franciwzm

R "I have heard that the 0.1-1m2 figure is an overall all-aspect average on other forums, and that by the same measure the F-22 works out at 0.3-0.4m2. Frontal RCS is much less for both " Offcial rcs is always referred to frontal aspect only : lateral and back rcs are obviosuly much higher, but usually back rcs is not taked in account as thermal signature increase very much from back side ( it is officialy measured just on front engagement) Frontal rcs of pak fa will be no less then 0,5 square metres if it will be properly assembled:; how could it be less with those huge no shielded /curved air intakes ? Eurocanards have all curved air intakes: obviously curved intakes decrease engine power . https://www.google.it/search?q=rafale+air+intakes&rlz=1C1VFKB_enIT600IT600&biw=1680&bih=925&tbm=isch&imgil=e2QKLfHksaIwDM%253A%253BqRqDsq26g8AF0M%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fforum.keypublishing.com%25252Fshowthread.php%25253F97863-RCS-of-eurocanards&source=iu&pf=m&fir=e2QKLfHksaIwDM%253A%252CqRqDsq26g8AF0M%252C_&usg=__h7ZC0ypeTlUFx7zz10IugAUbLZs%3D&ved=0ahUKEwjZgtiu49rMAhUFshQKHRLWDVYQyjcIJw&ei=W7w3V5npCYXkUpKst7AF#imgrc=e2QKLfHksaIwDM%3A Official frontal rcs of F22 is 0,0001 square metres, but obviously you must be very precisely allineated to measure such a tiny rcs ! F35 frontal rcs seems to be at least on par from first real flights measurements ; typhoon' captor radar seemed to be able to detect f22 from 40km; (2006 langley encounter) considering you need to reduce rcs by 16 times to cut by half detection distance, and since typhoon can detect 1 square metres rcs 200km+we can speculate that real life rcs of 22 ( not 100% allineated ) could be 1 /( 16* 200/40 ) = 1 / 80 = 0,0125 squre metres. We can speculate that real life f22 rcs is then 0,0125 square metres. Size matters: F18 pilots with aesa radar claimed that tracking gripens is very hard. Not only shape is important for rcs: thypoon' pilots in 2006 claimed that lateral and back rcs of 22is not dissimilar from typhoon' one,basing on detection range. : that could be true : 85% of eurocanards is not metal but composites, which act like natural RAM .We dont know how much lateral and back rcs of F22 is, but for sure much much much more then 0,0125 of frontal engagements real life one. We can summarize then that in lateral rcs size and materials play a greater role that in frontal rcs; and back rcs is usually not taken in account beacause of importance of thermal signature. Obviously all wing design such as b2 have great advatanges in reducing lateral rcs, but all wings design or hybrid all wings designs for fighters are yet to come.

" If they've honestly gone to that trouble to make something slightly stealthier than a Typhoon, then it's difficult to define it as a success." It is not stealthier then a thypoon: typhoon in air to air configuration has a frontal rcs of 0,3 square metres : please consider that you can subsitute amraam with meteor ,always in semirecessed positon; so pak fa in air to air configuration has bigger rcs in frontal aspect, likely much more in other angles beeing gigantic and not well optimized for side and back rcs; furthermore meteors and r 73 has very different strategic use: r73, even if has less enegagment rang then amramm c and much less then amraam d, is still a bvr missile; meteor is a different class, play like an air intimidation weapon (when planes are still at ground) With external wepaons pak fa will exceed 1 metres rcs by many metres, since external pylons only dont add rcs linearly to rcs shaped plane but incrementally: when typhoons first played with f22 at langley in 2006 and get constant track at 40km, americans first claimed that f22 had an external pod to increase rcs to better be tracked by base, then denied and a complete silence took place on what happened... Raphale has no semirecessed position for missiles but overall better stealth design so in air to air configuration rcs is pretty much equal Main advantage of gripen on similar aerodinamic and shape design of eurocanards is that is tiny. As enlighted above pak fa thermal signature will be massive, even if slightly reduced from su35 basis : su35 thermal signature is gigantic. Give f22 thermal signature of a su35 and it will be no more stealthy. Conformal tanks are beeing integrating on eurocanards, reducing that 0,8/0,9 rcs in full air to ground asset and drag as well.

Hello there ; thank you for your interest in my post; R" and about half that of a 'Eurocanard' with tanks & weapons on in a combat patrol configuration." Not really: how much gonna be pak fa rcs with full or at least comparable air to ground mission ? We dont know, likely much more then eurocanards, beacuse external weapons dont add rcs linearly to any stealth design but incrementally, and considering pak fa is larger then su35 then is larger then F15 R "So given that the PAK-FA has longer legs and 6 internal weapons bays, carrying 4*BVR, 2*WVR would make its combat RCS about the same as the 'Eurocanard' with a 'stealthy' A2A load 4*AIM-120 2*AIM-9" It depends : typhoon has semi recessed air to air missiles positions, which are designed to operate not only with amraam , but much more important with meteor missile; we know thata R77 is considerably larger and heavier then amraam, and 20% shorter engagement range then amram C and much less then amraam D, : so even if a longer range missile then R73 will be developed for air to air combat vs fighter sized and manouvring boogies, kinda obvious will not fit internally; so a typhhon with 4 meteors and 2 IRIS-T (which main purpose is defensive one beeing capable to intercept agile wvr missiles and low rcs cruise missiles) has not same strategic configuration then a PAk-fa with 4 R73 and 2 R77 R " it is likely that pak fa signature will be no less then su35 one, not beeing evident any themal signature conceling tecnique even in basic design Where did this analysis come from ?" ..In every forum I keep reading beeing the main flaw of basic design of pak -fa : there is no sign of low observable (LO) exhaust nozzle design, not speaking of or thermal tiles and recessed engines such as in f22 or B2 ("platypus" shaped exhaust: 1/4 of cost of B2 maintenance are thermal tiles covering exhaust surfaces) , but lets keep it simple : neither a petal exhaust design is observable such as in F15E, superhornet or eurocanards; put all this in the bigger an larger fighter ever designed (pak fa), not considerably possible to use an high bypass ratio engine like in A10 because it is very inefficient at high quotes, consider that current su35 engine consumes exactly 3 times more fuel then the most efficient fighter engine , the EJ200 of eurofighter, and you can suspect that thermal signature of pak fa will be at leats as big then one in su35, : thermal signature of su35 is much bigger then eurocanrds one, due in part to sheer size and weight of fighter, in part to low efficiency of engine...Not considering airfram friction, basis engine thermal signature of AL-41F looks massive in this comparison https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2014/12/06/fighter-aircraft-engine-comparision/ Flying pak fa protoypes show exhausts with no visible petals, furthermore exhaust positions is not recessed but at the opposite prominent/extruded such as in su-35 : it does not make much sense to design a LO fighter if you take no apparent thermal signature reduction tecniques, expecially in a very large and heavy fighter ,considering that most advanced IRST, such as thyphoon pirate, can track an f16 trough IRST from not less then 90km ( An su35 thermal signature is on average 2 to 3 times larger the an F16 one. )

R pak fa rcs (frontal) Initially sukhoy claimed an rcs between 0,1 ad 0,4 square metres; now is much more vague and claim an rcs between 0,1 and 1 square metres; many sources (and indians as well) claim a frontal rcs of not less then 0,5 m2 if the plane will be properly assembled with flat-head rivets for example... http://errymath.blogspot.com/2015/06/sukhoi-t-50-pakfa-stealth-technology.html http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/11/05/the_f-35_vs_the_russian_su-35_and_the_pak_fa_108649.html Just in comparison official frontal rcs of eurocanards is 0,1 clean, 0,3-0,4 in air to air configuration, 0,8-0,9 with 2 external tanks and full air to ground weapons...Pak fa with external weapons will be likely massively larger then eurocanards one... I would consider also that back rcs of pak fa will be considerably larger of eurocanrds for example, and IR signature will be massive...Typhoon IRST can detect an F16 sized thermal signature 90km+ away; it is likely that pak fa signature will be no less then su35 one, not beeing evident any themal signature conceling tecnique even in basic design (150km+ ? )