely frontal value is very very unuseful. Lockheed , by ''giving away'' that its airplanes are pea size in RCS from the front , essencially gave nothing away.
0.4 for su 57 is average , encompassing reasonable angles , 0.4 (or anything similar) for 4th gens is frontal. therefore , their average RCS will skyrocket if we put them in the same context.
we've got you covered.
Let me quote myself :
therefore your statement goes to my advantage. I never claimed the F-35 is less stealthy , i claimed that the F-35 , by the logic used to bash on the Su-57 , would be less stealthy than the F-117 , due to looking more bubbly and less faceted ,that logic being guessing via photographs , and ignoring the fact that companies , with their hundereds of engineers and technicians will obviously find solutions to deal with RCS related issues , especially as technology advances. So why is it that the only plane receiving the photograph RCS treatment?
not trusting public manufacturer figures means not trusting the 0.0001 sqm claim from lockheed , the 157 kn engine power of the Su-57 , and so much more.
Publicly released figures may only be inaccurate in terms of being understatements of what the product can really do , as for inflations then its extremely inconceivable , how will sukhoi deal with customers finding out , in inevitable tests , that they lied about the RCS? what scandal will this cause? How will they deal with the MoD finding out that as well??
Also , the very statement that ''the only reliable source would be an independent country evaluating say Su-57 and F-35 for acquisition. The bids handed to that selection committee will be the most accurate" kills the ''su_57 is inferior based on this photograph" argument.
No one said the su57 only uses coatings , its always a blend of coatings and shape. the Su-57 is very extensive in terms of using shape to reduce RCS , And how are you assuming that lockheed will directly pick up on literally any novelty coming into place? where is the study that takes into account the possible cost reduction of using less sawtoothed panels (if there is any , that also needs a study to prove) vs the cost increase related to changing the production line to adapt it to the new panels , and the modifications associated with t ?and is it worth it? where's the study?
also , since the patent , the official patent , the scientists involved into making the plane confirm that the sealant eliminates the parasitic reflections , why is this even put to question to begin with ?
Also , the point inversely works on the su-57 too , if the electrical conductive coating does a lousy job on the panels , why would they not pick on that and use sawtoothed panels more ? they did it for the landing gear ,weapon bays antenna fairings , what would prevent them from using that more ? thers literally a patent above saying they would eliminate all inhomogenities and focus energy to specfic sectors , if that is to be ruined , why didnt they do it ? or is it that hundereds of hours in anaechoec chambers will fail to notice that?
there is no western stealth and russian stealth. Stealth is stealth and it is up to the company and its sub contractors to see what fit them the most as long as they meet the objective , the principles considered by the russians are literally the same as the western side ,
i quote :
"
RCS of an aircraft consists of RCS of the following components: airframe; power plant; optical and antenna systems of the onboard equipment complex; suspended and retractable in-flight equipment.
The RCS of the airframe and the power plant is determined by three factors:
- the shape of the theoretical contours and the layout of the airframe, including the air intake and air duct;
- the design of the airframe assemblies, technological and operational joints of the skins, flaps, hatches and joints between the movable and fixed parts of the airframe;
- the use of radio-absorbing and shielding materials and coatings."
which is , by the one and only official source , at least F-22 level of stealth , an official statement , and sourced statements are not weighed the same as personal guesses.
now, the reverse argument , why is BAE systems envisaging a stealth aircraft with a round IRST , and doing what is considered by your logic , russian stealth ?
[ATTACH=full]647529[/ATTACH]
and even without the TAI-TFX argument , when was being copied a serious metric to determine who is right and wrong ?
no one has copied the kamov Ka-52 into making jettisoned rotor blades supporting the only combat helicopter ejection system on the planet , but it sure is the best solution out there.
regarding the IRST's on the Su-57 , all three of them , do you think the russians are oblivious to faceted IRST's ?
they are not :
[ATTACH=full]647531[/ATTACH]
then did they ruin themselves on purpose then ? obiviously not the patent describes focusing radiation is specefied sectors and making the RCS homogenous, if they are going to such lengths as eleminating the imperfections of the surface , and faceting small minute details as this :
[ATTACH=full]647541[/ATTACH]
then this a=can only mean there's a very good reason why the *optical* bulbs are round. And no this is not a compromise , not only due to the fact that it is ridiculously cost inefficient to spend millions on fine tuning every shape of the aircraft , its surface , its flaps and stabs , its weapon bay doors , the entire concept of weapon bays , advanced RAM and coating for the canopy , only to have all this ruined by two or three details. but also because , and i will repeat this point for as much as needed , the offical patent states that they aim at dircting radiation to specefic sectors while eleminating parasitic reflections , if there was no good engineering solution to reap the benefits of the superior round shape (superior for the performance of the optic) while keeping it stealthy , they wouldve easily faceted the optical panels like they, they are no strangers to it , and its actually *easier* considering how oval synthetic saphire is harder to make that tradition facets.
now to entirely put the nail in the coffin and make the IRST arguement even more dead than the air dut argument , have a look at the documentary :
[MEDIA=youtube]aDXNDA5xuS4[/MEDIA]
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDXNDA5xuS4
go to the part when they talk about placing every part of the aircraft to be testted in the anaechoic chamber , this part :
[ATTACH=full]647542[/ATTACH]
at 13:55 , they say that the tests show them exactly how much RAM needs to be added to the different parts , and how much isnt, now considering how the entire nose section , if we exclude the IRST , is faceted, and that the official patent above says that they want an uniform distribution of RCS , and to focus it on less dangerous , narrow sectors , how are they even bothering fine tuning the very thickness of RAM needed to the structure , if the elephant in the room , that massive orange sticking out of the cockpit , is there to ruin everything?
it is obvious that theres a solution , and the fact that we dont know it doesnt mean it doesnt exist , or else all of what is claimed in the documentary , the patent , and the interview, all of them being official sources , would just go down the drain. And its going down the drain through personal guesses and photographs , not even independant , third party testing in a bid or something.
the only unofficial thing is when a journalist adds a little spice and starts saying that the su-57 is great and lockheed is bad but i am not taking any claim like that as a source.
Su-57 is no exception
there is no legit evidence pointing at that , if anything , again , we can only guess when there is no statement about what kind of stealth requirment is being presented, if an official source comes in and clarifies thatn then there is no place for guessing.
