god damn, well we get demonstrators like the PSO, so this shouldnt be a problem either i would say
i agree. they added the yak-141 with all of its garbage so this is not even close to being that much of a stretch
The configuration is yes, but they seem pretty set on the integration of AMK on P4E from that page.
if it does get purchased, it will still be one of the last Eurofighters added into the game while the IPA7 was tested with AMK in 2014 or something around that time
I’ll take the words of the man who led the team that designed the F-117 over the words of a random guy on the internet.
His statement was quite clear that a couple of loose fasteners protruding by less than 1/8 inch from the panel were enough to severely degrade the F-117 prototype’s stealth capability. So until more information becomes available it seems likely that small imperfections in an aircrafts skin can have severe impacts on stealth.
1 Like
It’s not off topic, but constantly nagging because the conversation has shifted in a direction you don’t care for is…
The effects of exposed rivets on stealth is hugely important to how high or low the RCS of the Eurofighter might be when it comes to the game. As it’s newer, there is less info so we can refer to the fact that these are not an issue on fighters considered to be stealthier, and also that have more available information.
That is of course also not factoring in things like IRST. I have heard that the Su-57 is actually a really hot aircraft, and no thought was put into minimising its IR signature like other stealth aircraft.
They aren’t rivets first of all, and second… I doubt they are truly impactful as mentioned because articles say otherwise and the F-22 has been running around operationally with all kinds of discontinuities with the airframe.
Eurofighter’s low observable qualities shouldn’t be impacted by its use of fasteners either in this case. Just something to be cautious of when speculating about radar cross section as most people who claim the Su-57 isn’t stealth point to things that don’t matter like the fasteners. It has planform alignment and evidently large usage of RAM. The Eurofighter has less planform but more radar absorbent materials. Makes me wonder how they truly compare.
Yep, We have seen how well the Typhoon did against F22s a few years ago, with the new radar being fitted to the Typhoon, its about to get even better. Would definetly be an interesting encounter.
But I think this entire discussion does identify one key fact. Stealth jets, dont belong in WT, there will be no way to balance them or model them accurately. There is too much room for “dev tweaking” to keep things “fair” in the absence of hard facts
I think we might see the F-117 as its not meant for A2A, but beyond that… I dont think we should see any.
1 Like
while true, a bit sad sicne f 35 gonna be only real other plane germany could get at one point besides the typhoon TT , wt is mainly a los fight in arb, so stealth would be completly ignored, i can see stealth aircraft just taking the current role of strikers currently even if all planes at that point are multi role fighters
yeah, we are reaching a point where nations will start running out of top tier jets. I do also wonder if there is a line, a point in which they dont add any more modern jets. Will we see the current EF Typhoon variant for example? Or is it easier to limit to say 2015 or something (random year, no real reason for it) and not added anything after that date for the sake of information gathering.
The future is going to be… interesting, especially if the game doesnt evolve and keep up
I hope any day gajin might consider Eurofighter Typhoon development aircraft (DA) for germamy in the future
Britain too. Im thinking Q2 next year… maybe
And Italy could get EF-2000 typhoon development aircraft (DA) same time
1 Like
relative to 10m^2, rcs can be estimated at 1.5m^2 from this data
For transparency here is the quote in question:
“Ben,” he exclaimed, “we’ve lost our stealth.” He explained that Ken Dyson had flown that morning in Have Blue against the radar range and was lit like a goddam Christmas tree. “They saw him coming from fifty miles.”
Actually, Keith and I both figured out what the problem was. Those stealth airplanes demanded absolutely smooth surfaces to remain invisible. That meant intensive preflight preparations in which special radar-absorbent materials were filled in around all the access panels and doors. This material came in sheets like linoleum and had to be perfectly cut to fit. About an hour after the first phone call, Keith phoned again. Problem solved. The heads of three screws were not quite tight and extended above the surface by less than an eighth of an inch. On radar they appeared as big as a barn door!
So really there are two possibilities:
- The person in charge of developing the F-117 is lying in their book
- Loose screws can indeed severely impact the RCS of an aircraft (at least in some situations)
If you want another source:
Survivability Benefits from the Use of Standoff Weapons by Stealth Aircraft by John Paterson of Marconi Integrated Systems:
Caulk and filling material can be applied to openings, apertures, or non-conductive gaps. Access panels, rivet holes, and screws can significantly add to aircraft RCS if they are not flush with the aircraft surface or if they have gaps.
1 Like
At the time that the F117 was produced they did not extensively use RAM in the material design of the aircraft. I suspect panels and materials for the fasteners can reduce the impact on radar cross section. I’m sure it may reduce the performance of the stealth, however the fact that the F-22 can have these issues and remain “VLO” suggests to me that it’s not as impactful as one might think.
How is that calculated? Are there more accurate papers on the capability of the flanker radar and such from then that will further enhance our thoughts on the RCS?
Radar Detection Range is inversely proportional to the 4th root of target RCS, assuming same radar.