British/Italian Tempest Fighter : News and Discussion

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
10,531
2,339
Yeah but in terms of stealth Northrop Grumman continues to be the leading authority. Since they win the b-21 competition and not LMT
Often past experience counts. They made the B-2, so they were the obvious choice. I don't know who is best, the B-21 will be stealthier than any other plane, but it is also newer. NGAD will be stealthier still. With radar improvements in between the PAK-FA/J-20 will end up no stealthier than 4th gen is now.
 

Lolwa

Senior member
Feb 6, 2020
1,554
1,004
Delhi
Often past experience counts. They made the B-2, so they were the obvious choice. I don't know who is best, the B-21 will be stealthier than any other plane, but it is also newer. NGAD will be stealthier still. With radar improvements in between the PAK-FA/J-20 will end up no stealthier than 4th gen is now.
Pak-fa and j-20 are around 0.05-0.1 in RCS. They will still be in ranges to engage unless Americans make huge leaps in radar tech.
 

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
10,531
2,339
Pak-fa and j-20 are around 0.05-0.1 in RCS. They will still be in ranges to engage unless Americans make huge leaps in radar tech.
That's not particularly stealthy today and with GaN AESA in the years to come, it will basically be as visible as 4th gen. And seeing the PAK-FA's IRSTs, and other bubble features, I doubt that is even true. More like 0.5-1sqm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shekhar Singh

Lolwa

Senior member
Feb 6, 2020
1,554
1,004
Delhi
That's not particularly stealthy today and with GaN AESA in the years to come, it will basically be as visible as 4th gen. And seeing the PAK-FA's IRSTs, and other bubble features, I doubt that is even true. More like 0.5-1sqm.
Nah it's at worst 0.5 at best it's 0.01 sqm. 4++ jets will be detected atleast 10km before the su-57 and j-20's.
 

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
10,531
2,339
Nah it's at worst 0.5 at best it's 0.01 sqm. 4++ jets will be detected atleast 10km before the su-57 and j-20's.
It's not even close to 0.01. 0.1 at the very best. Even the IRST has a bigger RCS than 0.01, not to mention the 1980s panel gaps. 0.5 is 4th gen now.
 

Parthu

Gessler
Team StratFront
Dec 1, 2017
1,067
2,224
25
Vizag, India
0.1 to 1m2 is where the F-35 and F-22 are at today.

Su-57 and J-20 are pretty much the same.

No way F-22/35 and Su-57 are in the same league in terms of RCS. The Russians weren't even aiming to develop a plane with similar stealth characteristics. The Su-57 design does take RCS reduction into consideration, just to make itself a less conspicuous target in a cluttered environment (compared to old Flankers - thanks mostly to internal weapons & trapezoidal wingform) but other than that its not really meant to be a VLO aircraft that follows the F-22/35 philosophy.

I'd think the Russians' preferred platform for penetrating protected airspace going forward would probably be the Okhotnik.

The J-20 at least tries to follow the F-22/35 philosophy...though they made some bad design choices from a LO/VLO perspective i.e. canards & ventral fins.

So while they may have come up with paint (RAM?) that shines like the American counterpart, it's anyone's guess if there is actual R&D going into the design of the airframe itself or just replicating existing designs in the hope of replicating the results.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,527
10,773
India
No way F-22/35 and Su-57 are in the same league in terms of RCS. The Russians weren't even aiming to develop a plane with similar stealth characteristics. The Su-57 design does take RCS reduction into consideration, just to make itself a less conspicuous target in a cluttered environment (compared to old Flankers - thanks mostly to internal weapons & trapezoidal wingform) but other than that its not really meant to be a VLO aircraft that follows the F-22/35 philosophy.

I'd think the Russians' preferred platform for penetrating protected airspace going forward would probably be the Okhotnik.

The J-20 at least tries to follow the F-22/35 philosophy...though they made some bad design choices from a LO/VLO perspective i.e. canards & ventral fins.

So while they may have come up with paint (RAM?) that shines like the American counterpart, it's anyone's guess if there is actual R&D going into the design of the airframe itself or just replicating existing designs in the hope of replicating the results.

The Su-57 is not as stealthy as the F-22 or the F-35, but the difference is tactically irrelevant. At best the difference is just a few times, like the difference between the F-16A and F-16C, at worst it's just 15-20 times, like the difference between F-15 and F-16.

When they say the Russians chose other parameters over stealth, what it means is the Russians could have made the jet even more stealthy, but they decided not to.

As per the Canadians, the RCS of the F-35 is 95% smaller than a tactical fighter. So, if we assume they were talking about 1m2 or 3m2, it can't be lower than that, it could actually be higher since the F/A-18C/D has a 3m2 frontal RCS, we get 0.05m2 or 0.15m2. The F-22 is said to be 0.3m2 and the Su-57 is 0.5m2. And these numbers are definitely not frontal RCS, the Canadians were very likely to have been speaking about average RCS, given the numbers we get. The Russians have also claimed the same, ie, all three jets are of the 0.1 and 1m2 RCS class. Flankers and Eagles are of the 20m2 class.

So the Su-57 is either 1.5 times bigger than the F-22 or 3 to 10 times bigger than the F-35, average RCS. None of the numbers being tactically relevant.

So when they say the F-22 looks like a marble, they are only talking about one aspect, but from other angles, including bad aspects for RCS, the average value would increase.

Plus the design, including stealth, was acceptable to the IAF.
 

Parthu

Gessler
Team StratFront
Dec 1, 2017
1,067
2,224
25
Vizag, India
The Su-57 is not as stealthy as the F-22 or the F-35, but the difference is tactically irrelevant. At best the difference is just a few times, like the difference between the F-16A and F-16C, at worst it's just 15-20 times, like the difference between F-15 and F-16.

When they say the Russians chose other parameters over stealth, what it means is the Russians could have made the jet even more stealthy, but they decided not to.

As per the Canadians, the RCS of the F-35 is 95% smaller than a tactical fighter. So, if we assume they were talking about 1m2 or 3m2, it can't be lower than that, it could actually be higher since the F/A-18C/D has a 3m2 frontal RCS, we get 0.05m2 or 0.15m2. The F-22 is said to be 0.3m2 and the Su-57 is 0.5m2. And these numbers are definitely not frontal RCS, the Canadians were very likely to have been speaking about average RCS, given the numbers we get. The Russians have also claimed the same, ie, all three jets are of the 0.1 and 1m2 RCS class. Flankers and Eagles are of the 20m2 class.

So the Su-57 is either 1.5 times bigger than the F-22 or 3 to 10 times bigger than the F-35, average RCS. None of the numbers being tactically relevant.

So when they say the F-22 looks like a marble, they are only talking about one aspect, but from other angles, including bad aspects for RCS, the average value would increase.

Plus the design, including stealth, was acceptable to the IAF.

The Russian stated figures of RCS (assuming they're not from third parties with vested interests) are sketchy at best. The frontal cross section is very much Flanker-like, with the two hanging nacelles destroying stealth to a large degree not just from the front but also from the sides. They are angled ok but the rounded edges don't seem treated wrt creeping waves - I just don't see how it could even be anywhere near F35 levels of radar deflection, let alone the F22.

Su-57.jpg


The exposed IRST mount is a sore thumb & offsets pretty much all the benefit gained by shaping the nose & wings.

From the rear, they barely even make an attempt to implement LO features.

The small tail fins are a nice touch though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shekhar Singh

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,527
10,773
India
The Russian stated figures of RCS (assuming they're not from third parties with vested interests) are sketchy at best. The frontal cross section is very much Flanker-like, with the two hanging nacelles destroying stealth to a large degree not just from the front but also from the sides. They are angled ok but the rounded edges don't seem treated wrt creeping waves - I just don't see how it could even be anywhere near F35 levels of radar deflection, let alone the F22.

Su-57.jpg


The exposed IRST mount is a sore thumb & offsets pretty much all the benefit gained by shaping the nose & wings.

From the rear, they barely even make an attempt to implement LO features.

The small tail fins are a nice touch though.

The Russian numbers are official, like patent papers from Pogosyan. It was an Indian official who first gave it away. You were like 12 or 13 then. :p

We can't eyeball stealth. There's no way to tell how waves interact with complex objects without an anechoic chamber. In any case designing for these levels of stealth is not complex. Pretty much everybody is currently at this level.

The exposed IRST is not exposed, the dome is radar transparent, and once in, the signals are absorbed and destroyed. Everything else has been designed with stealth in mind.

As for the rear, we are yet to see the definitive engine. They are yet to show off the main serial production version of the aircraft.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lolwa