Right because the mighty F-35 has no protrusions
Their is a difference between VLO-compliant protrusions and the questionable ones:
The sharp-edged protrusions [weapon bays] in the underbelly and sensor-based protrusions on the top are not VLO-compliant as per aviation experts.
A comparison of the structures of F-22A and SU-57 from below:
You can also notice air inlet bumps on the bottom of SU-57 which is not the case in F-22A.
F-22A and F-35 variants* do not have similar type of protrusions.
F-22A top view:
Decent information in this link:
https://www.f-22raptor.com/st_fa22tricks.php
Design characteristics of F-35 variants:
*The EOTS in F-35 variants at the bottom, is VLO-compliant [position-wise, and it is enclosed in a sapphire glass window with Indium Tin Oxide (ITO) treatment].
and the F-22 have no sloppy gaps and 90 degree corners around the rear nozzles.
View attachment 524182
View attachment 524181
F-22A has ceramic RAM blockers right before the nozzles, mind you.
Below is a diagram which better illustrate the differences in the rear sections of both aircraft:-
Contrast:
[1]
http://www.latinaero.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/nws_dfs_170811_01-001.jpg
[2] ]
http://lh3.ggpht.com/-aFkewsgd-44/UBJViw05VZI/AAAAAAAAFt0/nVf6Pp8VIZE/T-50-PAK-FA-Fifth-Generation-Fighter-Aircraft-FGFA-02_thumb%255B1%255D.jpg?imgmax=800
With:
[1]
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4080/4809802434_299d9f1425_b.jpg
"The shaping of the T-50 is inferior to that of the F-22 Raptor. This is mostly a byproduct of the significantly more complex shaping of the lower fuselage area, the use of a tunnel between the engine nacelles, and the aft fuselage join between the aft engine nacelles, and fuselage at the wing and stabilator roots. The single narrow specular mainlobe produced by the careful shaping and fuselage joining of the F-22 presents a much smaller visible angular extent compared to the T-50." - Air Power Australia (2010)
"The T-50’s design emphasizes frontal stealth, with RCS-reducing features most apparent in the forward hemisphere; the shaping of the aft fuselage is much less optimized for radar stealth compared to the F-22. The combined effect of airframe shape and RAM of the production aircraft is estimated to have reduced the aircraft’s RCS to a value thirty times smaller than that of the Su-27. Sukhoi’s patent of the T-50’s stealth features cites an average RCS of the aircraft of approximately 0.1-1 square meters." - Thai Military
[1]
http://fullafterburner.weebly.com/uploads/8/4/8/6/84869598/22_orig.jpg
[2]
http://fullafterburner.weebly.com/uploads/8/4/8/6/84869598/30_orig.jpg
"The Joint of Vertical Stabiliser and Horizontal stabiliser with aft body of F 22 has been thoughroughly optimised to reduce radar reflection." - Full Afterburner
The engines in F-22A are also VLO-compliant:
http://aviationweek.com/program-management-corner/closer-look-stealth-part-5-nozzles-and-exhausts
You are the only individual on the web, who is boasting that F-22A is not VLO-compliant in the rear. However, every single aviation expert is claiming otherwise, and pointing out that the rear section of SU-57 is not VLO-compliant instead.
As for those protruding antenna? You clearly have no aviation experience. The YF-22 and F-35 prototype also had the same thing for testing, every prototype has one; but for once you got one thing right, it was removed. As for "cockpit window type", you are talking about the frontal shape being close to 90 degrees? That makes little difference since all those 45 degree serrations will be 90 degrees at some point depending on angle.
Lovely how random, often times unanimous people that are clueless about aviation in general, particularly about the SU-57 are "aviation experts" if they post something negative about the aircraft, yet if someone from Russia says something about F-22 that you disagree with then they are propagandist.
Their are significant differences in the design (airframe), avionics + sensor suite, and RAM treatment of SU-57 and F-22A; I am highlighting some of these differences in order dispel the notion that the holistic RCS ouput of these two aircraft is very close (0.3 m^2 and 0.35 m^2).
So, yes, I am not buying these figures. This is not an indication of bias on my end, but I have a critical mindset and prefer to do my own homework for virtually any theme of discussion. I would even critic F-22A in a relevant discussion, should the need arise, but this aircraft do not have a list of glaring shortcomings.
Virtually any COAS of Pakistan have asserted - while addressing troops - that Pakistan Army is the best in the world in view of its accomplishments in War On Terror (live recordings), but I have my independent observations. Reality is much complex than moral-raising assertions. Conventional wisdom is a gift I suppose, but I am not into providing an argument for the sake of argument.
You behave like a Russian bot on the other hand; you take even Russian propaganda efforts at face value which is naive. Have some independent thought.
A Russian source claimed that F-22A and SU-57 have an RCS of 0.3 m^2 and 0.35 m^2 respectively, then it must be true. NO SHIT SHERLOCK.
There is no noticeable difference between the newer 511 airframe and any US aircraft and sorry the SU-57 will never have the same seams and gaps as the F-22 around the engine but it shows how desperate you are getting.
Their are noticeable differences in the airframe of SU-57 and F-22A. Some of these differences are visible from afar (see above).
Additional differences will become apparent with careful inspections up close:
"The F/A-22 has a low height triangle appearance from the front. This physical cross sectional view ensures a small signature from the front and low observability touches such as paint and materials, as well as little "W" shapes where straight lines might have appeared, all tend to break up the signature by absorption or redirection.
CLICK:
https://www.f-22raptor.com/pix/photos/rcs/gal_234_b.jpg
The "W" shapes are found at numerous places on the stealth aircraft. For instance, in the forefront of the cockpit glass, there is a very apparent "W" shape. This reduces the radar energy reflected during a head-on pass to the radar emitter. The "W" shape is also found on landing gear doors, engine inlets and outlets, as well as other openings."
Source:
https://www.f-22raptor.com/st_fa22tricks.php
Good to see that you admit that the SU-57 will never have identical seams and gaps as in the F-22.
Next step is to come to terms with the fact that the airframe of F-22 is VLO-compliant to a much greater degree than SU-57 (numerous hints provided above; my comments and information in the links). RAM coating treatments are also different for both.
Now you are just being ridiculous. There is no "gap" anywhere, what you are seeing is the entire vertical stabilizer moving. Remember the SU-57 has no tradition rudder which eliminates discontinuities,
gaps as you call them.
But I do see a very large gap at the base of the F-22 vertical stabilizer and plenty of gap when the rudder moves and dozens of other gaps.
View attachment 524180
See above.
The F-35 uses rudders, there is the same "gap" there when the rudder is applied. As for tight profile, the F-22 vertical stabilizers are about 2x bigger then the SU-57 and they have rudders unlike the SU-57, If this were the other way around you would bash the SU-57.
Meaningful discussion here:
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-...tical-stabilizers-compared-to-the-T50-and-J20
"The rear-aspect view of the aircraft is not as stealthy, a feature also seen on the Sukhoi T-50. This is clearly an intentional trade, eliminating the heavy 2D nozzles of the F-22. In this respect, both the T-50 and J-20 reflect the philosophy behind the pre-1986 Advanced Tactical Fighter studies that preceded the F-22, based on the theory that a fast, high-flying, agile aircraft is relatively immune from rear-quarter attacks." - Bill Sweetman (2012)
There is seams around the canopy? This seam "eliminates Stealth"....more like this statement tells me all I need to know about you. There are many techniques to reduce radar cross sections such as faceting, platform alignment, continuous curvature, and keeping seams tight and plush.
There is no such thing as "eliminating stealth". 90 degree corners are avoided whenever possible but if the F-22 or F-35 suddenly got 90 degree vertical stabilizers, their front, rear, bottom and 45 degree RCS would not change. Only the side and area between the horizontal stabilizer would change. So even if the SU-57 had this imaginary giant seam at most it would contribute an increase in some direction(s) how much? Literally only the engineers would know after testing in a anechoic chamber. You are not qualified to make such claims.
The bullet points are from an engineer working for Lockheed Martin (identity withheld from the public); he understands this stuff much better than either of us, and distant observers in general. He is best suited to clarify his points with relevant graphical aids [should he choose to], but why would he want to give Russians rich pointers? Why not let Russians believe that they have mastered the art of stealth? Real surprises lay in store for potential enemies in a battlespace, mind you.
You can seek further insight and clarification on Quora; somebody might address your queries there.
I am also tagging a member who understand this stuff better than most on PG:
@Manticore
SU-57 is essentially a re-imagined SU-27 with an LO-compliant design (core similarities); I tend to distinguish LO from VLO to highlight this difference.
Boeing also proposed an LO-compliant design of F-15C in the form of F-15 Silent Eagle:
Advanced prototype:
Some countries (including Israel) signaled there interest in this bird, but Pentagon rejected this project.
Please keep in mind that F-22A is not a re-imagined F-15C but a VLO-compliant design from scratch. It is a class of its own in the domain of VLO, but no longer in production.
American military expedition in Vietnam turned into a disaster, but this war provided invaluable insight to Americans in regards to developing new generation of weapon systems, and how to minimize casualties, for potential expeditions in the future. It would be the Iraqi armed forces to experience the might of an ENTIRELY EVOLVED war-machine in 1991, and fell apart in a span of 45 days. And additional expeditions under the banner of War On Terror since 2001 are also among the least costly wars in terms of men and materials in American history. At present, US is rolling out another wave of weapon systems, and these are aimed for dominating modern-era battlespaces involving Russia and/or China.
Yes! Numerous factors such as faceting, platform alignment, continuous curvature, and keeping seams tight and plush, RAM coating, engines, and avionics + sensor suite, come together to reduce RCS of an aircraft; SU-57 have a much lower RCS than SU-27 due to combination of these factors. And F-22A excel in all of these areas [in case you didn't knew].
Sukhoi built the SU-47 demonstrator over 20 years ago, It also had a smooth flat fuselage, serpentine intakes and weapons bays....amazing Sukhoi either unlocked magic stealth mode or Sukhoi got dumber and forgot how to build aircraft.
View attachment 524184
Their is much difference between a "demonstrator" and a "finished product." Demonstrator can be a carefree design (not operationally realistic).
A weapon bay on either SIDE is responsible for the sharp-edged protrusions in the bottom of SU-57 (pictures above). Sukhoi attempted to increase firepower of the aircraft with these additions much like in the F-22A but failed to make these additions VLO-compliant as in F-22A.
To touch on the topic you mentioned. The SU-57 has an additional 2 corner reflectors as a consequence of the fuselage design. This was a deliberate design choice for a tradeoff in more lift which give better efficiency, increases range, payload and usually helps with maneuverability. Just because the F-22 has a smooth fuselage does not exclude it from having corner reflectors in other areas. In other words the SU-57 fuselage won't "eliminate stealth" it will however increase RCS at certain angles if ground radar is present and 'eliminating' right in in between the narcels and fuselage but this alone does not mean that it will ever even be seen on radar, all is dependent on range and angle to threat.
Where do you notice corner reflectors in the bottom of F-22A? Any pointers?
SU-57 conform to stealthy principles to a reasonable extent (LO-compliant), but this is not my point of contention.
The point of contention is that F-22A is VLO-compliant in comparison.
Those RCS figures are average figures which tells you nothing especially when you have no baseline comparison to other aircraft. I seen those patents long before you, and they were published before the SU-57 even existed, long before the new engine was ever built. The aircraft has seen dozens of redesign changes over the years from the original prototype, there is no telling what the actual RCS is now or what it will be with the production model. You are also still not crasping how RCS works, since an average is the sum of all parts.
Notice the SU-57 in Syria even had special modifications just for its deployment (look behind the canopy and compare it with other modes). Look at all the other details and changes that were made.
View attachment 524183
The PRODUCTION MODEL of SU-57 conform to this patented drawing in large part:
https://redsamovar.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/t-50-pak-fa-fifth-generation-fighter-aircraft-025.jpg
Patents - irrespective of when they are filed and published - are among the best documents to consult in order to figure out [expected] performance parameters (and characteristics) of the PRODUCTION MODEL; they are supposed to be theoretically accurate in the context of DESIGNS and setting goals. Deviations might occur during the prototyping stage, but they are not necessarily for the better (engineering-related challenges and cost overruns can lead to less desirable outcomes at times). Moreover, a complex product is likely to be the sum of a series of patents (not just one), so I would not declare any patent as OUTDATED on my own.
It is rather easy to set the bar [of desirable outcomes] very high in theory. Some of the products being manufactured today, might actually be based on the documents (and concepts) proposed way back in the 1960s, but engineering-capabilities of the time were not up to the task.
The latest engine [Izd.30] for use in SU-57 [2 in total], have addressed the super-cruise part (possible up to MACH 1.3 in speed at present), reduced the RCS of the host aircraft to an extent (rear spectrum), and improved the T/W ratio of the host aircraft (from 1.02 to 1.16) - weren't these parameters envisaged in the patents earlier? F-35A have the T/W ratio of 1.16 as of 2018 as per one source (author might have access to seemingly undisclosed information).
"In order to make the device highly manoeuvrable, the Izd.117 as well as the Izd.30 are equipped with a vector thrust operating on the horizontal and vertical axes. This choice obviously has an impact on the shape of the engine nozzle, a solution such as that adopted on the F-22 (fine integration of the nozzle within the general architecture of the aircraft) being impossible to install on the Su-57." - Red Samovar (2018)
Informed Russians are under no illusion, on average.
It has nothing to do with false hope, the F-22 was close enough for the Rafale to kill it. The Rafale was no the only aircraft to kill the F-22 in mock combat either.
As member
@gambit have pointed out to you earlier, these disclosures might actually be propaganda (DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN of sorts) with doctored images. Who the hell knows?
Rafale MIGHT (emphasis on the word) have a shot against an F-22A in actual combat, but I would be really nervous in the shoes of the pilot of the former aircraft. I would be really nervous even if I were to pilot an SU-57 when up against an F-22A, to be honest. Iraqi MIG-29s and Mirage F-1s were a match for any aircraft [in the inventory of USAF] of the time in theory (I believe that relevant discussions back in the 1980s were just as furious as they are today for latest generation of aircraft), but we know how the actual fights turned out.
This is just a silly cartoon illustration. For one it claims the F-22 has a RCS of -40dbsm when no one knows what it actually is, secondly most modern Flankers have about 350-400km detection range, so I am confused, its claiming the APG-77 has a range of around 1500kms? It claims a Chinese Flanker would detect a F-22 at the distance of the red illustrated radar cone?
And what does a Chinese Flanker have anything to do with the conversation? Instead of copying and pasting walls of off topic garbage try actually compiling a coherent argument.
Jeez, you are one hot-tempered fella.
The diagram is notional, but its 'intended message' is the IMPACT of F-22A on the radar coverage of the opposing aircraft; that F-22A renders the advertised radar coverage of the opposing aircraft irrelevant due to its VLO characteristics and embedded set of defenses.
I don't think you know half of what you just posted, just throwing around a lot of stuff you read from wekepedia.
But what does this have to do with the topic? If you want to go down that route, the SU-57 consists of 3 prototype radars, 5 if you count the L bands in the wings. The 3 radars have 2300 TR modules with room for more. The SU-57 have superior radar coverage and multiple bands. The SU-57 has every sensor the F-35 has and a few it doesn't. The F-22 lacks behind the F-35 in sensors and the F-35 lacks behind the Sukhoi in quantity of sensors.
SU-57 has the additional side lobe radars and L band radars for better situational awareness and beam tunning, the side lobe radar are probably also help in SAR for SEAD roles, the L-band provides enhances jamming resilience and and extra band that helps to at least narrow down LO targets which then would focus its X-band+IRST.
But as usual you can't stay on topic....
My point was to highlight the fact that VLO aspect come down to avionics + sensor suite as well; these should be optimized for low observability by design and how they are embedded in the airframe (SU-57 have shortcomings in these matters; some pointers above).
I am also leaving a hint that SU-57 does not have DAS-equavilent [I am preparing a response for another thread in which this part will be adequately covered]. I am sure that half of what you wrote is not clear to you either; this is why you made a blanket assertion that SU-57 have everything found in F-35 variants and then some (BULLSHIT).
Yes, SU-57 does have extensive radar coverage; this is a plus point in its case. But do not expect much when the opposing aircraft is F-22A or even F-35 variants (read below).
===
F-22 pilot Lt. Col. Wade Tolliver responded to charges of sub-standard F-22 performance in a June 13/06 Virginian-Pilot article, and illustrated a number of the points above:
“In the Raptor, “I can outmaneuver an F-16, F-15, F-18. It doesn’t matter…” [and] the F-22’s radar works in a way that allows him to use it without revealing himself. Though its exact workings are classified, the F-22 is known to emit radar signals in extremely short bursts over multiple frequencies.
“Even if you detect me, you’re not going to know where I am a second from now,” said Joe Quimb, a spokesman for Lockheed Martin, the Raptor’s principal builder.
Tolliver said that radar and other sensors, along with information fed into the Raptor’s computers from ground-based radars and other planes, gives F-22 pilots an exceptional, unified view of potential threats and targets aloft and on the ground… “It’s amazing the information you have at your fingertips,” Tolliver said. In no-holds-barred mock battles with F-15s, F-16s and the Navy’s F/A-18 Hornets, he and other Raptor pilots generally “destroy” their adversaries before those foes even realize they’re around…”
That was proven in the June 2006 Northern Edge exercise, when even E-2C and E-3 AWACS aircraft reportedly weren’t much help against the F-22. After their missiles were fired, the F-22’s active & passive sensor capabilities functioned as the Raptor’s last weapon. Northern Edge 2006’s Raptors remained in the fight, flying as stealthy forward air controllers and guiding their colleagues to enemies sitting behind mountains and other “Blue Force” AWACS blind spots. When the AIM-120D AMRAAM missile enters wider service, F-22s will also have the option of actively guiding missiles fired by other aircraft.
Courtesy of the DEFENSE INDUSTRY DAILY
===
Please keep in mind that E-2C Hawkeye 2000 and E-3B Sentry are among the best of AWACS even in the present, and optimized to search for enemy aircraft in the low frequency ranges.
I believe that special RAM coating treatments have a role in ensuring VLO output even in the low frequency ranges - something beyond the scope of any open-source analysis.
No one said anything about the F-22 being worse then the Rafale it clearly has a better radar and smaller RCS, but the Rafale can hold its ground in WVR.
Addressed above.
A Russian wrote the wrote the book on "stealth" literally. There is no super secret that only Americans know, they were just the first that used the formulas, everything about how "stealth" works is public knowledge. And if we talk about someone taking lessons, it was Lockheed that bought the Yak-141 design and had Russian advisors. It was Lockheed that bought many things from Russia to install on US satellites and rockets but none of this is to the topic or changes the fact that the F-22 has dozens of gaps and 90 degree corner reflectors around the nozzles, but now the F-22 defies physics.
Member
@gambit have covered this part in a response to you.
As for the imaginary defects in the VLO-compliant rear section of F-22A; please seek an instructor in VLO sciences (American preferably). I covered this part to a certain extent above, but not expecting you to follow through.
Again more off topic copy and paste jobs. Those F-22 engines are easily picked up by the IRST on the SU-35, those gaps and 90 degree corner reflectors are also make a nice target.
You were bragging about those stellar engines?
View attachment 524185
Does not look authentic to me.
@gambit what do you think?
Russian propaganda efforts are a given in a contested region such as Syria:
https://thenewsrep.com/96030/while-...red-and-it-didnt-end-like-russias-fairy-tale/
Another:
https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-russian-su-35-pilot-f-22-dogfight-2018-9
And even if an SU-35S got so close as to obtain a lock on an F-22A with its OLS-35 IRST solution somewhere over Syria (possible up to 20 KM distance; assuming lack of IR-suppressing features in the opposing aircraft), the SU-35S itself would be under the lock from another F-22A nearby [a pair of F-22A are known to patrol Syrian airspace at any given time]. F-22A have IR-suppressing capabilities by the way. In fact, pilot of the F-22A [under lock supposedly] would be aware of the presence of an SU-35S nearby (and its position) much earlier.
Russia and US have DECONFLICTION arrangement for operations in Syria, and are unlikely to fight each other there anyways.
More off topic, copy and paste jobs. Again you can't think for yourself. Copying and pasting a wall of text about the F-22 engine just make you look desperate.
Nevermind.
Shall we talk about how you are embarrassing yourself? Quick find something to copy and paste!
Did it occur to you that SU-57 have an inlet problem in terms of VLO?
There is also some talk about about (name anything) not being up to standard. That is how pathetic your arguments are. Keep your "pointers" from quora.com to yourself
There is a number of ways to reduce RCS from inlets including radar blockers which are in use in aircraft such as the F-18SH they have also been used in prototype Boeing aircraft. Other methods include using ramps or mesh.
But until you take the SU-57 into an anechoic chamber and do extensive testing you and those random internet experts should stop embarrassing yourselves.
And how effective are these radar blockers? Not very.
F/A-18E and SU-57 are peers in LO by the way - both feature the AMAZING SPIDERMAN radar blocker technologies.
From Lockeed Martin: "True stealth cannot be retrofitted."
We had an employee (a foreign national) steal and sell very complex and garded technology technology from where I work. He worked as an engineer and had all the know how. It takes millions of dollars, sometimes billions of dollars and dozens or hundreds of machines to produce what this engineer stole and the country he sold the information to started producing the same thing.
And I have worked for one of the largest military manufacturers in the world, actually I worked on a classified project but please do lecture me some more on this topic. I'm amused honestly.
True engineers do not bring the "walls of text" argument, and neither are they arrogant.
I do get the impression from your posts that you have a good grasp of various concepts (you might be a professional), but you need to act like one. Start with a humble take on things in your posts, so that potential readers give you the benefit of doubt and respect you in person.
I am sure that your grasp of certain topics is much better than mine, but I am very very good in digging out information [of interest], and I have the capacity to understand complex stuff (academic credentials and skills).
I would be tagging you in some of my discussions in regards to Russian stuff.
No, it's not, the SU-57 was built with sensors that are not found on the F-22, it was built to have better situational awareness and it was built to do things that the F-22 simply can not.
Not this again.
Tyler Rogoway have written an article in which he have provided an overview of the key merits of SU-57:
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...k-six-features-we-like-on-russias-new-fighter
So there is positive publicity in the Western circles, and I am keen to look into them.
MOD EDIT: No personal insults
