This is the blocker of the next engine called "product 30".why does it look different from this: I thought this is the blocker?
View attachment 645600
I see them as faceted DSI bumpsI was actually more interested in the fixed oblique ramps that are in the sides of the inlets now
You were misleaded. Here is a schematic view of PAK FA radar-blocker that was published many years ago. Looks pretty similar to the recent photo, right?why does it look different from this: I thought this is the blocker?
View attachment 645600
The S-channel has never been the ideal solution for RCS reduction. This is the simplest solution. Engineers from Northrop and Boeing are not idiots and have relied on blockers. The level of RCS X-32 and YF-23 fully met the requirements of the military. The nonsense about the mandatory use of S-channels on stealth aircraft was invented by stupid and uneducated people.The radar blocker looks quite low loss. I wonder how this system compares to a S-duct.
S-channel is not the simplest solution, it is the most effective way to reduce radar signature in the inlet because the shape and length of an S-duct make radar wave bounce of the wall many times before they can coming out of the duct, the longer the duct and the more curvy it is, the more bounce you will have, and as a result, the bigger accumulated radar absorbing capability. A layer of RAM with modest absorbing capability of 5-15 dB can be accumulated to 60 dB even with a slight curved duct. ( 60 dB mean you reduce radar wave power by 1.000.000 times). But an S-channel is lot heavier than a blocker and it can take up valuable space for fuel and weapon bayThe S-channel has never been the ideal solution for RCS reduction. This is the simplest solution. Engineers from Northrop and Boeing are not idiots and have relied on blockers. The level of RCS X-32 and YF-23 fully met the requirements of the military. The nonsense about the mandatory use of S-channels on stealth aircraft was invented by stupid and uneducated people.
S-channel is not the simplest solution, it is the most effective way to reduce radar signature in the inlet because the shape and length of an S-duct make radar wave bounce of the wall many times before they can coming out of the duct, the longer the duct and the more curvy it is, the more bounce you will have, and as a result, the bigger accumulated radar absorbing capability. A layer of RAM with modest absorbing capability of 5-15 dB can be accumulated to 60 dB even with a slight curved duct. ( 60 dB mean you reduce radar wave power by 1.000.000 times). But an S-channel is lot heavier than a blocker and it can take up valuable space for fuel and weapon bayThe S-channel has never been the ideal solution for RCS reduction. This is the simplest solution. Engineers from Northrop and Boeing are not idiots and have relied on blockers. The level of RCS X-32 and YF-23 fully met the requirements of the military. The nonsense about the mandatory use of S-channels on stealth aircraft was invented by stupid and uneducated people.
Secondly, when radar wave strike an edge, they will be diffracted, this diffraction effect can cause radar wave to scattered in many directions including straight back, the more edges there are, the more diffraction, an inlet blocker has a lot more edges than an S-duct because an S-duct only has the edge on the inlet lips
YF-23 use an S-duct and the F-23 mock up that was used in RCS measurement is F-23EMD which has an additional DSI
View attachment 645862
View attachment 645863
S- channel isn't the simplest solution, it just the most efficient from signature point of view because it cause the signal to bounce multiple time and accumulate the radar absorbing effect of the RAM layer. Engine face blocker was first used on F-117 ways before S-duct were designed and used on F-22 and F-35. Engine blocker also used on F-18 E/F
S-channel is the simplest solution. In YF-23 this is not fully implemented. The X-32 doesn't have one at all. The aircraft fully satisfied the military in terms of RCS. At the same time, it was built 10 years after the YF-23 and F-22.Engineers from Boeing are not idiots.
The whole point of the blocker is to stop radar wave from reaching the turbine blades, if you make them transparent to radar wave then what the point of having them in the first place?Diffracted is absent when using a composite blocker.
Stuka siren for ww3 (pun intended)It was mentioned that this Radar Blocker may produce a distinct sound.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Way5bhbpLU&ab_channel=KHMedia
At 0:22 and 1:43 there is a very distinct high pitched whine that was not present in other Su-57 Aerobatic showings.
Are the darker gray parts titanium? I'm surprised how little spars are on the nose section next to the round sensor, I imagine the skin and internal components give it rigidity.Su-57 assembly line
Are the darker gray parts titanium? I'm surprised how little spars are on the nose section next to the round sensor, I imagine the skin and internal components give it rigidity.Su-57 assembly line
I thought the light grey on the skin was carbon composite, yellow aluminium, and dark titanium, for example where the exhaust goes next to the tail stinger. Is that coorect? Inside the engine, compartments look like dark grey.
It's a new one.(i. e. fresh photos)Do no photos exist yet of 02 or was 02 renumbered 01 after the original 01 crashed?
Is it shure the production prototype? It has not the new shaped noseView attachment 647101
First serial.
View attachment 647102
View attachment 647103
View attachment 647104
View attachment 647105
View attachment 647107
(For some reason spoiler function just laughted in my face)
That was simply a placeholder cover nose lacking the sharp corners as seen on this aircraft and the prototypes.Is it shure the production prototype? It has not the new shaped nose