RCS of Fighters Calculation

RussianStalinist wrote:Sorry if something similar to this has already been asked, but here it goes:

On the Sukhoi website, they state that the RCS of the F-22 is 0.3sqm. An Indian General (I believe) said that the PAK FA had an RCS of 0.5sqm.

The 0.3sqm for the F-22 contrasts sharply what America has said the rcs of the f-22 really is (they said something like 0.0001sqm). Why is this? Is it because Russia calculates rcs differently?

If that's the case, then what would the PAK FA's rcs be if it was calculated using the Western method?

Thanks for any answers!

How could the RCS of the PAK FA be that low? I think that Saab announced that the Gripen gets an rcs of something like 0.3sqm.

I think that a plane designed with the intention of making it vlo would have a significantly lower rcs.

IronsightSniper wrote:Uh, Carlo Kopp estimates that RCSs are:

F-22: 0.00004 m2

Stealthflanker wrote:

IronsightSniper wrote:Uh, Carlo Kopp estimates that RCSs are:

F-22: 0.00004 m2

this is new to me... commonly quoted figure is 0,0001 Sqm

GarryB wrote:

AFAIK, the Su-35's RCS (without Plasma stealth as it's a myth) is about 1 to 3 m2 on the front using X-bands. It has a very low RCS for a Russian plane, but compared to "comparable' European and American planes, they're very close RCS wise, but the Su-35 still has a slightly bigger RCS (Eurofighter estimated at 0.1 - 0.5 m2 , Rafale estimated at 0.1 - 0.2 m2 , and F-18 estimated at 0.1 m2)

How would you know what the Su-35s RCS is?

You are just guessing and the fact you suggest it has a low RCS "for a Russian plane" shows you have a bias against Russian planes.

By giving a hard figure you make it sound like you actually know when it is clearly a case of the opinion of someone who doesn't have a high opinion of Russian aircraft or their designers and engineers.

Austin wrote:The amusing part of RCS debate when I see those 0.1 m2 and 0.5 m2 for Eurofighter and Rafale is when PAK-FA chief designer mentioned that its RCS will be no worse than F-22 and will be 0.3 - 0.4 m2.

Now considering PAK-FA is a fighter designed from ground up using shape optimised for Stealth , and Rafale and Eurofighter has no such requirenment when it was designed in late 80's , F-22 certainly did.

Its really hard to see how Typhoon and Rafale can come up with those figures and its pretty meaning less for a fighter that cannot carry internal weapons but 10 -12 external HP , the careful stealth goes for toss.

Truth be told only F-22 ,PAK-FA and JSF are stealth aircraft in true sense , while Typhoon , Rafale are just some best figures obtained at certain optimium angle for certain band and is more of marketing stuff. The best RAM in the world can still produce band specific stealth.

For reference according in Yefim Gorgon latest book on Russian Strategic Aviation the rcs figures for Russian cruise missile KH-101 is 0.01m2 and 0.2-0.3 m2 for Kh-55/555

IronsightSniper wrote:You have to remember that there's a big difference between a PAK-FA and a T-50, one is stealthy, the other isn't. The Eurofighter and Rafale along with the Superbug probably got their low RCS ratings from either minimal or no external stores and plain good aircraft designing.

Austin wrote:

IronsightSniper wrote:You have to remember that there's a big difference between a PAK-FA and a T-50, one is stealthy, the other isn't. The Eurofighter and Rafale along with the Superbug probably got their low RCS ratings from either minimal or no external stores and plain good aircraft designing.

What is the BIG difference , PAK-FA is just a Russian Acronym for the project and T-50 is a prototype , much is JSF is for F-35 , they are are the same thing.

You should note that when Eurofighter , Rafale were designed aerodynamic quality was the key driving point and not stealth , same for Su-35 which is an advanced flanker derivative which superior aerodynamic quality and not real attention to stealth beyond RAM coating and perhaps radar blocker if at all.

Those are like great marketing figures , can make a good talking point but in real combat its advantage is not great but nominal.

GarryB wrote:

If you didn't know that the Su-27 and it's derivatives have always had a larger RCS than their Western counterpart you aren't looking at their dimensions correctly.

Actually the intakes on the F-15 are similar to the Tu-22M3 bomber... and the shape of them increased the RCS of the Backfire by 25%.

The Mig-21 and Mig-23 did not have larger RCS than the F-4 and F-16s that were contemporary equivelents.

The Mig-25 and F-15 are incredibly similar in external shape and most likely have near identical RCS.

You insinuated all Russian aircraft had higher RCS than their european and US equivelents.

The example you give... the Su-27 had US equivelents in the F-14 and F-15 which are hardly better in any respect. In fact the more modern blending of wing and fuselage on the Flanker should lead to better RCS characteristics than either the F-14 and F-15.


BTW if you had read the first post you would know that when they mention plasma they are talking about a surface coating technique to apply a RAM coating to the aircraft and the weapons it carries.

GarryB wrote:You said (the Su-35) ...

has a very low RCS for a Russian plane,

Suggesting that Russian planes have high RCS.

There are a couple of differences, one being that the PAK-FA has "unclean" engine intakes which increases it's RCS, and the other that, AFAIK, the PAK-FA doesn't have it's RAM yet, probably due to maintenance costs.

It is a flying prototype... two of at least 12. Stealth is hardly going to be tested on every prototype... they can do that with models including full sized models, for the flying prototypes they are more interested in flight performance, engines, radar, systems integration, weapons etc.

They won't fair that much better v.s. a full on Stealth plane, but it helps.

If a LO wont fare much better than a normal 4th or 4.5 gen fighter then it doesn't help... making a plane is expensive and a compromise in design.

Modern stealth adaptations to the F-15 would give it a far smaller RCS than even the "big modernization" of the Su-27, or in other words, make the F-15 stealthier than the Su-35.

Can you back that up with evidence or is it just your opinion?

The blended fuselage/wing design of the Flanker should already make its RCS from most angles smaller than that of the Eagle.

Lastly, plasma stealth has been, and still is, a myth. There is no proof out there other than old Internet articles that the Russians are even pursuing it anymore.

Don't really care what you believe, it was designed initially to generate ionised gas fields around warheads... there were articles in the 1990s just like there were articles about all sorts of things they wanted foreigners to invest money into to keep the programs going. Now the articles stop you can think the programs are dead all you want... happy in the secure knowledge that if it were even possible for a Russian to have an idea that might work, or that there is any alternative to the path the US has blazed in stealth technology that obviously you would be told on CNN or Fox News... because they have fair and balanced reporting and keep Americans well informed about things that matter.

If you have any article or modern evidence that they are, please come forth.

Wouldn't if I did... I don't think you are interested in such things for the same reasons I am. Would just say that the Russians were printing articles and putting out lots of info on scramjet research in the 1990s too... not so much now. All you hear is scramjet powered Brahmos II. If there were no collaborative program with India we wouldn't even hear about that. So that is proof they are not working on scramjet technology either.

Austin wrote:

For reference according in Yefim Gorgon latest book on Russian Strategic Aviation the rcs figures for Russian cruise missile KH-101 is 0.01m2 and 0.2-0.3 m2 for Kh-55/555