Consequences of Flanker and PAK FA exports for the PACRIM from US-allied perspective?

MiG-29 · Jun 20, 2012

Re: Consequences of Flanker and PAK FA exports for the PACRIM from US-allied perspect

Mysterre said:
No, you're just flat out wrong about this whole thing. The reason the F-22 and J-20 have very smooth underbellies is that ONLY from DIRECTLY underneath the aircraft will a radar reflect any significant return. This can't be helped anyway because of the wings. This makes it much easier for maneuvering and mission planning because there are very few angles which you cannot turn wrt an enemy radar that will potentially be in range to pick you up. The problem with the T-50 is that there are just too many angles where a turn or bank will expose enough surface for an enemy radar to pick. Also, a curved surface, especially the ones beneath the T-50, presents a constant radar return to an enemy radar, even if smaller compared to a straight edge. And if you look closely some of the underbelly surfaces aren't actually even fully curved, they are a combination of curved and straight-edged, and not parallel with either the underbelly itself or the angle of the pseudo-diamond shaped forward fuselage. This presents numerous opportunities during maneuvering for an enemy radar that would otherwise be out of range, to pick up a decent radar return.

radar waves can be defracted, reflected or transmitted.
Flat underbelly has not to do with reflection but with transmition and difraction, any flat surface is like a mirrow and depending on the incidence ray angle you will have a reflection ray.

If the radar is positioned on the right angle the flat wings and underbelly of F-22 will be easily detected.

Fresnel laws.

The flat and smooth underbelly is just for difraction and transmition of the electromagnetic waves.

The smoothness only stops difraction bouncing bakc that will retransmit the original wave back to the radar.

You just repeat a myth.

The reason why the F-22 and J-20 have so flat underbellies is because of the engine arrangement and S ducting that forced for lateral weapons bays.

The F-35 and YF-23 have not flat bellies and this is simply because another engine arrangement.

On YF-23 the bays are like T-50, on the fuselage central sections.
On F-35 since it has a huge cross section the rounded nacelle is just rounded where it needs to be and laterally the rounded nacelle does not affect it since the tailbooms are aligned with the inlet walls.

F-35 and T-50 used rounded surfaces because continous curvature allows a smaller RCS from some angles and the use of composite reduces transmition simple like that.

---------- Post added at 01:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:30 AM ----------

montyp165 said:
Seeing that the J-20 is still in development, it also makes it easier to incorporate improvements comparable to the F-35s abilities compared to even the F-22 airframe.

that is just subjective but judging by the fact F-35 has more examples build and is in pre-production batches i doubt that.

Mysterre · Jun 20, 2012

Re: Consequences of Flanker and PAK FA exports for the PACRIM from US-allied perspect

MiG-29 said:
radar waves can defracted, reflected or transmitted.
Flat underbelly has not to do with reflection but with transmition and difraction, any flat surface is like a mirrow and depending on the incidence ray angle you will have a reflection ray.

If the radar is positioned on the right angle the flat wings and underbelly of F-22 will be easily detected.

Fresnel laws.

The flat and smooth underbelly is just for difraction and transmition of the electromagnetic waves.

The smoothness only stops difraction bouncing bakc that will retransmit the original wave back to the radar.

You just repeat a myth.

The reason why the F-22 and J-20 have so flat underbellies is because of the engine arrangement and S ducting that forced for lateral weapons bays.

The F-35 and YF-23 have not flat bellies and this is simply because another engine arrangement.

On YF-23 the bays are like T-50, on the fuselage central sections.
On F-35 since it has a huge cross section the rounded nacelle is just rounded where it needs to be and laterally the rounded nacelle does not affect it since the tailbooms are aligned with the inlet walls.

F-35 and T-50 used rounded surfaces because continous curvature allows a smaller RCS from some angles and the use of composite reduces transmition simple like that.

I think I'll go with an expert opinion instead of your personal opinion:

Where the PAK-FA falls well short of the F-22A and YF-23 is the shaping design of the lower fuselage and side fuselage, where the general configuration, wing/fuselage join angles, and inlet/engine nacelle join angles introduce similar intractable specular return problems as observed with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter design. These are inherent in the current shaping design and cannot be significantly improved by materials application. Like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the PAK-FA prototype design will produce a large specular return in any manoeuvre where the lower fuselage is exposed to a threat emitter, and this problem will be prominent from the Ku-band down to the L-band. This problem is exacerbated by the inboard ventral wing root fairings, claimed by some Russian sources to be pods for the concealed carriage of folding fin close combat AAMs, such as the RVV-MD/R-74 series. While these fairings do not introduce large RCS contributions from fore or aft aspects, they will adversely contribute to beam aspect RCS, especially for threats well below the plane of flight of the aircraft.The shaping remedy for the beam aspect signature problem lies in more obtuse join angles, which would require considerable effort in resculpting the fuselage/wing join from the main undercarriage bays to the tail, and narrowing the usable width of the lower fuselage tunnel between the nacelles. The latter is problematic. An alternative may be the use of thick RAM treatments, in effect replacing the skins of the sides of the inner forward lower fuselage tunnel with RAM panels, with some weight penalty as a result, which would not be significant relative to overall aircraft weight, given the small area to be treated.

The tailboom shaping is reminiscent of the F-22 and F-35 designs, and will not yield significant RCS contributions from the front or aft aspects. In the lower hemisphere, it will suffer penalties due to the insufficiently obtuse join angles between the wings and stabilators, and outer engine nacelles. The upper fuselage fairings which house the all moving vertical tail actuators are well shaped, and the join angles are well chosen. The outward cant of the empennage fins is similar to United States designs, and like the YF-23 tail surfaces, these are fully articulated with the VLO benefit of removing surface impedance discontinuities at the join of a conventional rudder control surface.

The axi-symmetric 3D TVC nozzles present the same RCS problems observed with the fixed axi-symmetric nozzles used in the F-35 JSF [analysis/imagery], and the application of serrated shroud treatments and tailpipe blockers as used with the F-35 JSF will not overcome the inherent limitations of this canonical shaping design. Observed from the aft hemisphere in the L-band through Ku-bands, the PAK-FA prototype configuration will produce to an order of magnitude an equally poor RCS as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter10.

The centre fuselage beavertail follows a similar chine design rule as the forward fuselage does, and will not present a significant RCS contribution from behind.

If production PAK-FA aircraft employ the same lower and aft fuselage design as the prototype does, they will be susceptible to aft hemisphere and beam aspect threats at depressed angles, operating from the L-band through to the Ku-band, in a manner no different to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

From

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

BOOM

MiG-29 · Jun 20, 2012

Re: Consequences of Flanker and PAK FA exports for the PACRIM from US-allied perspect

Mysterre said:
I think I'll go with an expert opinion instead of your personal opinion:

From
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

BOOM

you can do it, no problem, but that is the typical forum article to claim T-50 is inferior to F-22, but you forget a small detail, Lockheed and Sukhoi do not care about such analisys, they design their jets with a combination of performance, new materials and jamming and stealth approach with IRST, so you can quote that article 1000 times, but lockheed still will build the F-35 in that way and Sukhoi will do the same, and who can be more expert the guys who build the jets or the guys who want F-22 at any costs?

And do you know why? it is simple pure stealth is not effective, it is a combination of technologies well balanced that make effective the jets, T-50 has superior performance to F-22 armed with longer range weapons and IRST and cheaper costs makes it more cost effective than F-22

do you want a simple example F-117 is not any more in service while older F-15 still are why?
simple SAMs and IRSTare making obsolete stealth, remember RCS LO airframe still are detected, it is just matter of radar power density and more sensitive IRSTs

Mysterre · Jun 20, 2012

Re: Consequences of Flanker and PAK FA exports for the PACRIM from US-allied perspect

MiG-29 said:
you can do it, no problem, but that is the typical forum article to claim T-50 is inferior to F-22, but you forget a small detail, Lockheed and Sukhoi do not care about such analisys, they design their jets with a combination of performance, new materials and jamming and stealth approach with IRST, so you can quote that article 1000 times, but lockheed still will build the F-35 in that way and Sukhoi will do the same, and who can be more expert the guys who build the jets or the guys who want F-22 at any costs?

And do you know why? it is simple pure stealth is not effective, it is a combination of technologies well balanced that make effective the jets, T-50 has superior performance to F-22 armed with longer range weapons and IRST and cheaper costs makes it more cost effective than F-22

do you want a simple example F-117 is not any more in service while older F-15 still are why?
simple SAMs and IRSTare making obsolete stealth, remember RCS LO airframe still are detected, it is just matter of radar power density and more sensitive IRSTs

So the jist of your post here is that F-35 and T-50 are designed perfectly because L-M and Sukhoi built them the way they built them, and besides stealth ain't no big thang nomore nohow. OKAY then.

Vini_Vidi_Vici · Jun 20, 2012

Re: Consequences of Flanker and PAK FA exports for the PACRIM from US-allied perspect

Lion said:
Russia produce hundred of fighter jet with AESA radar? Where did you heard that myth? Lol.

Phazotron Zhuk-AE already mass produced them. I was referring to long distance radars on Russian Su-27 and Su-30s. They can see few hundred kilometers ahead. Those include N001VE or Phazotron N010 Zhuk-27 or an N011M BARS.

---------- Post added at 11:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:18 AM ----------

montyp165 said:
Still, the PLAAF would probably field the J-20 before Japan even gets its first F-35s and will have more of them than Vietnam could ever hope to have of Su-35s, and this doesn't even include the greater rate of C4ISR improvements that the PLAAF is incorporating into their command systems. If anything the PLA most necessarily needs to focus on countering US forces, everything else will fall into place by default concurrently.

That's a close call. We never know which one gets fielded first. J-20 is still in very early test flight stages, usually taking many many years for something this sophisticated to enter service. On the other hand, F35 is almost completely matured. But the production problems, especially the supply priority for all the countries will make Japan wait for many years before they can fly one. We don't know which one gets it first.

stardave · Jun 20, 2012

Re: Consequences of Flanker and PAK FA exports for the PACRIM from US-allied perspect

Vini_Vidi_Vici said:
Phazotron Zhuk-AE already mass produced them. I was referring to long distance radars on Russian Su-27 and Su-30s. They can see few hundred kilometers ahead. Those include N001VE or Phazotron N010 Zhuk-27 or an N011M BARS.

---------- Post added at 11:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:18 AM ----------

That's a close call. We never know which one gets fielded first. J-20 is still in very early test flight stages, usually taking many many years for something this sophisticated to enter service. On the other hand, F35 is almost completely matured. But the production problems, especially the supply priority for all the countries will make Japan wait for many years before they can fly one. We don't know which one gets it first.

Yeah... you do know that China have produced few hundred J-10 right, and they all have radars that can detect few hundred KM ahead. As for AESA radar, China also have them and they will be deployed on J-10B and J-20, and just like Zhuk-AE, it has NOT been mass produced yet. But if you says so, please link them, and btw mass production does not mean it has been put into hundreds of fighters jets.

How do you know F35 is almost completely matured? Last time I check over half of the computer code on F-35 still need to be written, and the American themselves said they would need another 6 years and 110 programmers to finish it. Not to mention the ever cost increase and performance compromise, and even when F-35 is done, it will still be inferior than F-22, less payload, less stealthy etc...

Fact is F-35 is far from completely mature, but we don't know anything about J-20's development. So you can't compare them.

MiG-29 · Jun 20, 2012

Re: Consequences of Flanker and PAK FA exports for the PACRIM from US-allied perspect

Mysterre said:
So the jist of your post here is that F-35 and T-50 are designed perfectly because L-M and Sukhoi built them the way they built them, and besides stealth ain't no big thang nomore nohow. OKAY then.

just let me say, i believe the true experts, Lockheed built the F-22, F-117, SR-71, U-2 so they know about stealth, technologies change, and i believe Sukhoi too, they built S-37 Berkut with S ducts and internal weapons bays.

I will believe all the nations buying F-35s, because they also have experts and i believe F-117 was retired by experts too, so for me a rounded engine nacelle is not inferior just because airpower australia claims it, specially when the tailbooms are aligned with the inlets and it is just rounded where it will not be a big RCS signature increase from the angular sector the fighter will use to approach the radar; besides Sukhoi and Saturn are making the T-50 and Su-35 based upon realistic concepts and same is lockheed by increasing the range of passive detectors like IRST they can fly at longer ranges from their targets and in the case of T-50 by having better supercruise performance faster than their enemy that is also stealth.

So yes i believe the true experts, the one that design the jets Sukhoi and Lockheed, not airpower australia

---------- Post added at 05:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:49 PM ----------

stardave said:
Yeah... you do know that China have produced few hundred J-10 right, and they all have radars that can detect few hundred KM ahead. As for AESA radar, China also have them and they will be deployed on J-10B and J-20, and just like Zhuk-AE, it has NOT been mass produced yet. But if you says so, please link them, and btw mass production does not mean it has been put into hundreds of fighters jets.

How do you know F35 is almost completely matured? Last time I check over half of the computer code on F-35 still need to be written, and the American themselves said they would need another 6 years and 110 programmers to finish it. Not to mention the ever cost increase and performance compromise, and even when F-35 is done, it will still be inferior than F-22, less payload, less stealthy etc...

Fact is F-35 is far from completely mature, but we don't know anything about J-20's development. So you can't compare them.

the question is lockheed makes press releases all the time, Chengdu does not do it, even Sukhoi is more open than Chengdu, in reality you do not know the real rechnical aspects of J-20, the F-22 and F-35 are more open programs to the public.

stardave · Jun 20, 2012

Re: Consequences of Flanker and PAK FA exports for the PACRIM from US-allied perspect

the question is lockheed makes press releases all the time, Chengdu does not do it, even Sukhoi is more open than Chengdu, in reality you do not know the real rechnical aspects of J-20, the F-22 and F-35 are more open programs to the public.[/QUOTE]

That's what I mean, if you don't know the real progress of J-20, how can you be sure that F-35 is making more progress than J-20? And no, China is NOT OBLIGATED to tell everyone every single detail of the J-20 program.

But from what we do know, is that F-35 producer themselves said they are facing many problems in development, and it would need them at least another 6 years to get ready. And during this time, if from past experience, it will get even more expensive and it may take even longer.

Because remember, F-35 was suppose to be 1/3 the cost of F-22 when it was first proposed around 70 million dollar each, now the current price has rise to almost 200 million dollar each, even more than the cost of F-22 when they shut down it is production line. You cannot say J-20's development is going to be better or worse than that, all we know is F-35 won't be ready until at least 2018.

MiG-29 · Jun 20, 2012

Re: Consequences of Flanker and PAK FA exports for the PACRIM from US-allied perspect

stardave said:
That's what I mean, if you don't know the real progress of J-20, how can you be sure that F-35 is making more progress than J-20? And no, China is NOT OBLIGATED to tell everyone every single detail of the J-20 program.

But from what we do know, is that F-35 producer themselves said they are facing many problems in development, and it would need them at least another 6 years to get ready. And during this time, if from past experience, it will get even more expensive and it may take even longer.

Because remember, F-35 was suppose to be 1/3 the cost of F-22 when it was first proposed around 70 million dollar each, now the current price has rise to almost 200 million dollar each, even more than the cost of F-22 when they shut down it is production line. You cannot say J-20's development is going to be better or worse than that, all we know is F-35 won't be ready until at least 2018.

the americans release the program details all the time, in fact, we just need to see google news everyweek and you have different news.

Sukhoi does the same, in fact is not secret all the details about the difficulties or achievements russia has had with the development of new engines for T-50.

J-20 is not the same, the program is not so open to the public.

in fact you do not get even official data yet.

The rest you can speculate it will be deployed later or before as you wish, but i am sure in my personal opinion F-35 is already in mass production for initial batches that will later be more advanced and definitive, and i have seen lots of pictures where 5-6 F-35s are been deployed.

The program is in a more advanced stage that is for sure

[video=youtube;GP-JKCwMTuM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP-JKCwMTuM[/video]
[video=youtube;wsJyC5g4IBo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsJyC5g4IBo&feature=BFa&list=PL8D58E888D8E1D07C[/video]

stardave · Jun 20, 2012

Re: Consequences of Flanker and PAK FA exports for the PACRIM from US-allied perspect

MiG-29 said:
the americans release the program details all the time, in fact, we just need to see google news everyweek and you have different news.

Sukhoi does the same, in fact is not secret all the details about the difficulties or achievements russia has had with the development of new engines for T-50.

J-20 is not the same, the program is not so open to the public.

in fact you do not get even official data yet.

The rest you can speculate it will be deployed later or before as you wish, but i am sure in my personal opinion F-35 is already in mass production for initial batches that will later be more advanced and definitive, and i have seen lots of pictures where 5-6 F-35s are been deployed.

The program is in a more advanced stage that is for sure

[video=youtube;GP-JKCwMTuM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP-JKCwMTuM[/video]
[video=youtube;wsJyC5g4IBo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsJyC5g4IBo&feature=BFa&list=PL8D58E888D8E1D07C[/video]

Oh wow.... AGAIN, you are trying to say that China is not as open as US or Russia as if... it is a bad... again, China is NOT OBLIGATED to tell the world the process of J-20, it is in their right to keep as many secret or be as open as they want, they are breaking no law doing so either way.

You just said F-35 is open, but if you would just take 5 minutes ot goggle it, you can see your claim is 100% false, F-35 is not in production, it is not finished, it is not nearly combat ready, the American themselves said, best case it will be ready in 6 years. And judging by their past record on the plane development, it will be even more expensive and take even longer to develop.

And again, with all this information, how can you even claim that F-35 will be sure to get ready before J-20?

I feel like a broken record here... here is what we know

1. F-35 will be ready in 2018 or more
2. We don't know when will J-20 be ready.
3. It is IMPOSSIBLE to say whatever F-35 or J-20 will be operational first.

Consequences of Flanker and PAK FA exports for the PACRIM from US-allied perspective?

MiG-29

Banned Idiot

Mysterre

Banned Idiot

MiG-29

Banned Idiot

Mysterre

Banned Idiot

Vini_Vidi_Vici

Junior Member

stardave

Junior Member

MiG-29

Banned Idiot

stardave

Junior Member

MiG-29

Banned Idiot

stardave

Junior Member