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.
The patent you keep referring to completely contradicts your claims and that of online-bloggers. Just a small snippet but the rest you can read yourself and don't don't be under any illusions that just because you use google translate that you know precisely what is being said.
http://195.208.85.248/Archive/PAT/2012FULL/2012.01.27/DOC/RUNWC1/000/000/002/440/916/document.pdf
Двигатели самолета расположены в хвостовой части, вплотную друг к другу, что при расположении воздухозаборников по бокам фюзеляжа позволяет реализовать изогнутую форму каналов воздухозаборников. Данное решение применяется для снижения радиолокационной заметности двигателя, и, как следствие, самолета в целом
Amongst other things the patent talks about the engine shape deflecting radar away from the axis, essentially it says the aircraft employed platform alignment. This is also variable if you google in English were people summarized the patent:
http://rentaka.weebly.com/blog/pak-fa-stealth-features-patent-published
"The shape of the airframe reduces the number of directions that radar signals are reflected in with the angles of sweep of the wings and the tail plane's leading and trailing edges, the edges of the air intakes and hatch covers being reduced and deflected from the aircraft's axis. Viewing the aircraft from the flank, the fuselage sides, lateral edges of the air intakes and vertical empennage are all deflected at the same angle."
Now let's use some critical thinking instead of copying and pasting. The inlets are designed for minimnal radar scatter and controling airflow, this is evident by their trapezoid shape that aligns with other major aircraft structures such as leading edges, in essence redirect radar emissions in one direction, laterally away from the threat. The radar blockers, vent screens, slight curvature and complex shape of the inner wall, aka the "sharp" edge as you call it is also mentioned in the patent and impossible to eyeball and make general blanket statements.
Furthermore, the " sharp" edge, as you call it, is faceting inside the inlet where meshed intake ramps converge which has a duel use of, 1. controlling airflow and 2. blocking the inlet face of the engine compressors which either currently have 'radar blockers' or will have them in the future in accordance with the patent. If I understand you correctly you are now claiming faceting is bad...better tell physicists and Lockheed Martin to stop using faceting because it creates sharp edges.
As for "sharp edges", the entire F-117 was made up of them, so what you and those "aviation experts" are saying is dishonest, the F-117 used faceting techniques as apposed to today's aircraft which use mostly continuous editing
curvature and blending, with faceting around the side of the fuselage.
Notice two things with the F-117, firstly
it has more corner reflectors then any conventional aircraft and secondly it has sharp corners everywhere which are designed re-direct radar emissions. A great example is the top of the fuselage which resembles a pyramid. The reasons for this is similar to why serrations are added to bays, its similar to why the rear of these aircraft have sharp lines that are almost trapezoid like. A good example is the B-2 or F-117. Notice the back of the aircraft and all the sharp convergence of points, very similar to the "w" shape one of your sources mentioned. If today was the first time you found out about the F-117 and you knew nothing about its country of origin or impressive combat record you would probably argue that it's not "VLO compliant", you would argue about the dozen corner reflectors, canopy, none smooth surfaces and all moving v-tails in which you criticized the SU-57 for. Everything you criticized the SU-57 is found on the F-117.
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 cha
racteristics of F-35 variants:
Those sensors are still being tested around with, and change from model to model. When the SU-57s were sent to Syria the SU-57s didn't try to mask their RCS with any enhancers or external tanks, which indicates that the production model will have additional changes to where it will effect the RCS, otherwise they would never allow the aircraft to be exploited to enemy radars. The only noticeable thing they did was they covered up the mesh radar absorbers aft of the canopy which probably helped increase the RCS.
I will want to see what the sensors will look like on the first production aircraft before I can say anything meaningful about them. It should also be noted that the SU-57 uses mesh absorbers much smaller then the wave length itself--interestingly enough a similar solution was used on the F-117 intakes. Those absorbers are right next to one of those 'bumps'. This is added to areas of concern, I would hypothesize that it might have something to do with the round sensor or the flight control surfaces, mainly vertical stabilizers in full or partial deflection, possibly a combination of both. Either way they are added to reduce RCS. The pak-fa /SU-57 has been bashed for these absorbers by ignorant online trolls for years now, they often mention that it's "unstealthy" .....little do they know is that they behave in a manor opposite of what they claim, that they are actually absorbers that probably do a much better job then any RAM paint could ever hope for. The casual trolls will never know any of the science or engineering behind these vents, they may not even notice them at all and if they do they will proclaim, the common armchair general phrase...'that's not stealthy'.
Here is what I'm talking about:
In other words Sukhoi knows much better then anyone on line no matter how those online amateurs try to bend the rules or act like they are some kind of gurus.
*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].
Completely irrelevant the SU-57 canopy and sensor housing use 10-12 layers Of tin, oxide and gold to block EM energy and reduces the RCS by 250 times. I don't even know why you brought this topic up, you think that Sukhoi didn't bother treating the canopy or optical housing? Are you trying to impress me? What's next, you you going to post a link that mentions the F-35 has a pair of wings? Am I supposed to be impressed?
Here it is:
https://iz.ru/export/google/amp/248389
"According to the head designer CVTs «Development» Vladimir Vikulina, which was quoted, spraying glass cockpit make multilayered. In addition to gold to shield the lamp used indium and tin. The thickness of the 1st layer is at most 20 nm, and the thickness of the entire deposition — 90 nanometers. This design allows lower radiozametnost avionics 250 times."
F-22A has ceramic RAM blockers right before the nozzles, mind you.
This has literally been a standard for conventional aircraft for over a decade. You would be surprised on the effort put forward by Dassualt to reduce radar signature from the Rafale and other conventional aircraft.
The SU-57 does use absorbent material around and inside the intakes:
http://rentaka.weebly.com/blog/pak-fa-stealth-features-patent-published
"the patent spells out the benefits of internal weapons carriage, s-shaped engine air ducts, (which were considered but are actually not implemented in the production PAK FA), and the use of radar blockers. It adds that the inlet guide vanes of the engines' compressors generate "a significant portion [up to 60%] of the radar cross-section of the airframe-powerplant system in the forward hemisphere" and that this is reduced by using radar-blocking devices and radar-absorbing coatings in the walls of the air ducts"
Here is a chunk of the SU-57 composite material, which is apparently made of a fine polymer composite. Notice the thickness and inner honeycomb like structure for additional aid in absorption. Even old aircraft in the Soviet Union used carbon composite materials. Literally nothing new here.
Below is a diagram which better illustrate
the differences in the rear sections of both aircraft:-
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4080/4809802434_299d9f1425_b.jpg
"The shaping of t
he 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 tunn
el between the engine nacelles, and the aft f
uselage 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)
Air Power Australia also states that the F-35 is irrelevant because of the introduction of the pak-fa. It also states that the pak-fa has an intake tunnel which so does the F-22. Air Power Australia and Copp are pak-fa fanboys that trash the F-35.
"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
More copy and paste opinions......the SU-57 also used shaping, composite material and RAM to reduce its RCS. Pointing out that the F-22 uses these techniques does not magically negate the fact that this is standard 'stuff' for the SU-57. Again nothing you post is somehow unique or impressive.
"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.
Now post a close up of the nozzles instead of a grainy small grainy photo. Trying to hide the truth? Those American "aviation experts" can claim the spaghetti monster is real. It doesn't change the fact that the F-22 nozzles have 90 degree angles that have exposed mechanical bits that are not shielded when the nozzles move/deflect. There is also 30+ gaps around the engines, some are several inches thick.
You and those "experts" aka journalists and bloggers are trying to defy the laws of physics. I am honest enough to state where the SU-57 has areas of compromise, but you can not exercise the same fairness and honesty. I can acknowledge both the F-22 and F-35 are amazing aircraft that have many advances, you on the other hand make false claims such as the SU-57 is equivalent to an F-18E and it's nothing more then a Flanker.
So, yes, I am not buying these figures. This is not an indication of bias on my end, but I have a critical mindset
You not bias? You claimed the F-18, with 90 degree fuselage, no internal weapons bays, no platform alignment and large pylons is an equivalent to the SU-57 in 'stealth'. Such critical and technical thinking.
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.
Read what I said about about that source. I doubted the authenticity and accuracy of those figures from the beginning. There is literally no way to verify anything especially who those Russian "experts" are. You accused me of being a Russian bot and taking everything that comes from Russia at "face values" when I actually have been skeptical of everything and have shown to do my own research. You on the other hand are the one that takes everything at face value when it comes to anything positive related to US aircraft, even if it's posting blogs and citing random people off forums as long as they agree with you.
"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
You just copied and pasted something that says "the F-22 has a lower height triangle from the front." The SU-57 has much smaller vertical stabilizers and smaller random that doesn't drop down and taper off from the bottom. I could use the same tactics and post how the SU-57 has small, all moving vertical stabilizers which help in reducing RCS, I can post how it has a narrow lateral profile, I can post many things. In the end what does this achieve exactly?
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
You might as well post an entire wikipedia page. That source just talk about serrated panels and bays. The fact is the SU-57 uses serrations in almost everything besides a few areas that they will probably change. Again what is the point of posting all of this? I can quite literally point out the same features in the SU-57. The F-22 does not have anything special or unique besides the nozzles, everything else is as common as vanilla ice cream.
See above.
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)
I don't care about online opinions from Bill Sweetman that mentioned engines/nozzles that the SU-57 will not use, but nothing new here, you copy and paste opinions that are factual wrong and outdated. The 117 engine and nozzles are not intended for the SU-57. The two engines are worlds apart, they literally have nothing in common nor are they related in anyway. The performance and nozzle shaping of the 117 engines and the production engines, the 30 for short, are night and day. It's like comparing a Volkswagen Jetta to a Ferrari 420. The later is of much higher performance and engineering and will be far superior.
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
Now now tagging people for help. What are you expecting? That they agree with you that 90 degree corners magically bend the rules of physics just because the F-22 has them when the nozzle defects? You are clearly losing the debate so you are trying to get people to debate me on your behalf.
[QUOTE="LeGenD, post: [URL='https://defence.pk/pdf/tel:10992190']10992190[/URL], member: 1344"]
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.[/QUOTE]
Yea, they are so identical but have nothing in common beside a similar landing gear. You are just outright trolling at this point.
Meh, close enough I guess.
[ATTACH=full]525391[/ATTACH]
[QUOTE="LeGenD, post: [URL='https://defence.pk/pdf/tel:10992190']10992190[/URL], member: 1344"]
Boeing also proposed an LO-compliant design of F-15C in the form of F-15 Silent Eagle:
[MEDIA=youtube]9Xwjzu61IGk[/MEDIA]
Advanced prototype:
[MEDIA=youtube]UldoGIMRsSY[/MEDIA][/QUOTE]
Boing took an F-15, canted the tails and added some internal weapons bays. The SU-57 does not have the Flankers fuselage, front... back or top, it does not have the same wing structure, it does not have the same engines, intakes, canopy, tail boom, vertical stabilizers or anything. From an engineering standpoint you are completely wrong, from a logical standpoint you are also wrong. The two aircraft share nothing in common.
[QUOTE="LeGenD, post: [URL='https://defence.pk/pdf/tel:10992190']10992190[/URL], member: 1344"]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Completely off topic and irrelevant. Russia has rolled out many new weapons as well that are designed to deal with and "dominate" the US in a battlefield.
[QUOTE="LeGenD, post: [URL='https://defence.pk/pdf/tel:10992190']10992190[/URL], member: 1344"]
Their is much difference between a "demonstrator" and a "finished product." Demonstrator can be a carefree design (not operationally realistic).
[/QUOTE]
Sukhoi built the SU-47 on a small budget back in the 1990s. It had everything you claimed Russia can not achieve in a "stealth" aircraft: flat fuselage, serpentine intakes, etc. Even the Yak-130 has a flat fuselage and serpentine intakes. Sukhoi put a lot of thought in the SU-57 design, every last bolt, wire, panel, etc was careful designed and well thought out. If Sukhoi wanted a flat fuselage, they could have had it. This is one of the largest and most experienced aircraft designers in the world with access to world class test facilities, institutions, subcontractors and engineers at its disposal. It literally blows my mind that you would even suggest that they somehow could not build the SU-57 to have a flat fuselage. They in fact considered it and rejected the idea.
[QUOTE="LeGenD, post: [URL='https://defence.pk/pdf/tel:10992190']10992190[/URL], member: 1344"]
Where do you notice corner reflectors in the bottom of F-22A? Any pointers?
[/QUOTE]
I explicitly mentioned that the SU-57 had addition corners reflectors, I then mentioned the F-22 also had them, just less of them.
You still don't get it. Corner reflectors are present on all aircraft besides maybe flying wing platforms. Their intensity varies depending on angle of said corner. For radar to 'aluminate' a corner reflector it has to be perpendicular to the corner (target) or at least in the general area. Even a radar is perpendicular, the altitude has a factor to play, if the aircraft is not high enough the radar will not have a clear line of sight to the corner.
For strike missions carful planing is used, no one just flies over SAMs at least not if it can be avoided. If possible aircraft will fly between 'gaps' in radar coverage and use cruise missiles, deticated SEADs or strategic aircraft for the initial strikes. The worst case scenario is that an SU-57 gets unlucky enough to fly into the path of an air defense battery, in which the battery is lucky enough to 'eliminate' the SU-57s in its most vulnerable areas. Theoretically let's assume it's lucky and locks on, luckily the SU-57 is designed MAWS capabilities and other SEAD specific avionics that will warn the aircraft and help it defeat the incoming missiles with electric warfare. At worst case it will do evasive maneuvers which would likely cause the enemy to lose radar lock.
In reality the SU-57 will probably fly into a heavily defended war zone after a barrage of cruise missiles soften enemy defenses. We know that the SU-57 will have its mission computer programed to fly a specific route, and hit specific targets. The pilot will essentially be the weapons systems operator and take control of the aircraft if some unforeseen event takes place. The SU-57 is also designed to use long range cruise missiles which gives it standoff capabilities that very much deny radars to ever track it at those ranges. Essentially it's range is part of its stealth, much the way a sniper works.
[QUOTE="LeGenD, post: [URL='https://defence.pk/pdf/tel:10992190']10992190[/URL], member: 1344"]
The PRODUCTION MODEL of SU-57 conform to this patented drawing in large part: [URL]https://redsamovar.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/t-50-pak-fa-fifth-generation-fighter-aircraft-025.jpg[/URL]
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.[/QUOTE]
This is were you are wrong, a patent about an aircraft before it is complete tell you little certainty not enough and doesn't tell you anything about the finished product. In fact the patent drawing now differ from the SU-57 such as vertical stabilizer base which reduced the intensity of the corner reflectors along were the horizontal and vertical stabilizers join. There are always improvements that are made to an aircraft during the life of its development, sometimes hundreds of improvements are made based on inherent design flaws, pilot feed back, and changes to operational requirements and improvements in technology. The SU-57 has had redesign changes structurally and internally because the test pilots feedback. The avionics have also improved because of more advanced microprocessors, etc. The F-22 is a lot different from the YF-22 prototype because they found flaws and improved upon the aircraft, flaws that were not evident in the conceptual phase.
[QUOTE="LeGenD, post: [URL='https://defence.pk/pdf/tel:10992190']10992190[/URL], member: 1344"]
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).[/QUOTE]
DAS literally mean 'Distributed Aperture System'. It uses electro optical sensors for a 360 degree aperture. The SU-57 also uses distributed (literally throughout the aircraft) electro optical sensors called Atoll, it has 360 degree coverage as well.
Sensor by sensor the SU-57 has an equivalent sensor for the DAS system:
[LIST]
[*]MAWS: Su-57 uses 101KS-U while F-35 uses AN/AAQ-37.
[/LIST]
[LIST]
[*]IRST: Su-57 uses 101KS-V, the F-35 uses the AN/AAQ-40 EOTS
[/LIST]
[LIST]
[*]ECM, Su-57 uses the L402 Himalayas, while F-35 uses AN/ASQ-239
[/LIST]
[LIST]
[*]Navigation and landing: Su-57 uses 101KS-P and 101KS-N (probable FLIR) while F-35 uses AN/AAQ-37.
[/LIST]
[LIST]
[*]For DIRCM: Su-57 uses 101KS-O while F-35 uses ThNDR.
[/LIST]
The addition advantage is that the SU-57 has additional sensors and better radar FOV. The difference here is the OLS-50 doesn't have the FOV as the EOTS because it is located in front of the canopy while the EOTS is beneath the aircraft. However, the SU-57 has better FOV with other sensors such as the two side radars that will also help scanning and identifying ground threats. There was never a marketing campaign done by Sukhoi to advertise those systems on the scale that Lockheed has done, so a lot of people don't know about them. DAS or distributed aperture system, is found on the SU-57.
[QUOTE="LeGenD, post: [URL='https://defence.pk/pdf/tel:10992190']10992190[/URL], member: 1344"]
Does not look authentic to me.
[USER=15642]@gambit what do you think?[/QUOTE]
100% real. A Russian pilot in Syria named Ivan Ivanov posted the picture on his Instagram and it went viral appearing on the news. He also posted pictures of F-15s and even B-52 over Syria captured by the SU-35 OLS system, not to mention some synthetic aperture pictures taken by his aircraft. He is the real deal.
The F-22 nozzles do work in reducing IR signature. It's nothing that i or anyone reasonably will argue about but the older OlS-35 easily picked up its IR signature, the OLS-50 should be even better. Some people still can not come to terms with the fact that the SU-35 IRST was able to pick up the IR signature of the F-22 engines which some fanboys thought were practically invincible in the IR spectrum. These systems can even pick up the heat signature from the front or side of any aircraft because they do heat up the faster they travel through the atmosphere. Everything should be taken in context but the SU-57 will see the IR signature of the F-22 from quite a distance while the F-22 has nothing to see the heat signature of the SU-57. Debating who will see who first on radar or if radar will see one aircraft before the IRST futile because no one can prove anything.
What matters is that it did happen, and that the SU-57 has a better IRST system and can get much closer before being detected then any SU-35 can.
Here it is if you don't believe me.
https://www.instagram.com/fighter_bomber_/?hl=en
Did it occur to you that SU-57 have an inlet problem in terms of VLO?
Well according the the patents, which you hold in high regards, the inlets do not have any problems with VLO. Your claim is a sensationalist one. How would you even know this unless you actually tested the intake extensively? We are not talking about simple corner reflectors or 90 degree angles, we are talking about a very complex designed intake that features complex shaping, mesh intake ramps and a fan blocker as well as RAM or RAS, its extremely narcissistic to make such claims. How well those intakes reduce RCS is only something a select number of people from Sukhoi know, and they only know this because of extensive testing in special facilities, certainly they didn't eyeball it and guess.
F/A-18E and SU-57 are peers in LO by the way - both feature the AMAZING SPIDERMAN radar blocker technologies.
This is just dishonesty, do you actually have some RCS testing data on both aircraft intakes systems to come to that bold conclusion about radar blockers? We still don't even have photographs of the SU-57 radar blockers so your claim is totally false and can not be proven even if we knew how the SU-57 radar blockers looked due to the complexity of the intake system. The tactics you are using is to try to pivot away from the topic, you are trying to troll bait me into a ridiculous game.
The F-18 is no "peer" to the SU-57 period. The F-18, even if it was in a clean configuration with no pylons or external weapons would still have nothing on the SU-57 in terms of shaping. For starters the fuselage has 90 degrees corners, that alone makes your claim bogus and not just in terms of debating but in terms of physics and science. Furthermore it has pronounced 90 degree corner reflectors alone places like the leading edges extensions as well as many many other areas. It also has no platforms alignment, as well as large gaps around were the flaps are, it has major discontinuities and no blending and certainly not enough faceting. You still do not realize how important wing/fuselage shaping particularly frontal RCS reduction. There is a good reason why these 'stealth' aircraft are shaped similar to a trapezoid or diamond. You still don't realize how important platform alignment is to redirect energy.
Those is one of many reasons the F-18 will never match the RCS of the SU-57, 90 degree cerfaces is the other but I don't think I need to post a picture showing the obvious.
By your standards the Iranian F-5 copy with V tails must also be a peer to the SU-57, because it has a flat fuselage and some serpentine intakes. Therefore, I can also make the brilliant conclusion that the Iranian F-5 knockoff is also a peer to the the F-22. That is literally your logic.[/USER]
