Yeah I’ve seen some pictures but most of them seem to be heavily photoshopped…
Pls go here whenever discussion starts going off topic, just take message from here and respond in new thread
1 Like
Appreciate it, bro.
From what I know its low observability is most prevalent & looking at it from the front. which makes sense. However. Some analyst & USAF pilots note that the exposed IRST & canopy bow of the cockpit are exceedingly detrimental to its RCS. The canopy bow on of the J-20 is mentioned as well. I expect the canopy bows will be removed from both in the near future.
Also, do keep in mind these aircraft are not truly stealth, neither is the F-22 or the F-35. They are not supposed to be. They are designed to be low observable & most importantly difficult to track.
There are certain unremovable qualities of a fighter (4th & 5th generation) that limit them from ever achieving true stealth capability such as the B-21 Raider & B-2 Spirit. For example, a fighter’s overall shape, their cockpit & canopy, intakes, advanced flight control surfaces, conventional flight control surfaces & engines etc.
Therefore, detection is not the primary concern for 5th generation fighters. Because low-frequency radars operating in the VHF and UHF bands can detect low-observable aircraft.
The primary objective of the technology is to reduce the ability & range that an enemy can track you & effectively target you.
The Su-57 does not need to be stealth. It just needs to be low observable enough to reduce the range he can be successfully targeted to safely & effectively deploy his ordinance off first. Same concept with the F-22 & F-35.
The Su-57 & Chinese J-20 are equipped with much longer ranged active missiles that cover ground much quicker.
This is an issue for the US because this means it does not matter how less “stealthy” the Su-57 & J-20 are compared to the F-22. They can remain well beyond the range of the Aim-120 & far enough from any other 4th generation aircraft to remain effectively low observable & unable to track. Of course, this all will come down to the radars.
Which the US does not truly know to a certainty how capable the N036 of the Su-57 is or the Type 1475 (KLJ-5) in the J-20 is.
So, to answer your question. Yes, the RCS of the Su-57 is much greater than the F-35 & F-22.
However, if we consider the Su-57’s long-ranged capabilities compared to the medium-ranged capabilities of the F-35 & F-22… A need to be just as “stealthy” as the F-22 Raptor does not seem so relevant anymore.
Remember, the F-22 was literally built & limited for medium range. The aircraft was entirely built around the Aim-120. Therefore, its RCS is required to be as low as it is because it is more susceptible to detection & tracking.
The F-22 & F-35 both operate & engage entirely at medium range or below where tracking much easier.
I believe the Su-57 is just as low observable as it needs to be. Same with the J-20.
If the US can manage to produce a hypersonic missile small enough to fit in the weapons bay of the F-22 & F-35. Then things may be different. We will have to wait & see.
Money is predominately the reason. Now it’s access to specialized components, which Russia can still get its hands on, just takes additional time & more money.
I honestly doubt they will be producing any new aircraft for a while let alone the Su-57.
As for serial production, the RuF just received a Su-57 delivery not too long ago iirc.
1 Like
Also Su-27LL
https://otvaga2004.ru/kaleydoskop/kaleydoskop-air/5-6-pokoleniye-5/
In your video, the AL-31FM-1 engine
AL-41F1S -Часть 2. Двигатель V поколения как объективная реальность
Thank you so much for the answer and sorry if i reply now but i just got up from the bed (sleep schedule completely ruined due to exams).
I agree with you particularly on the detectability part and how these planes aren’t fully stealthy… Both J-20 and Su-57 have an advantage in terms of range so far (missiles) and they are as stealthy as needed to be potent at BVR.
Personally i feel like a true Fifth gen fighter should never get to extremely close dogfights since the tech is way too valuable to gamble it in a dogfight where the slightest mistake can make the “worse” plane win anyway.
I also totally agree with @MiG_23M that said the current RCS (average) of the Su-57 is 1m², but that isn’t the actual production model (that will have lower RCS) and as we’ve seen with the J-20 the differences between prototype/test bed to the production models are more than just noticeable (J-20’s RCS should be 0.01M² [this number is ofc approximated since these studies couldn’t evaluate details such as the radar absorbing material and its performance] from the studies and info i’ve seen online, there is a guy on X that made plenty of anysis and simulations).
I’ve in fact seen the new batch being delivered, should be around 16ish SU-57 in total if i’m not wrong.
Al-41 doesn’t have all-aspect TVC
1 Like
I saw it, it’s wrong
1 Like
The Su-27 is not stable at low speeds.On average, it is statically neutral
2 Likes
Otvaga2004 and aviation are not related concepts
There is a drawback to being able to see more; you see more of everything. There are other external factors such as ECM or SEAD aircraft that degrade this ability of detection. Not like this makes your statement any less true, much of it is nuanced.
These quotes don’t support each other, as it does matter who can target who first (excluding all factors outside of each respective plane). Having a longer range missile certainly increases Pk at closer ranges, but can be seen as net neutral if both aircraft are within their optimal deployment zones. While yes, the AIM-260 is still in development so the U.S. currently lacks capability on paper, there have been interim upgrades to the AIM-120D that its current upgraded range is unknown. I would assume that the capability gap is not as dire as projected. The J-20 to my knowledge is seen as a strategic threat to tankers and AWACS, not so much of a threat to the F-35 or F-22.
Mako ASM has been developed, but for air to air it will be the AIM-260.
1 Like
The principal of stealth is that who sees who first wins the battle.
A modern AESA radar can detect an F35 at no more than 60km, well within the NEZ of the most modern missiles, and outside of the range of most IRST systems. So if the F35 is spotted, it is close enough to be shot down, but also means that it is highly likelybit has already launched a missile or two.
If the F35 can detect the Su57 or J20 at 80km, then something like a Meteor would easily be able to take them out without them knowing until its too late.
1 Like
With full internal fuel it is statically stable, correct ?
Yes. However, we now live in a world where low observation is not so “low” anymore. Radars are now becoming far more powerful than advancements in RAM can keep up. You can only put so many materials on an aircraft. There is only so many elements on the periodic table my friend.
Radar technology & effectiveness has no bounds in sight.
This technology is heavily invested by the principal enemies of the US. You cannot kill what you cannot reach regardless if you see it first. The US has zero long range air to air capabilities. Neither does it have hypersonic air to air missiles
The US slept on its perch at the top & did not expect the rapid technological growth of the CCP.
They are desperately trying to catch up. That is a fact whether anyone likes it or not.
1 Like
Stable
I think the current attempt to close the capability gap to the PL-15 is the AMRAAM-AXE (Air-launched eXtended Envelope), which is an attempt to produce an Air launched variant of the the AMRAAM-ER (AIM-120C-8 control section w/ the 8", Plus 5 motor replaced with the 10" diameter Norwegian Propulsion Stack ).
It seems to be drawing pretty heavily on inspiration from how the RIM-162 ESSM was developed, considering they will be sharing a motor. (I wouldn’t be surprised that if at some point the AMRAAM-ER is adapted for naval use and replaced the ESSM considering advancements, or the Dual mode seeker is backported to the AMRAAM ).
The main issue will be the likely reduction in internal / submerged carriage capacity due to moving to 10" diameter from 8", and potential ineligibility in the case of the F-35B.
And that should theoretically be sufficiently workable until the AIM-260 or FMRAAM enter production
1 Like
Did they test this on the moon or what??! lol jk it looks like it in the photo.
I agree, but this only solves one part of the equation. Long range is relatively easy capability to overcome especially for the US.
However, Hypersonic air to air missiles that can be stored internally is all the rage in combat aviation as of now. In which the RuF is leading the pack.
This is what the US is desperately trying to achieve & is proving quite the problem. Because both the F-35 & F-22 are completely built around the Aim-120. the F-22 needed to have Aim-120s modified with chopped wings to fit after all.
I have no doubt the US will achieve hypersonic missile capability whatsoever.
It’s being able to fit them within the weapons bay of the F-22 & F-35 I doubt. If they are unable, this means they will be loaded on the wings further degrading their low observability, flight performance & combat radius.
The US is currently developing stealth missile pods to house on the wings. I do not know how effective they will be, but it’s not going to completely stop the F-22’s RCS from increasing that is for certain.
Also, I forgot to mention the F-22 is being upgraded with stealth drop tanks (part of current upgrade plan). Currently still uses the F-15’s.
As you can see the AMRAAM-AXE alone is already proving to have some issues across the board & especially with the B model F-35. Can you imagine how hypersonic missiles are going to have issue with these platforms? Hypersonic Air to Air Missiles is the next generation. The US needed to develop & produce these yesterday.
There is untested concept for hypersonic missile design. Here is a video on it if interested.
The MAKO has not been developed. It’s purely untested concept.
Haven’t had a chance to fully read & reply to you lately my apologies.
No, the US lacks capability in the air straight up. There is no long-range air to air missiles in service. There is no long-range hypersonic air to air missiles in service either.
From what I have been able to find, the missile has been under development for seven years until being publicly shown, with the following quote as such:
When asked about where Mako will go, Loy highlighted that their showing at SAS 2024 aims to garner interest and continue its development. However, Mako is “ready to fly, ready now, and is ready to go in scale and into production quickly.”
I would assume that they aren’t yet in full production of the unit, but have the means to do so if given the green light. The unit apparently has also been fit tested physically and electronically. As far as fire testing, I do not have data about it. Lockheed does give out bold claims, it is a repurposed ATGM after they lost the contract to Grumman (lol). Maybe I should be looking into what Grumman has publicly been up to.
It depends on what’s being defined as long-range, as the AIM-120D has the range that covered the gap left behind through retirement of the Pheonix. If you mean the range similar to a PL-15, then no the U.S. doesn’t have that range yet, projected to be closed this year with the AIM-260. If I’m being honest, the range is not what is the deadlier aspect of the PL-15, it’s the ability to handoff guidance updates to an AWACS.