To be able to purchase on the shop necessary cookies needs to be enabled, please see our
Cookie Policy
for more detail.
Cookies are required as well to watch videos.
If you prefer not to allow cookies please call
+44 (0) 1780 480404
to place your order over the phone.
Posts: 2,372
By: archangelski - 12th July 2018 at 13:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is not surprising that this thread on the Su-57/PAK-FA is regularly removed ... From pages to pages, each revival becomes more and more the meeting place of children in a sandbox. Everyone tries to brag about his plane by decrying the one of the other simply by looking at it on photographs. Unfortunately the stealthness is not solved by a simple fuselage curve, a HUD reflecting the electronic waves or an outgrowth not inclined enough. The material used, its composition, its coating, its degree of absorption/reflection, …, are all elements to know to define the degree of stealthness. Even a B-2 has non-inclined cockpit uprights seen from the front .... Do not try to compare yourself with engineers from LM, Sukhoi or Chengdu by only pulling your data on the Internet or Wikipedia ... try to connect your neurons without becoming annoying trolls. If there was only one way to do stealth, all planes would look like an F-117 ...none would have curves like the B-2, the F-35 or the F-22...and the Su-57.
Posts: 276
By: ActionJackson - 12th July 2018 at 14:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why would they not have curves? As long as the curves are gradual, the angles low, and as long as the aircraft can be affordably maintained, everyone would build the same thing, and it would be far stealthier than the F-117....oh wait...
[ATTACH=CONFIG]261482[/ATTACH]
Good shape plus materials will always beat just materials, not disputable.
Posts: 2,372
By: archangelski - 12th July 2018 at 14:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No personal attack but you are tiring at always wanting to understand nothing and read the sentences to their first degree ... have you ever looked at the fuselage difference between an F-117 and a B-2 or F-35 ? And it is you who systematically perceive the curves as a possible return of radar waves, like the Su-57's IRST or cockpit frame. But I will stop there to avoid going into "troll attitude"...
Posts: 276
By: ActionJackson - 12th July 2018 at 14:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think you've missed something, my post was not related to curves at all.
BTW it's not my posts that get threads removed, just the children who lose their temper in frustration at themselves because they can't form a mature, coherent and informed argument. Hence why I now backup my posts in case the threads delete. Some people find them informative as they based on science fact rather than fantasy.
Posts: 2,372
By: archangelski - 12th July 2018 at 14:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Bad memory ?
Posts: 276
By: ActionJackson - 12th July 2018 at 14:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That is nothing to do with curves, but surfaces and edges which point directly at the source radar. Whether it was straight or curved, no difference, it is not sharply angled. It is a simple fact that that having very little forward facing edge and diverting most of the echos well away from the source radar is a better solution.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]261483[/ATTACH]
Posts: 73
By: Krivakapa - 12th July 2018 at 15:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@ActionJackson
Your analyse is nice but you forget one important thing and that is F-117:
https://tvrphoto.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/silver_stealth06_f117_798_0972.jpg
Many negatives you wrote about Su-57 you can see on F-117 even OLS problem is there, that thing below canopy is FLIR when it isn't in use it would rotate and backside is made as RAS RAM combo, something like that is also mentioned for OLS-50 in patent I think. If you compare that with F-35 front DAS sensor and EOTS you don't have that luxury they need to rely only on glass film coat to reduce return of their optical system and I doubt it is better then RAS RAM combo.
If you think Su-57 canopy is mass because of metal frame bar and "poorly" design backside well:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/upfiles/10515/8262480959A64B24B9F4915B1C8D2EC6.jpg
So yes Su-57 have some imperfections but it is far more dangerous then what folks thought in 2010, back then people thought it would have exposed fan blades and non stealth nozzles, now we know it isn't case, we saw new nozzle and new engine will have some kind of radar blocker. That is lot more important then some smaller fixes on airframe but to be honest I would love to see they fix them too becuase it isn't something impossible to be done.
Posts: 2,372
By: archangelski - 12th July 2018 at 15:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You mean like these ?
Posts: 276
By: ActionJackson - 12th July 2018 at 15:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
See the screen?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]261485[/ATTACH]
The YF-23 was an initial protoype and would most certainly have changed in design during development. Nobody ever said it had a better frontal RCS specifically than the YF-22, just that it was better overall which can be seen clearly by it's way more highly canted sides and hidden exhaust. The F-22's canopy leading edge is different to the YF-22's.
Posts: 276
By: ActionJackson - 12th July 2018 at 15:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You know that's all inside the cockpit right? The canopy's a single, continuous piece of glass. Surface waves travel on... surfaces.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]261487[/ATTACH]
Posts: 2,372
By: archangelski - 12th July 2018 at 15:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nice to know that the OLS and its inside is then invisible if rightly treated...
And for B-2 ?
Posts: 2,372
By: archangelski - 12th July 2018 at 15:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My last post in this thread that will not be directly related to Su-57. I just wanted to show that there are many ways to design stealth without it being seen directly, by nacked eyes, on simple pictures.
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB - 12th July 2018 at 15:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What ActionJackson does has been the approach of this childish witchhunt all along. Which is the only reason why he does it.
See if you can spot what's wrong.
It is gutter journalism through and through. And again, this is why ActionJackson does this. He was never an pseudo expert about stealth or anything. He just started doing this to the Pak fa because he seen others doing it.
The National Interest is quoting the Business Insider article which had this doozey in it. Another thing that some pseudo expert made up. Turns out it makes no sense and he looks like a moron. And the National Interest didn't even bother to check. Why ? Because its a witchhunt. Nobody is interested in the truth here.
^Note the sidebar article links.
Posts: 276
By: ActionJackson - 12th July 2018 at 15:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think you mistake travelling waves caused by incident beams hitting a surface at a low angle vs direct illumination, front on.
a) Does not have to go head to head against fighters and b) is not as stealthy as the F-117, F-22, F-35 front on. Also, it's designed primarily to penetrate VHF, UHF, L-Band protected areas where small features such as window's etc are not as important due to the wavelength.
I must say it's refreshing being in this thread now with KGB on ignore, it's done wonders to level of the post I read in here.
Posts: 73
By: Krivakapa - 12th July 2018 at 16:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@AJ
Screen for FLIR? It was removed later becuase composite RAM backside was enough plus it had impact on picture quality
https://image.slidesharecdn.com/f-117anighthawk-lockheedsstealthfighterusa-150326012628-conversion-gate01/95/f-117-a-nighthawk-lockheeds-stealth-fighter-usa-4-638.jpg?cb=1427351223
Northrop didn't think it have big impact on frontal RCS of F-23, because pole model and F-23EMD have divaded canopy with metal bar.
All you mentioned as small imperfections which could make Su-57 detectable for longer distance then F-22 but still that distance is very deadly when you need to deal with Su-57 no matter in what fighter is agianst Su-57. F-22 would be best pick agianst Su-57 but it lacks IRST.
Posts: 471
By: RadDisconnect - 12th July 2018 at 16:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ActionJackson and KGB should get their own thread so the rest of us can have a break from all the nonsense.
The issue is that the PAK FA stealth patent says only the back of the IRST is treated with RAM and it's turned backwards when not in use to preserve stealth.
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 12th July 2018 at 17:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Complete horsh@t.... if you don’t know something, don’t make it up. You and KGB would do well to follow those rules.
Just gives a bad name to Russian posters.
Posts: 73
By: Krivakapa - 12th July 2018 at 17:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@FBW
Maybe they are using coatings? But still FLIR isn't present to radar when it isn't in use. And I am not Russian, nor Russia stronk type, if you check my posts you will see how many times I correct KGB with "Su-57 intake = F-23 intake" idea, so I don't think Su-57 is the best stealth but it is good enough to make F-22/35 problems.
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 12th July 2018 at 17:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Agreed on the first.
Is it not possible to coat the OLS glass as well as the inside or backend of the OLS house.
You know, sinse they bother to spend much resources to find the right coat to the much larger cockpit glass..
And to AC;
have you study the Cockpit bar on the Su-57. How is it shaped inside the cockpit. Is square, rectangular or perhaps trapez shaped?
We know its flat on the outside. The serial birds will get a ticker RAM coating across the glass beam. Much like F-35 around its panels on the skin.
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB - 12th July 2018 at 18:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here's just some more objective fact based reporting from Business Insider. This time, with a link to The Diplomat.
So these mainstream outlets are telling everyone that the su 57 has external weapons. Shameless disinformation peddling.