Russian Su-57 Aircraft Thread (PAK-FA and IAF FGFA)

[Brumby]

Buddy i also respect your views, i guide my self by equation and physics, the Russians do not claim anything irrational, you can question the effectiveness of their tech, but i can only tell you this if stealth works S-400 will be rendered ineffective, if it does not, S-400 will show what the equation shows more wattage and the right frequencies will see stealth aircraft.

You said you are guided by physics and that is good because that is what I am asking you to do and that is to demonstrate the physics behind the S-400 that would support your narrative. Show me the features that the S-400 has that would render stealth useless and hence the F-22 ineffective.

You can be sure it works, but this are weapons and when they clash you know they work or not.

If F-22 is so good, is not a matter of advertising, but a matter of application on real combat situation and at this moment Syria is the most likely scenario where F-22 can be tested versus Irbis and S-400.

Do you realise that you are engaging in rhetorical reasoning?

the rest is useless i am not going to convince you, the only thing i can say to you is PAKFA uses another philosophy, it uses stealth to reduce its RCS, it uses 3 AESA radars and an IRST system, high agility and supercruise

You are not convincing not because I am holding a detached view but simply because you have failed to offer any shred of evidence in support of your claims.

 

[b787]

You said you are guided by physics and that is good because that is what I am asking you to do and that is to demonstrate the physics behind the S-400 that would support your narrative. Show me the features that the S-400 has that would render stealth useless and hence the F-22 ineffective.


Do you realise that you are engaging in rhetorical reasoning?


You are not convincing not because I am holding a detached view but simply because you have failed to offer any shred of evidence in support of your claims.

i gave the reasons but you are unwilling to accept that radar visibility is related to the wattage the radar generates, also you are unwilling to accept the frequency band affects the RCS, those are physical facts, VHF will enlarge the RCS, the equation explains that.
I can not argue with you forever every time you come to me as if i did not explain you, if you can not understand that equation well i can not go further
Any RCS equation will consider the shape area formula

as the website i quoted the tilting of the plate reduced the RCS, but it does not eliminate it.
Stealth is not different from the Fresnel laws of refraction and reflection shown here

however aircraft are not made from a single material but they are made by many materials thus none is really stealthy, they are only Low observable thus they are detectable.

Since this is out of topic i leave here

watch this critic to the F-35 and you will understand PAKFA, anyway let us leave it here, later we will know if the PAKFA philosophy of agility and speed over stealth is better than the American philosophy of stealth even if it does affect agility.

Better watch what a Russian expert think about PAKFA

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

The Russians at times seem bipolar on stealth. One second lauding anti stealth the next they are making promises about PAK FA and PAK DA.
The truth is that more likely they are betting on both. Anti stealth radar is not a total solution. It has limitations like all systems the Russians know this, a antistealth radar will see a conventional fighter at a far longer range then a low observable, there best option is therefore to cluster with overlapping ranges.

Stealth has advantages they are to good to dismiss. Hens the Russians are working to build their own low observable for both offence and defense with layers. B747 as well as others have pointed out the three radars of the T50, yet T50 also has a IRST system. Layers of detection systems meant to try and gain every advantage of detection they can. If This band of radar doesn't see it maybe this other will and failing that IR.

As a layerof defense the fighters will see things that the groundbased might miss and visa versa. Its meant to layer nets of such in hopes that a stealth will get just in the right spot for detection. And when netted together they hope to establish denied airspace. Bubbles of fortified airspace. Additional stealthy types to strike at enemy formations.

 

[Brumby]

i gave the reasons but you are unwilling to accept that radar visibility is related to the wattage the radar generates, also you are unwilling to accept the frequency band affects the RCS, those are physical facts, VHF will enlarge the RCS, the equation explains that.
I can not argue with you forever every time you come to me as if i did not explain you, if you can not understand that equation well i can not go further

I do not need lessons in radar science. What you need to present are evidence(s) that the S-400 has features that uses radar science to defeat the F-22 stealth features or make it ineffective

Any RCS equation will consider the shape area formula

as the website i quoted the tilting of the plate reduced the RCS, but it does not eliminate it.
Stealth is not different from the Fresnel laws of refraction and reflection shown here

however aircraft are not made from a single material but they are made by many materials thus none is really stealthy, they are only Low observable thus they are detectable.

You have a habit of pulling out a bunch of stuff but not really sticking to the subject matter. What are these bunch of stuff that supports your S-400 story line? Can you kindly connect them to your arguments.

This is my last attempt in good faith to have a reasonable conversation with you. I am not going to waste my time if you persist in this manner.

 

[b787]

I do not need lessons in radar science. What you need to present are evidence(s) that the S-400 has features that uses radar science to defeat the F-22 stealth features or make it ineffective



You have a habit of pulling out a bunch of stuff but not really sticking to the subject matter. What are these bunch of stuff that supports your S-400 story line? Can you kindly connect them to your arguments.

This is my last attempt in good faith to have a reasonable conversation with you. I am not going to waste my time if you persist in this manner.

cool leave it

 

[b787]

The Russians at times seem bipolar on stealth. One second lauding anti stealth the next they are making promises about PAK FA and PAK DA.
The truth is that more likely they are betting on both. Anti stealth radar is not a total solution. It has limitations like all systems the Russians know this, a antistealth radar will see a conventional fighter at a far longer range then a low observable, there best option is therefore to cluster with overlapping ranges.

Stealth has advantages they are to good to dismiss. Hens the Russians are working to build their own low observable for both offence and defense with layers. B747 as well as others have pointed out the three radars of the T50, yet T50 also has a IRST system. Layers of detection systems meant to try and gain every advantage of detection they can. If This band of radar doesn't see it maybe this other will and failing that IR.

As a layerof defense the fighters will see things that the groundbased might miss and visa versa. Its meant to layer nets of such in hopes that a stealth will get just in the right spot for detection. And when netted together they hope to establish denied airspace. Bubbles of fortified airspace. Additional stealthy types to strike at enemy formations.

i agree, stealth and anti-stealth technologies both have advantages and disadvantages PAKFA tries to balance and blend both

 

[Brumby]

The Russians at times seem bipolar on stealth. One second lauding anti stealth the next they are making promises about PAK FA and PAK DA.
The truth is that more likely they are betting on both. Anti stealth radar is not a total solution. It has limitations like all systems the Russians know this, a antistealth radar will see a conventional fighter at a far longer range then a low observable, there best option is therefore to cluster with overlapping ranges.

Those so called early warning radars (UVF/VHF) have limitations with clutter, false signals and resolution. This limitations is as old as radar science. As you said it is not a total solution although I would question whether this tri-band approach with overlapping ranges is even a practical solution. the Russians seem to think so. I questioned b787 Nebo's assumed strength and its basic premise but have yet to receive a reply other than more videos.

Stealth has advantages they are to good to dismiss. Hens the Russians are working to build their own low observable for both offence and defense with layers. B747 as well as others have pointed out the three radars of the T50, yet T50 also has a IRST system. Layers of detection systems meant to try and gain every advantage of detection they can. If This band of radar doesn't see it maybe this other will and failing that IR.

As a layerof defense the fighters will see things that the groundbased might miss and visa versa. Its meant to layer nets of such in hopes that a stealth will get just in the right spot for detection. And when netted together they hope to establish denied airspace. Bubbles of fortified airspace. Additional stealthy types to strike at enemy formations.

I agree with your sentiments that eventually it would require some kind of sensor net across the spectrum to deal with stealth when it becomes wide spread. Personally I think a strong solution is in optical IR because you can't hide from imaging unless you have cloaking capability. The other I heard being thrown around is in using swarms of miniaturised sensor drones to act as a net.

 

[Jura The idiot]

It sure is an expensive way to test out your radars. ...

LOL Brumby I work in Modeling so I should not be saying this but:
Seeing Is Believing

 

[SamuraiBlue]

radar visibility is related to the wattage the radar generates, also you are unwilling to accept the frequency band affects the RCS, those are physical facts, VHF will enlarge the RCS, the equation explains that.

Auuugh no it won't. I guess you don't understand what frequency within a radio(radar) wave means.
Like light, radio(radar) waves are electro-magnetic waves so the speed is constant C, no matter how low or high the frequencies are. Frequency is the amount of sin curves within a unit distance the wave travels within a unit time, meaning no matter how low or high the frequencies are within one second it will travel the same distance. Let's think about this further how can a lower frequency with less amount of bumps travel the same distance with high frequency with more bumps?
The answer is the height of the waves, with lower frequency they have a higher height compared to higher frequencies. This can easily be found simply looking at microwave ovens. If you look closely the interior of the glass is covered with a metal mesh, the width of the mesh holes are smaller then the height of the wave so no matter how strong you pump in energy, as long as the frequency is lower then the mess opening micro waves will bounce back and not penetrate the mesh while light can shine out because they have a much higher frequency.
Does that mean more energy bounces back to the source, again no, based on quantum physics the waves are also particles that moves as waves, larger the wave height the less probability it will bounce back to the receiving antenna. Again based on quantum physics if the height of the wave is larger then then target there is a large probability that it will miss the target and pass right through with no waves reflected from the target.
Like I posted before that is not how NEBO radars works, they are looking for ghosts images or a secondary image that had been deflected from the target's large side and veered off a straight course, hits an obstacle again returning to the receivers with a time lag while the primary image had reached the receivers on a straight course making it look as has a double or hearing echos.
One more this you can't mix electro-magnetic waves together, the most simple way to experiment this is to cross pass of lights, unlike light sabers they will cross passes without any resistance.

 

[b787]

Auuugh no it won't. I guess you don't understand what frequency within a radio(radar) wave means.
Like I posted before that is not how NEBO radars works, they are looking for ghosts images or a secondary image that had been deflected from the target's large side and veered off a straight course, hits an obstacle again returning to the receivers with a time lag while the primary image had reached the receivers on a straight course making it look as has a double or hearing echos.
.

“Nebo-SVU” (1L119) Radar System
The “Nebo-SVU” (1L119) radar system is designed to automatically detect, pinpoint, and track a broad range of current aircraft and air weapons: strategic and tactical aircraft, ASALM type air missiles, small targets, and low-visibility targets, particularly targets using Stealth technology.
Performance and specifications

Waveband

Air target detection range (fighter type targets)

(radar cross-section of 2.5 m2), km, minimum:

target flight altitude 100 m 25

target flight altitude 500 m 60

target flight altitude 10,000 m 270

target flight altitude 20,000 m 360

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

higher altitude longer range