You said nothing of substance by it, so I was questioning the statement.
All Im saying it just very typical to “question” (or, rather, outright claim as a lie) any claimed capabilities of Russian made vehicles by some users/people
And again, why is that?
Dont ask me, Im just making an observation
An observation based off of what?
That’s quite literally all I’m asking. It shouldn’t take me asking 3 times for an answer.
You either said it with reason, or had no reason to say it at all.
Same HIMARS dude for instance? Again, it just a thing I noticed that some people tend to brash off any stated capabilities as lies (or, at best, exaggeration) wherever it is or not, just a default position
And let’s drop this, this is indeed doesn’t go anywhere (+ it off topic)
Welp, I’ll contribute to the thread since I don’t want to see broken mechanics nor handholding to X/Y/Z aircraft because of fanboyism. This isn’t a ‘felon is better, raptor is better’ post, but rather a compilation of info to try unbiasing the subject. I’m also reserving myself the right to leave this unfinished and edit it later because it is such a long post.
I’ll drag some bits from F35 vs F22 because we have some decent readings on it. For my main criticism, RCS isn’t something you just slap a number onto and that’s it, it needs context for which radar bandwidth it is being tested against, monostatic vs bistatic configuration, angle, manufacturers generally put best case figures, etc. and then the sources on the numbers have a high degree of unreliability.
February 1999 MAGAZINE article, before the F-35 was even a flyable prototype (X-35A first flew on Oct 2000):
At this occasion the F35 was predicted to be slightly less stealthy than the F22, and the numbers given were a predicted -30 dB (0.001 m2) at the FRONT QUARTER of the aircraft – equivalent of a “golf ball”. Yes, this is the very article from which the “golf ball” thing started.
Also note they give the F15 a NOSE ON figure of +20 dB, and at the beginning of the article where they put the B2, F117
& F22 at the same boat: “will be about the same as the earlier generations of L.O. aircraft”.
Already, information has come with its fair bit of contradiction.
Post F35 entering into service, we have people who worked on those machines stating that the F35 is stealthier than the F22. Generals Bogdad said: “I would say that General Hostage […] is accurate in his statement about the simple stealthiness of the F-35 [with regard] to other airplanes”. The statement was accurate for radar cross section, as measured in decibels, and range of detectability, he said, and he scoffed at the notion that anyone can tell how stealthy an aircraft is just by looking at it."
By the way, let’s read this again: “he scoffed at the notion that anyone can tell how stealthy an aircraft is just by looking at it”. SU57. COUGH COUGH
General Hostage said: "Hostage caused a stir in late spring when, in press interviews, he said the F-35 would be stealthier than the F-22, its larger USAF stablemate. Conventional wisdom had pegged the F-22, with its angled, vectored-thrust engines, as a stealthier machine than the F-35. Hostage also said the F-35 would be unbeatable when employed in numbers, which is why the full buy of aircraft is “so critical.”
These are not the only people who have come and said the F35 turned out stealthier than the F22: “On a radar map, a 747 would appear the size of a hot air balloon and an F-16 would look like a beach ball. Drill down to legacy stealth aircraft and Lockheed’s F-117 Nighthawk would show up as a golf ball while an F-22 Raptor might appear as a pea. With the F-35, Lockheed is getting down to pebble size, according to Robert Wallace, senior manager for F-35 flight operations”. Also notice that here, it’s the F117 this time that is golf ball sized, but then again, against which radar configuration? Monostatic, headon, L-band? I would suppose those are best figures.
Source
“Many have compared the F-22 to the F-35 but that comparison is unfair. With the F-35 Lightning, this fighter sees better, has more range, and is stealthier than any of its predecessors. This airplane, with its fly by wire technology, is super easy to fly and it has a very linear response.”
Source
Well, on the SU-57, good info on YT on the Millennium 7 * HistoryTech channel. I reccommend watching his series on the Felon. Here’s a link to a condensed version: Worth watching the full separate episodes
On RCS simulation, the MIT Lincoln Laboratory channel has a series on radar systems, from which I’ll leave this link: Problems with RCS simulations, the important thing here is that the best method for RCS prediction is a full scale recreation of the plane you want info on, not even subscale model gives you completely reliable info, and absolutely NO computer simulation (method of moments, etc) is accurate as people pretend it to be.
From those, take with a grain of salt those simulations from Aircraft 101. They can give us some directions, sure, but they are not perfect - and the simulation problem is compounded by the aircraft there being innacurate. Being an amateur 3d modeller myself, I can see the shapes on those aircraft are quite off especially on details. For such a sensitive topic such as RCS angles, having wrongly shaped inlets and tubes surely doesn’t help us.
Extra 1: The overestimation on the capabilities of the F22 is something I’ve only really seen beaten on youtube videos about marines, but, just as marines are not really able to fight 7000 gorillas while unarmed and blindfolded (and beating them all unscratched, of course), reality for the F22 is also different:
“In a series of tests at Edwards AFB, Calif., in 2009, Lockheed Martin’s CATbird avionics testbed – a Boeing 737 that carries the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s entire avionics system engaged a mixed force of F-22s and F-15s, and was able to locate and jam their AESA radars, according to researchers”.
“China’s Stealth Aircraft Program Will Face Advanced Defenses”. Aviation Week. January 2011.
Extra 2: Test pilot Tom Morgenfeld states that the YF22 was considered super maneuverable because it managed to do a 60 AoA pull. Roadmap of YF22 testing at 29:55. This is a must watch where mr. Morgenfeld states very important stuff such as the YF22 being far from aerodynamical perfection because of all sacrifices made for stealth, explicitly stating the plane relies on brute force to do all of its stunts and achieve M2.
Also note how he refers to a digital display the YF22 as a great achievement, which leads us to: the (Y)F22 is 90s tech, it’s an amazing aircraft no doubt, but let’s stop pretending it’s alien tech. YF22 lecture, must watch
Again, if I remember anything worthy, I’ll edit this and post the links. I’m not posting simulations for now as I feel those are easily available via search engines.
Edit 1:
Lectures from Jim Brown and Paul Metz on the F22, reports on the same 60 AoA requirement, but says he saw 90 to 110 AoA pulls (production aircraft).
Again, worth watching all of it.
Some of the info reported there:
- some flight envelope characteristics
- M2.0 from ~35k to 60k ft.
- About M1.2 at SL
- Limitations on speed because of heat generation destroying stealth materials, M2.0/800 KIAS/245º C.
- Supercruise of “M1.6-1.7 depending on temperatures and altitude”
- Use of weakpoints on the RCS profile to bait opponents (yeah, as expected, it has RCS weakspots)
- M2.0 at 118% throttle (out of a maximum 150%) @40k ft altitude
- S.L. to 60k ft in 3:30
- Acceleration M0.9 to 1.2 in 43 seconds @40k ft
- M1.6 to 1.9 in 23 seconds @40k ft
- +9/-3 G airframe
- Below 10k ft can maintain 9G indefinitely
Jim Brown Lecture
Paul Metz Lecture
Edit 2:
I can’t post PDFs here, but it’s called:
“Description of Our Failing Defense Acquisition System as Exemplified by the History, Nature and Analysis of the USAF F-22 Raptor Program
A National Tragedy – Military and Economic”
Dated March 8, 2005 by Col. Everest E. Riccioni
Page 9: “The promises, the four pillars, need review. Real Stealth is measured against its five signatures – infrared, sound, visual, electronic emissions, and radar signature reduction to enemy fighter radars and enemy ground-based radars.(Note 17) The F-22 is the biggest fighter in the sky and is the first to be seen visually. This is anti-stealth. If cruising supersonically, two signatures give it away and identify it – the inescapable infrared signature and its loud supersonic booms. Infrared sensors have come a long way. The US Navy routinely equips its fighters with them and the Russians have good ones for sale. Netted computers can track its sound. Its big powerful radar designed to see the enemy at long distances and despite minimizing detection of its own emissions can be detected by existing high-tech Russian radar detectors. Also, it is physically impossible to design shapes and radar absorptive material to simultaneously defeat low power, high-frequency enemy fighter radars, and high power, low-frequency ground based radars. Unnoticed by all their air superiority advocates is that air superiority is primarily a daytime operation, and stealthy airplanes are stealthy only at night – hence the dark grey F-117’s name – the Nighthawk. The F-22 Raptor is not very stealthy. But, then, stealth is meaningless operating against the small undeveloped nations that we fight – as are air superiority aircraft”.
Page 9, note 17: “The USAF defines stelath with only one partial signature – radar – and that only in its foward quarter, and only to enemy fighter radars at the same altitude. This very limited definition fits the USAF’s penchant for head-on attacks”.
Page 10, note 18: “[…] Some claim that the Raptor has the signature of a bird. True, but only in the forward quarter, co altitude, and only to enemy fighter radars. It is quite visible to ground based radars”.
Page 15, note 36: “The novel, high thrust engines of the F-22 are notoriously slow to start and ready for operation. This problem cannot be removed by redesign. The time saved in high-speed flight is nullified by normal launch delays and slow system starts”.
He talks about the F22 vs F15 tests, then, on page 17, note 42:
"[…] At Northrop I witnessed an interesting simulation event that relates to these tests. The adversaries were to prevent “blue” strike packages (formations) composed of F-15s (and sometimes very stealthy B-2s) escorted and protected by very stealthy ATFs, from etering their “red” airspace. Success against the intruders was very low at first. But, with time, a clever, thinking adversary (red) pilot created a system of tactics using their numbers to unmask the stealthy aircraft permitting successful attacks of the strike forces and the ATFs. To supress their unanticipated and undesirable mounting successes, more and more cues were removed from the adversary aircraft until the test lost all semblance to reality. Needless to say, the successful adversary tactic and the unfavorable results went unrecorded and were certainly not reported to their superiors. The “script” prevailed; the ATF survide. One clue – no aircraft is truly invisible, hence the name “Low Observables.” Stealth is relative, not absolute and it varies with the aspects, the sensors, the ground environment, the situation and the tactics. Given numbers, there are ways to uncover them. Another clue – “WishRams.” "
There’s another page questioning the BVR aspect of the F22 vs F15 tests, if it was done properly with neutral aircraft (“ringers”) amongst the participants, as up to NAM IFF was unreliable and caused lots of friendly kills.
Most of the PDF is on the cost of the program, and if the aircraft would even make sense for the time, but it’s worth reading it all. There’s plenty of valid criticism on spending all that money if the F15s were already more than enough for what the USAF was doing.
Anyhow, after all this digging I think we can now lay to rest the myth that the Raptor has 0.001 RCS from all aspects. We have the F35 magazine article, people from the program and test pilots, big names from the USAF, one of the F-16 envisioners, all pointing to the same frontal quarter arc, same altitude, high-frequency conditions for the Raptor stealthiness. Independent EM simulations also point to the same scenario.
1 Like
True true ;D
New closeup images of Su-57 from Airshow China 2024.
Pictures and videos kind of speak for themselves.
1 Like
Imao I can’t express how much I laughed when the guy brought the camera up close to the screws and gestured like “yep - there it is”
1 Like
For me it was that image
Looks exactly like one fallen tile in my bathroom that I quickly fixed with some silicone glue. My seams were more consistent though without any gaps :)
5 Likes
I don’t wanna have a hand in this argument but that image is disinformation, some of those pictures are of the F-22, not the Su-57
Also it’s very apparent that’s not an F-35
tbf, the one in China is a prototype version number 054 (It had its first flight on December 12, 2012)
compared to serial production No. 02 (Red) at Армия-2023 forum, I can’t find more close-up photos than this.
1 Like
It’s a prototype demonstrator, anything can stick out on it.
1 Like
This is like looking at the T-10-1 prototype of Su-27 and going “pics kind of speak for themselves” when discussing the Su-35
1 Like
Bolts are being discussed again…
You know that for X-band radars, objects smaller than 3 cm do not exist in principle?
The current Su-57, which is being mass-produced, is no less stealthy than the F-35, but at the same time much more capable and combat ready.
Unfortunately, there are not 1000+ of them, but it has shown that it can safely fly within the coverage area of the most modern NATO air defense and not be detected.
1 Like
im sure it was satire lol
1 Like
The engineers at Lockheed Martin are apparently unaware of this. But the Su-57 has plenty of issues beyond the bolts. Take a look at its air intake ducts and the canopy frame.
It literally never did that.
1 Like
Prove it.