ok :(
airframe itself isnt that special, sure its good from what we know cuz low heat signature and low radar cross section and thrust vectoring but its already in game (Su30SM and SM2) but what will make the F22 insane is the missile it can carry, namely the aim9x, which is pretty much impossible to flare and really good off-bore lock or whatever its called.
if it doesnt come with aim9x then i dont see the reason for it to get added aside from cool thrust vectoring for USA
I doubt they will keep it that way for air.
Also AIM-9X wouldn’t come alone.
Something does not feel right, -8 dBsm for F-22, that’s around 0.15 m^2. I will study that carefully document again when i get free time
1 Like
TVC IIR missile with ET level of range, aka Michael IR, the MICA reign will hold up strong even with the new Fox 2 meta :)
(And with datalink as well)
1 Like
Something is probably wrong in his document if 0.15m² is what we get.
This old smithsonian article cite the RCS being roughly equivalent to a bumblebee:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/the-science-of-stealth-569190/
Bumblebee RCS is ~0.0001m², orders of magnitude smaller than 0.15m².
I think you are confusing it with the F-35, the F-22 is quite severely outdated, lacking modern datalink and even up until recently lacking an HMD while still using an outdated mechanical scan radar
Seeing as the Su-57 is a stated 0.1 ~ 1, 0.15 isn’t bad at all
Something wrong with your numbers then. Here’s a report made for Congress confirming the F-22 is stealthier than the F-35:
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL31673.pdf
I quote: A November 13, 2009, press article states that “the F-22 had a -40dBsm all-aspect reduction requirement, while the F-35 came in at -30dBsm with some gaps in coverage.” (David A. Fulghum and Bradley Perrett, Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, November 13, 2009: 1-2.) "
Which by the by, -40dBsm leads us back to the famous 0.0001m² RCS number.
1 Like
The F-22 definitely has datalink, and uh… Gonna have to explain the bit about the AESA being manually scanned.
2 Likes
Lol, I’ll be 6 feet under the ground before I take the words of a publisher over 3 professors holding doctorates.
Sure, but that still doesn’t explain how the F-35 has a better RCS with their number than the F-22 when it should be the inverse. 0.15m² is so far off the mark for the F-22 requirements that it makes the number near impossible to believe.
1 Like
Damn, the political science major in an associate’s seat is spewing out his ass about topics he doesn’t understand?
Hell, this was 2013 and he’s saying the F-22 and F-35 are the world’s only 5th gen aircraft. That alone is enough to hand-wave the .org page off.
Yeah… Aerospace daily. My favorite peer-reviewed source.
Where is the “should be” in this? It’s a field of apparent information, there is no “should be” in anything.
And? Even MMWR returns upwards of 20dbsm when staring at any object from 100m away. You’re gonna have to put in a bit more info than a blanket number stated in some organization’s weekly tabloid.
I mean, here’s another CRS report from somebody else saying the same:
CRS is part of the legislative branch and produces authoritative reports for Congress. This is as much of a primary source as you’re ever going to get. They also have contacts at Lockheed to get more information. The F-22 RCS number is still highly classified so you’re NEVER going to get a clear number in these CRS reports(or anywhere else really). That’s why reports stick to qualitative statements like “more stealthy” rather than numeric RCS values.
So either the Congressional Research Service is blatantly lying, either the numbers from your document are incorrect due to a lack of data since all of it is classified. I know which one I’d rather pick.
Edit: posted the wrong one originally
1 Like
My brother in Christ, are you reading these? It’s quite literally the same document saying the exact same thing, this time with less citation.
I shit you not it’s not even 5 pages into the damn document and you seemingly can’t get a hold of your life.
Come back when you’ve figured out how to think and breathe at the same time.
Oh yippee, a government entity giving statements lacking any and all substance! Definitely the most trustworthy citation.
Lol, no. It isn’t.
They sure as shit don’t communicate, that’s pretty apparent.
There is no such thing as “The F-22 RCS number”, so I’m not too sure what you’re talking about there.
My citation was from a group of PhD holders that ran a simulation on the most well-acquinted EM software in the world, yours seems to be a shittily done copy/paste from a businessman who, as I’ve said, is simply sitting in an associate’s seat and posting low-effort publications to keep his job.
Uh… Sure. Yknow, there’s a car analogy to be made but I’m sure you won’t get it. If anyone’s heard of Tuatara they’d get it.
“It’s simply more faster bro, have trust”
Nobody’s saying they’re blatantly lying, I’m explicitly stating that they give such little substance and, as per your own findings, care more about reaching an editorial quota than actual research.
Third time now, I’d rather hear from the rest of the aerospace field rather than a businessman publishing what are effectively plagiarized blogs.
2 Likes
RCS changing with angles is a rabbit hole he probably hasn’t entered yet.
And yeah, primary sources are not government sources.
I’d honestly have a better time going to a DCS or Falcon forum and trying to have a conversation on variable returns.
This is this guy’s idea of EMW^
1 Like
Riddle me this then, how does that make any sense to you that the F-22 has a RCS so much larger than the F-117 cause I sure as hell can’t see the logic behind that. Here’s Denys Overholser, one of the big brain at Skunk Work behind the F-117 who said this:
Spoiler
I asked him and he told me. “This shape is one thousand times less visible than the least visible shape previously produced at the Skunk Works.”
“Whoa!” I exclaimed. “Are you telling me that this shape is a thousand times less visible than the D-21 drone?”
“You’ve got it!” Denys exclaimed.
“If we made this shape into a full-size tactical fighter, what would be its equivalent radar signature… as big as what—a Piper Cub, a T-38 trainer… what?”
Denys shook his head vigorously. “Ben, understand, we are talking about a major, major, big-time revolution here. We are talking infinitesimal.”
“Well,” I persisted, “what does that mean? On a radar screen it would appear as a… what? As big as a condor, an eagle, an owl, a what?”
“Ben,” he replied with a loud guffaw, “try as big as an eagle’s eyeball.”
Skunk Works: A Personal Memoir of My Years at Lockheed
An eagle eyeball is about -30dBsm.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.