Would be importatn to reference the sources: basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2023/01/15/f-35-vs-j-20-vs-su-57-radar-scattering-simulation-summary/
For what it’s worth, Cap, some of us do have time to watch a 40 minute video and do very much enjoy the talking portion at the beginning. Love the content! Keep up the great work gentlemen.
This is a very important question: Do we use the simulated F35 or stated F35? My preference is that since we're using the simulated SU57, we should also use the simulated F35. That being said, this is the perfect opportunity for a UA-cam Community Poll!
For me, moving to the stealthier models for both makes sense- the public figures for the F-35 are likely to be over the real figures as if an enemy develops a radar solution for the published figures and it's lower, that system is already not effective (or as effective as desired byt the developer), The stealthier Su-57 makes for a more challenging set of engagements and although Russia's actual ability to make and maintain its Su-57 fleet is highly dubious, this is a best-case for the wargames sake. BTW, are you guys going to RIAT? Would be awesome to meet you
I think what you mean is that the F-35's figures are undersold publicly. The U.S. always undersells its own capabilities on purpose. The F-35 is 100% deadlier and even more undetectable in actuality than anyone outside of the military knows. For instance, most people don't know that the F-35 is actually the 2nd best dogfighter in the world, next to the F-22. In mock battles with F-16's, F/A-18's and F-15's, it was knocking planes out of the sky with insane kill ratios. Hardly ever losing, racking up 100+ kills before ever getting shot down. The other planes were forced into flying "clean" (no fuel tanks, no extra armaments, and only wingtip short range missiles) to be as light as possible and were still getting whooped. The F-35's were all flying with max stealth loads and even with max non-stealth loads. It's an insane aircraft.
Not sure if it's been mentioned, I haven't watched past the first few minutes yet. But, one thing that probably can't be simulated at this point, is the fact that the U.S. has, and doesn't give all F-35 customers the special software that minimizes the presented RCS. Apparently when in maximum stealth mode (forget the name used), the plane analyzes all the detected and intel designated radar locations, and only allows the plane to fly a path and at angles that minimizes the potential RCS being shown and bounced back to the radar stations. Of course good pilots with detailed intelligence on enemy radar positions could do a good job at presenting a minimal RCS, but I think this software that I've heard about sounds really beneficial and a clear step-up in stealth performance; I think the only other country being given the Tier 1 F-35 with full stealth capabilities is the United Kingdom. I know Russia (perhaps China too), have claimed they have tracked the F-35/F-22, but I'd imagine that has only been with the planes using radar reflectors (Luneberg lenses) to hide the true RCS signature, but I read they recently were flying the F-35 in Poland near Ukraine in full stealth mode without reflectors. I'm so curious if Russia were able to track them at all (though I'd imagine they still stayed quite a ways away). But, the F-35 is being flown more and more without reflectors, so it's only a matter of time until it's put to the test. Part of me wants to keep the reflectors on until it's needed in anger, but the other part of me wants to see it fly over Moscow just to flex.
@@SovereignVis The "fallacy of averages" assumes that an outer possibility doesn’t exist, and that the reality only can exist within your limited understood parameters. For example, when you take into consideration the fiber mat engineered carbon fiber, which is part of a layered trapping system for RF energy, the F-35 RCS drops considerably. Then when you understand that the tailplanes and tailbooms are all made from CF, with CF internal structures and not aluminum, the RCS drops again dramatically because CF is mostly RF transparent. A small army of VLO/signature reduction engineers and technicians have been working on these problems for generations in the US, complete with instrumented test ranges to validate whether or not their improved measures have worked. F-35 has already undergone a major upgrade to its RAM since Lot 4, which was almost 10 years ago.
I'd wonder about RAM coating 4th gen planes. Spray down an F18 and a SU 35 with RAM, add the suggested conformal weapons bays and see what their RCS does. Might be a cheap way to pull another decade out of existing tech
Seems pretty thorough to me! Looks like these guys put a lot of effort and skill into these tests, and being that they’re so close with the F35 I would assume the SU57 would be just as close to real figures. I say go with their numbers.
Hi Cap. Going to beat on my drum again about the radars. Cap these, tests while fun, are NEVER going to be accurate if you keep using the same radar for both aircraft. I know it's a pain in the ass and from your point of view not worth bothering to design and use different radars but I'm sorry it makes a big difference. That's one of the U.S. major advantages BY DESIGN ! I know you've read my and others comments about this before and addressed this with your reasons for not making separate radars but I'm still going to keep pounding away on my drum because it makes such a big difference. OK rant over and thanks for making such fun videos all of us to enjoy and for me to gripe about :)
While that is true I doubt that the 0.002m2 is perfectly accurate either. A calculated value is often an overestimation when it comes to physics. Any kind of flaw in the coating or in the construction will likely give a higher RCS than the calculated value. The true value would likely fall somewhere in the middle and would also likely vary slightly aircraft to aircraft. For context 0.002m2 would fit very comfortably in the palm of your hand, at values that small even tiny imperfections in the aircraft or innacuracies in the model will make a big difference
just because you put ram coating on it doesn't mean youre going to get that small an rcs on the felon. Theres still MANY other flaws in the airframe that give it such a high rcs. To name a couple, all those gaps and seams increase it, the fact its underside looks exactly like the under of a twin engine 4th gen with fully exposed engines. I guess ill go ahead and also mention the fact it has to carry hard points for its munitions because it has no internal weapons bay, it at first didn't even have a door, then they put one on but it's completely fake, ALL of russias fighter missiles are too big to fit in that "internal bay" , therefore it still has to fly with munitions on the wings, of course increasing its rcs even more
All software analysis on RCS are innacurate, we have some lectures/courses here on YT (by big unis) talking about that. This is also confirmed by books on EM diffraction theory.The best way to predict RCS is building irl scale models and testing them in anechoic chambers.
It makes sense to me that the russians would be using RAM coating on their stealth fighter and we can safely assume that this is how most combat Su57s will be treated. The IRST of the Su-57 will be closed in almost all situations except for closer ranges (15-10 nm) where it may already be seen by modern AESA radars so I think you should go for the version with the closed IRST.
The problem with the idea of RAM on the Su-57 is that clearly they intend to put PAINT on it. I'm highly disinclined to believe that a country's *first* attempt at a stealth aircraft in the 2020s involves a form of RAM that is beyond what the US has achieved on their... fifth? stealth aircraft (I'm counting the SR-71... F-117A, B-2, F-22, F-35. This list nearly triples if you include rejected projects like the Commanche, YF-23, and various stealth RPAs) when their first RAM material was used 40 years ago on the F-117A.
Sukhoi is using adhesive appliqués to cover the seam lines and then paint over them. F-35 uses this approach with some of the infrequent inspection locations, like the internal fuel cell panels on top of the fuselage, and around the navigations light housings. The structure of the aircraft and 3-layer surface is not regularly-serviced because of how robust it is. It also presents a labyrinthine RF trap surface with strength to it as well.
The most important thing to me would be consistency. If you use the 0.05 of the F-35 as a baseline, you would have to mutiply the results for the SU-57 by 2.5. If you use the simulated figure for the Su-57, then you should also use it for the F-35. Since stealth isn't perfect in real life, I would go for the higher figures.
0.05m2 baseline makes absolutely no sense since the frontal RCS is at least one order of magnitude smaller than that without RAM taken into account. You could rough estimate 0.05m2 without RAM for one of the spikes that is way off-aspect.
A big thing that is not taken into account is the IRST of the F35. I dont know anythying about the one from the su57 but the F-35 IRST probably can do cool things too, but obviosly it is classified. The AN/AAQ-37 Electro Optical System of the F-35 can among other things detect and track aircraft. The USAF has also been testing IRST Pods on F15s and have shot down a QF-16 with an IRST guided aim 120 without using radar, and I would be surprised if the F-35 cannot do that. All this Information leads me to think that the F-35 might be able to detect other stealth aircraft by their heat signature before it can see them on their radar. Of course the public information on this is extremely limited, but I think it is atleast worth to talk about when doing comparisons/battles like in this video.
There's public video of the EOTS in action on YT if you'd like, it's been stated to have at least 50 mile range capability and can laser designate window sized targets at that range
@@forzaelite1248 Well the EOTS is mostly just the "targeting pod" I would assume. The IRST would be one of the sensors just below the cockpit on the upper front of the nose
@@minecraftjoker100 apologies if this is a repeat, I thought I sent a follow-up yesterday but it looks like UA-cam might've ate my message: The two things on the nose just under the canopy are a MADL antenna array and a DAS aperture co-located. It's part of the F-35's IR-based systems and serves as a frontal imaging IR camera, but mostly for missile warning and closer aircraft targeting. The EOTS is the thing in a sapphire box on the bottom-side and it's not just a targeting pod: it combines a targeting pod's laser designation with a FLIR and IRST. It can acquire things automatically like an IRST can, but the pilot can also critically look through the system manually for both air-to-air and air-to-ground designation. It's the first of its kind and replaces all the external FLIRST pods from before while retaining the same capabilities, if not more. Here's a video of it in action, note the quality of the resolution even at the ranges mentioned: ua-cam.com/video/L2q65qOl1tM/v-deo.html&themeRefresh=1
I would want to see the correlation between your 3rd party analysis group's RCS predictions for well known fighter jets compared to the published RCS figures for those aircraft. Only change the F-35's RCS from the official number when you have more confidence in your 3rd party analysis group's figures for a range of other aircraft.
the so called 3rd party analysis group actually didnt do the RCS simulation, they steal it from aircraft101 blog. I'm actually very disappointed that Grim reaper just choose to ignore it
Just for the record i love the breakdown at the beginning going into weapon specs and fleshing out the scenario its great to have the tech talk before the boom boom!
Heard a couple comments during the video that the Su-57 IRST/EOTS could not be made stealthy and that it would confer an advantage against the F-35. F-35 does have an DAS that functions as an EOTS, among other things, and it does not compromise stealth design, or if it does amplify RCS it is very minimal. Understand F-35 may not have EOTS modeled in game, but it does have one in real life and apparently doesn’t compromise its low RCS. Part of the distributor aperture system located under the nose of Fat Amy.
Simba's back!!😁✌ 20:56 😂 scratched your RAM off Cap! 24:35 lol voice of an Angel😆👍 26:31 I remember when it was The MIG-21 Cockpit Not for nothing but i think a cool last round would have been SU-57 VS SU-57 with RAM... 42:32 lol Simba's allowed to phase in and out of reality😆👍
Fairness is not a principle 5th Gen fighters abide by. Their entire design philosophy is to present as unfair of a fight as possible, which manifests quite nicely in the true RCS values between F-35A and Su-57. You need to move in the opposite directions of each of them shown here to be intellectually fair.
The single approach comparison is on the source, here: basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2023/01/15/f-35-vs-j-20-vs-su-57-radar-scattering-simulation-summary/
They very much do vary in effect and over different frequency ranges. There's also RAS to consider nothing public about it's use but the "graphite composite material " used to make the f35 is probably some from of it. Radar absorbing structure which is usually described as a meta material/composite made up of layers with different properties chiefly a refractive top layer radar absorbing material internal layer and a reflective backer that one would construct the aircraft from.
Would love to know the RCS of the J-20 from these studies! Doesn't make much sense to me if the SU-57 can have an RCS of 0.012m2 but the J-20 which should be superior is 0.5m2 according to past videos.
My assumption, I guess predictably, since I am from the US, is that US released numbers are _not_ as good as they really are and Russian released numbers are _boosted._ I'm not sure how to interpret the alternate computations. Sorry. That really is a moot opinion in answering your question.
The issue with that is the both SU-57's used here have RCS's based on heatblasts simulations, the only public figures for the SU-57 come from the patent Sukhoi filed which has the best RCS being .1M^2. I think that either both should use their simulated figures or none should.
I'm not sure what the IRL status of the Su-57 RAM coating is, but it definitely makes for more interesting DCSW fights. I vote keeping the Su-57 upgrade.
Idk I have my doubts. Sanctions and the Ukraine conflict are going to strain the Russian Defense Industry. Plus the leaked Su-57 docs revealed a 0.1 RCS and they’ve only been able to produce a handful. I have serious doubts with Russia being able to deliver on ideal upgrades.
@@rzr2ffe325 the "leaked" docs are just a Sukhoi patent that has been public for a while now, highly dubious that they would just publish such secret information
Guys are making Su-157 mod as well, it has laser turret behind the nose capable of destroying aircrafts and missiles mid-flight from ~200nm. It will be unstoppable.
Two USAF generals have said the F-35 is stealthier than the F-22 so I think yeah run it as .002. I assume part of that stealthiness is not just RSC but I don’t think DCS can model that?
@@LarsAchermann this. There's so much DCS lacks For example IRL AESA radar has immense advantages over PESA radar which simply can't be modelled within DCS, and the computing power of the aircraft behind the radar matters a ton too. For example the F-35s radar can opperate in a "low probability of intercept" mode that makes it completely impossible for classic RWR to detect it, and even highly advanced and computerised RWR may need several seconds to detect a hard lock, if it can at all. Another example is sideways RCS. DCS models RCS very simply, irl it is highly variable with what angle you look at an aircraft from, it changes with the deflection of the control surfaces, and depending of the frequency band of the radar. The F-35 and F-22 are designed for all-asoevt stealth. Meaning they have a vet low RCS from every angle. The SU-57 only with frontal RCS in mind. As soon as it turns to notch a missile it's RCS will be no better than the frontal one of a super hornet or similar while the F-35 will not have this problem. Other advantages the F-35 has that aren't modeled include: - The F-35s EOTS and DAS function as a superior version of an IRST, and without compromising radar signature. - The DAS has the ability to passively detect IR signatures near itself at full 360° angle. - the F-35 can, in fact, supercruise. This was added with a software update. It can only do this for 100km or so at a time as far as I'm aware though, as keeping this up would stress the engine leading to higher maintenance costs. - the Towed decoy of the F-35. A sort of jamming pod on a string that the F-35 can trail behind it meant to trick missiles into hitting instead of the real plane.
@@d.thieud.1056 True. Aircraft are getting more and more complex, especially the F-35 because it is as advanced as nothing else out there. In real life, the F-35 could easily take one 3-4 Felons at the same time.
I have heard from some sources (if I can remember where I will post the link) that the F-35 frontal aspect RCS is something a lot smaller and I do mean a lot smaller. I think the F-22 has better RCS is the ventral and dorsal tho not by much. The Su-57 has some frontal RCS of around 0.02- 0.08² and it's RCS everywhere else is virtually non-existent in stealth which is why they call it low observability. Supposedly the RCS of the Su-57 anything other than front aspect is over 1.0m². For the love of God I'm trying to remember where I read this because just over a week later Sukhoi themselves came out and said it's best described as "low observable". This is when mind you that everyone was saying the Su-57 has better stealth than the F-22.
@@noidea7695 not joking. The F-35 WAS called Fat Amy, that was before the dogfight trials between it and F-16's, the Air forces most capable dogfighter outside of the F-22. The F-35 absolutely annihilated the F-16 in mock dogfights, and the pilots of the F-16s were all veterans and experts of their planes.
3:12 I think the predicted one is more realistic and consistend, so take that. But for the future you will need that kind of analysis for every aircraft
I would say with the F-35 the US official number is taking a standard deviation high amount for the RCS. I would say change it to halfway between the two numbers given.
But who’s to say that the value GR took as ‘publicly released’ is correct. The value they use for the F-22 is an order of magnitude lower so the F-35’s RCS being 0.002 m2 really isn’t that unlikely…
The problem is, RAM coating is presumably optimised against X band radars and thus not very effective against AWACS. Given the 0.002 vs 0.005 m2 discrepancy could reasonably be attributed to the RAM coating, it actually depends on what is the adversary radar (or can DCS model different RCS for different radar bands?). For AWACS or LR radars, I would go with 0.005. For fighter jets and rockets itself, I would go with 0.002. Possibly, you could go with 0.002 and boost the AWACS radar? Piece of further evidence: Based on the 1999 incident in which F117 was shot down, it is beleived that F117 has RCS of 0.0012 m2, while publicly available data says 0.003 m2. The same proportion holds for this 0.002 m2 vs 0.005 m2 case. And the F117 case could again be attributed to the RAM coating. However, update of radars should be done in line with such stealth improvement. For example, Gripen radar has mk4 version available since 2017, that should see a 1 m2 at 225 km (as opposed to the original 90 km range), or 0.002 m2 at 47-48 km (25-26 nm). Assuming the same upgrade was done to SAAB AEW&C, with the original version allegedly capable of detecting 1m2 at 225 km, it should now be boosted beyond the instrument range. The F35 should be seen at about 60 km with the old setting, 150 km with the upgrade, and the new Global Eye at 216 km, asuming 650/450 improvment corresponding to the instrumented range. That is 117 nm! - for a brand new AWACS operating at low enough frequency to overcome the RAM.
The F-35 shaping alone (not counting RAM), is extremely low signature in the VHF, UHF, and L Bandwidths as well. When you factor in its various types of layered fiber mat RAM, the dB reduction is quite dramatic. These have intentionally not been accounted for in the 3rd party RCS evaluations done by GarryA and Eloise. All of the ranges you listed for Gripen E and GlobalEye simply are not even close to reality. AWACS especially don’t have any special capability in detecting true VLO fighters. 5th Gen pilots frequently comment on how they don’t get any value for AWACS being airborne either, because they see so much more with their own interleaved formations using LPI data links. I wouldn’t mention a tiny fighter like Gripen E or AWACS in a serious discussion about the modern unfair first-look, first-track, first-PID, first-shoot fight.
Cap where did you get the 0.005 m2 rcs for the f-35? Here is an excerpt from a research paper at the naval post graduate institute on stealth aircraft. I highly recommend giving this chapter a read, it’s not very long, and it details other attributes that make a plane stealthy aside from the shape/coating. Shape is just one piece of the pie. I’ll link the chapter below. “According to November 2005 reports, the US Air Force states that the F-22 has the lowest RCS of any manned aircraft in the USAF inventory, with a frontal RCS of 0.0001~0.0002 sqm, marble sized in frontal aspect. According to these reports, the F-35 is said to have an RCS equal to a metal golf ball, about 0.0015 sqm, which is about 5 to 10 times greater than the minimal frontal RCS of F/A-22. The F-35 has a lower RCS than the F-117 and is comparable to the B- 2, which was half that of the older F-117. Other reports claim that the F-35 is said to have an smaller RCS headon than the F-22, but from all other angles the F-35 RCS is greater. By comparison, the RCS of the Mig-29 is about 5m2. Much has been improved between the design of the F-22 and the F-35. The F-35 doors for landing gear and equipment, as well as control surface, all have straight lines. The F-35 does not require "saw tooth" openings to divert RF energy. One reason the openings on the F-35 are straight lines is reported to be embedded electrical wires near the edges which interfere with RF signals. The F-35 RAM is thicker, more durable, less expensive and, being manufactured to tighter tolerances compared to that of the F-22. The tighter tolerances means less radar signal can penetrate openings and reflect back to its source. The newer RAM is more effective against lower frequency radars, and maintenance should cost about a tenth that of the F-22 or B-2. Some forms of RAM have electrical plates or layers within the layers of carbon composites.”
Given that this 0.005 variant is already so good that eyeballing it does a better job than radar, I think keeping it at the higher number makes sense, if you go all the way down to 0.002, you might as well not equip the enemy with radar anyway.
@@hughmungus2760 VLO includes RF and IR spectrums, as well as visual and sonic realms. Considerable (billions of dollars with instrumented test ranges and IR sensor measurement devices) effort has been put into IR signature reduction on the F-117A, B-2A, F-22A, and JSF series. JSF airframe, propulsion, and surfaces have extensive IR VLO techniques employed. Short story is that none of the published detection ranges for IR sensors work for JSF. You have to develop a detection range, conditions, approach, and closure speed matrix to analyze these numbers. With JSF, assume about 1/3 of the values for legacy fighters. So if you see an F-16C approaching you subsonic at 50km headed towards you at Mach 0.85, you will be lucky to see an F-35 at the same speed and aspect at 16.5km. This means you were dead long before ever having a chance to see who shot you down. 16.5km is within visual range on most days. Also, for long-range detection using 4.5 Gen IRST sensors, you need an advanced Radar-cueing capability, preferably an AESA with good beam resolution and a very fast processing back-end driving it. The Long Wave Detection ability of an IRST is very limited because it’s in search mode with Radar-cueing, meaning wider scanning azimuths with less detection range capability. This is also true for the Radar. Assuming you do get a Radar-cued IRST track, you now have to Positively Identify that track and wait until you are within weapons parameters after PID. These are all impossible feats against an F-35 with a superior AESA and its low RF/IR signature, and superior detection ranges, tracking ranges, and 635 NCTR parameter PID capability with Block 3i, not even 3F. They see you, track you, PID you, and set you up into WEZ/NEZ way before you even know you’re being targeted. This is an unfair fight totally in their favor by several order of magnitudes.
@@LRRPFco52 The stealth on the F35 is neither all aspect or broad spectrum, thats why all those features are demanded of 6th gen US fighter designs. Particularly recent revelations have shown that the engine on the F35 has an overheating issue I wouldn't be so confident with its IR stealth being particularly amazing.
@@hughmungus2760 F-35 VLO features absolutely are broad spectrum even with just the shaping. The carbon nanotube fibermat RAS has a much wider range of RF absorption than critics and proponents ever imagined, and the CF tailplanes are mostly transparent in RF spectrum. The F135 turbofan is the most reliable afterburning turbofan ever built. It doesn't have overheating issues. Keep in mind there are tons of neophytes pontificating in this space who can't even tell the difference between a turbojet and a turbofan, let alone the difference between a stator, combustor, or high pressure fan. But they sure know that the F135 is a crap motor with all sorts of imagined issues. If only there was a way to analyze the fleet data from previous generation motors, like say the F100 series and F110.
Hey Cap! Given how public figures can be so challenging with claims of all sides either over or under reporting the potential of their aircraft, it makes it hard for any consistent modelling between aircraft of different sources. If it would be possible to run these independent models for as many aircraft as possible and use these results it would at least give a fairly consistent model for the RCS of each aircraft. There is always the possibility of further materials tech and differences between radar absorbent coatings meaning that there will be greater variation between aircraft from different sources, but as there is no way to know the capabilities of each producer estimating that they are all equal seems the best outcome we can hope for. Love the vids, keep up the great work! Hope baby reaper is well and not giving you too much trouble!
The source are running these consistent modelling across many aircraft, icnluding F-16 and Rafale C: basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2023/01/15/f-35-vs-j-20-vs-su-57-radar-scattering-simulation-summary/
Biriths F-35 still not using the Meteor missiles. Only from 2026.. The missile is too big for the hull, so MBDA came up with a smaller missile design. Which will work. Test launches scheduled around the mid of 2025. How I know? Read British news websites. :D As it is official.
Shape, aka design, is what matters most regarding stealth. RAM is just there to pick up creeping waves and the like. It's also really important in things such as engine inlets, even if it's s-shaped or y-shaped. But other than that, it won't change RCS value drastically
Which if the general Su-57 shape is roughly 0.1 RCS the RAM isn’t going to help that ten fold or more. I doubt Russia is as advanced as the US in stealth coatings anyways.
2 things that would be interesting to model: the electrooptical system of the f35 (that diamond shaped think beneath the nose) and the reduced thermal signiture of the f35 that would hinder the enemies EO systems
Spoilers: Model a SniperXR, make it slightly worse, and you have the current EOTS system. It's not super-great but it's slated for overhaul. It was one of the earliest systems "locked in" on the design. EODAS is getting overhauled too.
@@fnhatic6694 It’s also fused with the forward quadrant DAS camera on top of the nose, the AESA, and all the RF antennae embedded in the leading edges and airframe in a frontal aspect A2A scenario, interleaved with its flight mates’ ships as well. The IR resolution of EOTS is a consideration for A2G, but not as much for A2A. The new IR systems with Block 4 will smoke all of that as you point out, but it’s currently an extremely capable system without peer.
@@LRRPFco52 The sensor fusion sounds simple but it's what makes the F-35 so damn cool. People on the outs don't "get it" but I always described the avionics as 'video game shit' because it's as seamless and integrated as video games. I love the F-15 but it's like the damn Battlestar Galactica where nothing is networked and talks to each other.
since the plane in DCS is a sphere none of this really matters unless you take not the frontal RCS but instead an average RCS from different angles of the plane models
I would like to see you guys try to recreate a recent Chinese simulated attack on a US Carrier group, which they ran 20 times and claim succeeded in destroying the carrier and most of the ships in the carrier group. They used a 3 wave attack strategy or something. You can read about it online if you look.
Cap, would you be able to do something like handful of F-15/18 missle trucks with a couple F-35s running ahead as hive mind via Link 16 (using AWACS if needed to simulate Link 16) vs handful of non stealth Su/Mig running with a couple Felons in tow?? I'd like to see how the F-35 linked to missile trucks would look like in a large air superiority battle.
I would absolutely change the RCS of the F-35 to 0.002. While you're modifying it, can you please fix the flight model so it's more kinematically correct? Also, the radar has recently been said to be close to about as powerful as the old E2D awacs. Can you model a better radar? Oh, and i would use the Su-57 with the RAM coating.
I think that the heat blast figures are overly optimistic for all aircraft. Real world stealth is incredibly complex with factors that I shouldn’t even discuss here. The semi official public estimates are probably the best numbers to use in game, not heat blast, IMHO.
What about sideways RCS? For tasks like notching missiles or or when cranking this can matter a lot, and the 57 seems far less optimsked for this, which I think aight to be reflected in the way you modelnitnto some extent too. Additionally. Does their software model creeping waves and other less radar radiation propogation? The F-35s RAM coating for example isn't uniform but carries electricall conductivity in certain areas to make creeping waves release radiation in directions that aren't back at the emitter. Even if the SU-57 has a "relatively primitive" RAM coating now, it's likely to still be missing subtle nuances like this.
i know nothing about flight sims, jets or anything, I don't know how I even fing found this. But I'm addicted. I watched some of those 2 hour full scale battles. Were dope af. What I am wondering is how long can you fly for?
Personally, I like the longer videos. If I don't have time for the whole video I can always continue where I left off later. And usually UA-cam app saves your spot where you left off.
I want the F-35A to be represented more closely than their analysis has done. The F-35 doesn't have RAM coating, the radar absorbent materials are baked into its skin. I've stated this before, but the USAF has officially came out and said the RCS of the F-35 is LOWER than the F-22. They also noted that a factory of safety is applied to damages to the surface of the F-35 will maintain its stealth profile, so it's much stealthier than this unknown RCS. The F-35A's RCS needs to be at least lower than the public F-22 number. I have provided the quotes below: Two USAF Generals on the F-35 Stealth --- Gen. Gilmary Michael Hostage III, then head of Air Combat Command, said at AFA’s September conference that the F-35 “has drawn a lot of criticism” for some of the sacrifices USAF has had to make to pay for it. However, “it is my professional judgment that recapitalizing our aging legacy fleet with a fifth generation capability is a national imperative,” he declared. Hostage caused a stir in late spring when, in press interviews, he said the ----F-35 would be stealthier than the F-22-----, its larger USAF stablemate. Conventional wisdom had pegged the F-22, with its angled, vectored-thrust engines, as a stealthier machine than the F-35. Hostage also said the F-35 would be unbeatable when employed in numbers, which is why the full buy of aircraft is “so critical.” “I would say that General Hostage … is accurate in his statement about the simple stealthiness of the F-35 [with regard] to other airplanes,” Bogdan said in the interview. The statement was accurate for radar cross section, as measured in decibels, and range of detectability, he said, and he scoffed at the notion that anyone can tell how stealthy an aircraft is just by looking at it. --- Chief of Low Observability for the B-2 On the F-35 Stealth --- On a radar map, a 747 would appear the size of a hot air balloon and an F-16 would look like a beach ball. Drill down to legacy stealth aircraft and Lockheed’s F-117 Nighthawk would show up as a golf ball while an F-22 Raptor might appear as a pea. With the F-35, Lockheed is getting down to pebble size, according to Robert Wallace, senior manager for F-35 flight operations. Wallace, a former chief of low-observability for the US Air Force’s B-2 bomber, says the F-35 has leveraged LO qualities from the bomber - but he could not elaborate on specifics. Pilots will see a more advanced low-observable signature on the F-35 versus the F-22, but it’s the maintainers who see the greatest leap in durability. Each time a fighter returns from flight, maintainers must bring the aircraft’s stealth signature back to its original fidelity. But a fighter confronts more demanding missions than a bomber, pulling 9g while flying from hot, desert environments to high, cold altitudes. --- There's more quotes that corroborate this report but only provided these two for brevity
I say that you should use the new stealth model cause the production mode looks more like a stealthy that’s the first one the software that he was using looked vey accurate so prob it’s best to use it
I'd split the difference on the f-35 and go with 0.0035m^2. I'd also assume the ram coating on the su-57 isn't that good (and it's just the sort of maintenance Russian generals often pocket the money for and then don't do) and go with 0.06m^2.
im confused as to who to believe in here when it comes to the values of RCS on the Su-57. I mean Cap has a good point when given detailed breakdown of the RCS values, modelling, and photographic evidence by heat blast even though it is just speculation, it could well be that the production SU-57's in the photos dont even exist. it could be even be that russia has not one engineer competent in the area of aeronautical engineering or VLO tech development. I guess i just have to take all the veteran engineers in the comment section at their word with their solid convincing arguments such as "western tech is superior", "Russian tech is overrated", and "Russians dont have any understanding of VLO tech" and so on... I think ill just take Cap's stand on the issue and keep a narrow mind into thinking that there is no possibility that the russians could ever develop any kind of tech in any field whatsoever. Like Cap said "Its not my problem".
Definitely we should just move into full prediction based modeling, so 0.002 for our lovely fat Amy! Looking forward to seeing a better modeled J-20A with RAM and WS-15 taking into consideration too; then we can have a more fact (or better speculation) based comparsion of 5th gen jets in DCS.
I would stick to the official numbers So 0.005m2 for the F-35 About the Su-57 There is an official paper from Sukoi itself that stated the RCS of the Felon from 1dbm to -10dbm so about 0.1m2 to 1m2 That's why I would stick to the old rcs model of 0.12m2
Another thought is that less of the SU-57's front profile is RAM coatable. They can't cover the front of the IR targeting thing with anything, and the engines' air intakes are straight, so you'll get some reflection off the non-coatable turbo fan blades. The side profile too, clearly has some of the engines' outlets exposed. So I'd say the theoretical minimum rcs would be around 20% of the full cross section or 0.024m^2, leaving an rcs of 0.098m^2 that could be RAM coatable. So I wouldn't go any lower than 0.034m^2 for the SU-57s RCS.
I thinks it’s fair that if your using the the model for one it should be the same for both. So I side for the lowering of the f-35’s radar cross-section
He doesn't thank the US or Russian militaries, or Google, or Wikipedia editors, or whatever other pages, posts, or comments he comes across either so... 🤷 But I dount he expects any of those other people to watch the videos, so maybe had he known that gratitude would reach the relevant party then perhaps he would have made mention. In his place allow me, thanks to the person or people who publicly posted the results of their research and analysis, if that is in fact you, then thank you. 👍🫡
when we look at the russian tech that has been shown publicly in ukraine it is EXTREMELY hard for me to believe that a.) russia could afford more than 10-15 of these aircraft, b.) that they are in any way brilliantly maintained, and c.) that they have ANY understanding of advanced stealth coatings.
We'd probably say the same thing with the US and the past 10 years in Afghanistan. S400, functional hypersonics and toe to toe radar technology along with T90m. Considering the budget and bureaucracy of decision making I think it is not a matter of know-how but time money and production. We've also seen in submarine tech Russia consistently keeps a leading pace with the US. So... could they make a B2 tomorrow. No that's a simple and straight no. But, does that mean they are somehow an advisory we should laugh at and scoff at because they've dumped most of their metal laying around into this war. No. Let's not forget most of the West is funding Ukraine with the same 70's shit Russia is using. The scary thing is, we see with Wagner that Russia even on a small level is breaking free of the soviet mindset of war. Wagner is not afraid of mistakes, they had a completely flexible approach to Bakmut and consistently analyzed and adapted to their problems. That's pretty much the opposite of the RF. However, this is changing and that's a Russia that is a hell of a lot more scary than the current one. The difficulty with the US military tech, is it's in a long run war extremely difficult to produce at the rate it expends. Even simple things like artillery is something that would take us 4 years to get to a point where we could produce as much as we'd need to fight 1 front, let alone 2 fronts. So, in the end, I'd suspect Russia to have some version of this coating maybe similar to what the F117 would have.
I think the RAM-coated Felons should be the standard Felons going forward. The same goes for the improved F-35s. They both help to keep the matches unpredictable and unpredictable equals interesting. I won't be surprised if future Felons come with improved RAM coatings IRL. Now I want to see if the RAM-coated Felons will make life harder for the fourth gen fighters in future battles. The non-coated Felons had a life expentacy measured in seconds whereas the RAM-coated Felons were able to hang on for a little longer. The F-35s sidekick mod is meant for six fox threes only. The A and C variants will be getting them but the B will not due to its smaller weapon bays.
I think to be fair that both should use the simulated values, as both versions of the 57 are using it. That or bump up the Su-57 to 0.03m^2 to as the F-35's simulated RCS is 2.5 times smaller than the public figures.
always enjoy watching your vids. Anyway plan to mod KC-135 to RC-135 W/V SIGINT/ELINT. It probably is Datalinked by now. They see everything not optical. RC-135S is for that.
last i checked the f35 can't operate any IR missiles in its internal bay due to heat issues. the heat during internal storage tends to mess with the IR seeker. that means the f35 MUST have external mounts to use IR missiles. any use of external munitions will have a rather large effect on RCS signature. any flight with sidewinders will not be at your LO RCS setting.
Its not purely a heat issue, its that Sidewinder is designed to launch from rails with umbilical's while the F-35 only has bomb racks internally. Supposedly IRIS-T has an adaptor in the form of a coolant drop pod on the nose to allow it to be carried internally by the F-35.
Do you guys model the electro optical system for f35?? I don’t expect y’all to be looking through the aircraft with the DAS system but could you integrate its irst? The f35s stealthy infrared search ability could be pretty unbalanced
Please do the YF23 vs F22
ua-cam.com/video/o-e7YohscaE/v-deo.html
Also will there be an update to the f-35s helmet display that will allow you to look through the plane, like it does in Reality.
@@grimreapers awesome! Have you pit it against the F35? Perhaps a 3 v 5 scenario?
@@grimreapers F-15STOL/MTD VS YF-23 Fox2 Dogfight🙏👍
Would be importatn to reference the sources: basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2023/01/15/f-35-vs-j-20-vs-su-57-radar-scattering-simulation-summary/
For what it’s worth, Cap, some of us do have time to watch a 40 minute video and do very much enjoy the talking portion at the beginning. Love the content! Keep up the great work gentlemen.
Yeah I love the set up and briefing. Sets the stage for the show.
I agree with Grey Buckelton. Also it's somewhat of a calming voice.
Yea I like the longer vids as long as they not too much more than an hour give or take..
This is a very important question: Do we use the simulated F35 or stated F35? My preference is that since we're using the simulated SU57, we should also use the simulated F35.
That being said, this is the perfect opportunity for a UA-cam Community Poll!
For me, moving to the stealthier models for both makes sense- the public figures for the F-35 are likely to be over the real figures as if an enemy develops a radar solution for the published figures and it's lower, that system is already not effective (or as effective as desired byt the developer), The stealthier Su-57 makes for a more challenging set of engagements and although Russia's actual ability to make and maintain its Su-57 fleet is highly dubious, this is a best-case for the wargames sake. BTW, are you guys going to RIAT? Would be awesome to meet you
I think what you mean is that the F-35's figures are undersold publicly. The U.S. always undersells its own capabilities on purpose. The F-35 is 100% deadlier and even more undetectable in actuality than anyone outside of the military knows.
For instance, most people don't know that the F-35 is actually the 2nd best dogfighter in the world, next to the F-22. In mock battles with F-16's, F/A-18's and F-15's, it was knocking planes out of the sky with insane kill ratios. Hardly ever losing, racking up 100+ kills before ever getting shot down.
The other planes were forced into flying "clean" (no fuel tanks, no extra armaments, and only wingtip short range missiles) to be as light as possible and were still getting whooped. The F-35's were all flying with max stealth loads and even with max non-stealth loads.
It's an insane aircraft.
Yup we'll be there on the Saturday, in the red section near the front. Can't miss us.
@@grimreapers Bugger! I'll be there on Sunday! 🤦♂
Not sure if it's been mentioned, I haven't watched past the first few minutes yet. But, one thing that probably can't be simulated at this point, is the fact that the U.S. has, and doesn't give all F-35 customers the special software that minimizes the presented RCS. Apparently when in maximum stealth mode (forget the name used), the plane analyzes all the detected and intel designated radar locations, and only allows the plane to fly a path and at angles that minimizes the potential RCS being shown and bounced back to the radar stations. Of course good pilots with detailed intelligence on enemy radar positions could do a good job at presenting a minimal RCS, but I think this software that I've heard about sounds really beneficial and a clear step-up in stealth performance; I think the only other country being given the Tier 1 F-35 with full stealth capabilities is the United Kingdom.
I know Russia (perhaps China too), have claimed they have tracked the F-35/F-22, but I'd imagine that has only been with the planes using radar reflectors (Luneberg lenses) to hide the true RCS signature, but I read they recently were flying the F-35 in Poland near Ukraine in full stealth mode without reflectors. I'm so curious if Russia were able to track them at all (though I'd imagine they still stayed quite a ways away). But, the F-35 is being flown more and more without reflectors, so it's only a matter of time until it's put to the test. Part of me wants to keep the reflectors on until it's needed in anger, but the other part of me wants to see it fly over Moscow just to flex.
@@SovereignVis The "fallacy of averages" assumes that an outer possibility doesn’t exist, and that the reality only can exist within your limited understood parameters. For example, when you take into consideration the fiber mat engineered carbon fiber, which is part of a layered trapping system for RF energy, the F-35 RCS drops considerably. Then when you understand that the tailplanes and tailbooms are all made from CF, with CF internal structures and not aluminum, the RCS drops again dramatically because CF is mostly RF transparent. A small army of VLO/signature reduction engineers and technicians have been working on these problems for generations in the US, complete with instrumented test ranges to validate whether or not their improved measures have worked. F-35 has already undergone a major upgrade to its RAM since Lot 4, which was almost 10 years ago.
I'd like to see the F-35 perform at the lower 0.002 stealth spec to see if it makes any noticeable difference.
I thought that was what they were going to do with one of these fights
I love your long talks but with the RCS stuff, this was maybe the best!
I'd like to see the upgraded SU-57 versus a newer F-16 variant. I'd also be curious to hear what these people calculate the J-20 RCS to be.
They are modelling the J-20 next month.
Upgradeded 57?
I'd wonder about RAM coating 4th gen planes. Spray down an F18 and a SU 35 with RAM, add the suggested conformal weapons bays and see what their RCS does.
Might be a cheap way to pull another decade out of existing tech
@@lavenderlilacproductions maybe if you also spray the weapons
I think you use official figures against official figures, and you use modeled figures against modeled figures.
Seems pretty thorough to me! Looks like these guys put a lot of effort and skill into these tests, and being that they’re so close with the F35 I would assume the SU57 would be just as close to real figures. I say go with their numbers.
Hi Cap. Going to beat on my drum again about the radars. Cap these, tests while fun, are NEVER going to be accurate if you keep using the same radar for both aircraft. I know it's a pain in the ass and from your point of view not worth bothering to design and use different radars but I'm sorry it makes a big difference. That's one of the U.S. major advantages BY DESIGN ! I know you've read my and others comments about this before and addressed this with your reasons for not making separate radars but I'm still going to keep pounding away on my drum because it makes such a big difference. OK rant over and thanks for making such fun videos all of us to enjoy and for me to gripe about :)
I would go with the .002 meters squared. I would think with high level aircraft that they would not release the actual numbers.
While that is true I doubt that the 0.002m2 is perfectly accurate either. A calculated value is often an overestimation when it comes to physics. Any kind of flaw in the coating or in the construction will likely give a higher RCS than the calculated value. The true value would likely fall somewhere in the middle and would also likely vary slightly aircraft to aircraft.
For context 0.002m2 would fit very comfortably in the palm of your hand, at values that small even tiny imperfections in the aircraft or innacuracies in the model will make a big difference
Correct you are
just because you put ram coating on it doesn't mean youre going to get that small an rcs on the felon. Theres still MANY other flaws in the airframe that give it such a high rcs. To name a couple, all those gaps and seams increase it, the fact its underside looks exactly like the under of a twin engine 4th gen with fully exposed engines.
I guess ill go ahead and also mention the fact it has to carry hard points for its munitions because it has no internal weapons bay, it at first didn't even have a door, then they put one on but it's completely fake, ALL of russias fighter missiles are too big to fit in that "internal bay" , therefore it still has to fly with munitions on the wings, of course increasing its rcs even more
All software analysis on RCS are innacurate, we have some lectures/courses here on YT (by big unis) talking about that. This is also confirmed by books on EM diffraction theory.The best way to predict RCS is building irl scale models and testing them in anechoic chambers.
"Got a lock! Launch authority! Firing everything!"
"Your missiles missed..."
🤣🤣
It makes sense to me that the russians would be using RAM coating on their stealth fighter and we can safely assume that this is how most combat Su57s will be treated.
The IRST of the Su-57 will be closed in almost all situations except for closer ranges (15-10 nm) where it may already be seen by modern AESA radars so I think you should go for the version with the closed IRST.
The problem with the idea of RAM on the Su-57 is that clearly they intend to put PAINT on it. I'm highly disinclined to believe that a country's *first* attempt at a stealth aircraft in the 2020s involves a form of RAM that is beyond what the US has achieved on their... fifth? stealth aircraft (I'm counting the SR-71... F-117A, B-2, F-22, F-35. This list nearly triples if you include rejected projects like the Commanche, YF-23, and various stealth RPAs) when their first RAM material was used 40 years ago on the F-117A.
Sukhoi is using adhesive appliqués to cover the seam lines and then paint over them. F-35 uses this approach with some of the infrequent inspection locations, like the internal fuel cell panels on top of the fuselage, and around the navigations light housings. The structure of the aircraft and 3-layer surface is not regularly-serviced because of how robust it is. It also presents a labyrinthine RF trap surface with strength to it as well.
@@LRRPFco52 Whoever had the brilliant idea to put all those fucking EW parts in the LEFs is an asshole.
Glad to see Simba back
Glad to be back it was an adventure.
If you are going use the calculated number it makes sense to use it for both aircraft. Do use 0.002 m2 for the F35.
The return of Simba, TallyHo!!!
thank you, happy to be back.
The most important thing to me would be consistency. If you use the 0.05 of the F-35 as a baseline, you would have to mutiply the results for the SU-57 by 2.5. If you use the simulated figure for the Su-57, then you should also use it for the F-35.
Since stealth isn't perfect in real life, I would go for the higher figures.
0.05m2 baseline makes absolutely no sense since the frontal RCS is at least one order of magnitude smaller than that without RAM taken into account. You could rough estimate 0.05m2 without RAM for one of the spikes that is way off-aspect.
A big thing that is not taken into account is the IRST of the F35. I dont know anythying about the one from the su57 but the F-35 IRST probably can do cool things too, but obviosly it is classified.
The AN/AAQ-37 Electro Optical System of the F-35 can among other things detect and track aircraft. The USAF has also been testing IRST Pods on F15s and have shot down a QF-16 with an IRST guided aim 120 without using radar, and I would be surprised if the F-35 cannot do that. All this Information leads me to think that the F-35 might be able to detect other stealth aircraft by their heat signature before it can see them on their radar.
Of course the public information on this is extremely limited, but I think it is atleast worth to talk about when doing comparisons/battles like in this video.
There's public video of the EOTS in action on YT if you'd like, it's been stated to have at least 50 mile range capability and can laser designate window sized targets at that range
@@forzaelite1248 Well the EOTS is mostly just the "targeting pod" I would assume. The IRST would be one of the sensors just below the cockpit on the upper front of the nose
@@minecraftjoker100 apologies if this is a repeat, I thought I sent a follow-up yesterday but it looks like UA-cam might've ate my message:
The two things on the nose just under the canopy are a MADL antenna array and a DAS aperture co-located. It's part of the F-35's IR-based systems and serves as a frontal imaging IR camera, but mostly for missile warning and closer aircraft targeting. The EOTS is the thing in a sapphire box on the bottom-side and it's not just a targeting pod: it combines a targeting pod's laser designation with a FLIR and IRST. It can acquire things automatically like an IRST can, but the pilot can also critically look through the system manually for both air-to-air and air-to-ground designation. It's the first of its kind and replaces all the external FLIRST pods from before while retaining the same capabilities, if not more.
Here's a video of it in action, note the quality of the resolution even at the ranges mentioned: ua-cam.com/video/L2q65qOl1tM/v-deo.html&themeRefresh=1
15:36 For some reason the last minute eject straight into a hillside had me laughing hysterically 😂
Welcome back Simba!!!!!
thanks glad to be back.
I would want to see the correlation between your 3rd party analysis group's RCS predictions for well known fighter jets compared to the published RCS figures for those aircraft. Only change the F-35's RCS from the official number when you have more confidence in your 3rd party analysis group's figures for a range of other aircraft.
If the SU-57 is getting reductions based on their simulations, the F-35 should aswell.
the so called 3rd party analysis group actually didnt do the RCS simulation, they steal it from aircraft101 blog. I'm actually very disappointed that Grim reaper just choose to ignore it
Compare with the source: basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2023/01/15/f-35-vs-j-20-vs-su-57-radar-scattering-simulation-summary/
F 35 use the new numbers, and same for the Felon. Lets go with the best science we have since Wikipedia is just an educated guess as well.
Just for the record i love the breakdown at the beginning going into weapon specs and fleshing out the scenario its great to have the tech talk before the boom boom!
Heard a couple comments during the video that the Su-57 IRST/EOTS could not be made stealthy and that it would confer an advantage against the F-35. F-35 does have an DAS that functions as an EOTS, among other things, and it does not compromise stealth design, or if it does amplify RCS it is very minimal. Understand F-35 may not have EOTS modeled in game, but it does have one in real life and apparently doesn’t compromise its low RCS. Part of the distributor aperture system located under the nose of Fat Amy.
Simba's back!!😁✌
20:56 😂 scratched your RAM off Cap!
24:35 lol voice of an Angel😆👍
26:31 I remember when it was The MIG-21 Cockpit
Not for nothing but i think a cool last round would have been SU-57 VS SU-57 with RAM...
42:32 lol Simba's allowed to phase in and out of reality😆👍
I suggest being as consistent as possible and sticking to one approach for all aircraft if possible.
Yeah I agree same source seems the most fair
Fairness is not a principle 5th Gen fighters abide by. Their entire design philosophy is to present as unfair of a fight as possible, which manifests quite nicely in the true RCS values between F-35A and Su-57. You need to move in the opposite directions of each of them shown here to be intellectually fair.
The single approach comparison is on the source, here: basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2023/01/15/f-35-vs-j-20-vs-su-57-radar-scattering-simulation-summary/
the aim 260 doesnt exist yet why are you using it ?
My concern or shall I say question is.. how effective is their coating? Are we assuming all RAM coating is the same? Or is one better then the other?
They very much do vary in effect and over different frequency ranges. There's also RAS to consider nothing public about it's use but the "graphite composite material " used to make the f35 is probably some from of it. Radar absorbing structure which is usually described as a meta material/composite made up of layers with different properties chiefly a refractive top layer radar absorbing material internal layer and a reflective backer that one would construct the aircraft from.
Fair comment.
Same with engines and AESA radars. When Russians claim something , well remember the Moskva !
My guess is that it is regular paint.
@@stupidburp Whoa slow down, that is a little too kind. We are assuming it's not watered down.
Would love to know the RCS of the J-20 from these studies! Doesn't make much sense to me if the SU-57 can have an RCS of 0.012m2 but the J-20 which should be superior is 0.5m2 according to past videos.
probably about 0.05m2 for J-20
Su-57 is probably actually about 0.12
@@stupidburp not with the radar blockers refined surface ,new izdeyile engine and ram coatings
Google J-20 radar scattering simulation and you can find their site and even comparison between different aircraft
@@stupidburp I think its from 0.00001 as stealthy as f22 from the front to 0.05
F35 from 0.005 to 0.01 su 57 0.012 to 0.1
2:38 it is always better than the public numbers. Also you have variability/uncertainty in the stealth coating
My assumption, I guess predictably, since I am from the US, is that US released numbers are _not_ as good as they really are and Russian released numbers are _boosted._ I'm not sure how to interpret the alternate computations. Sorry. That really is a moot opinion in answering your question.
Both sides releases random numbers tbh, no one would release the real numbers for RCS. Gotta keep your opponent guessing.
Happy to continue using the best public data - reduces the risk of favourites ;) Keep up the good work
The issue with that is the both SU-57's used here have RCS's based on heatblasts simulations, the only public figures for the SU-57 come from the patent Sukhoi filed which has the best RCS being .1M^2. I think that either both should use their simulated figures or none should.
I'm not sure what the IRL status of the Su-57 RAM coating is, but it definitely makes for more interesting DCSW fights. I vote keeping the Su-57 upgrade.
well the aim 260 doesnt exist and they are keeping that aswell so why not
Idk I have my doubts. Sanctions and the Ukraine conflict are going to strain the Russian Defense Industry. Plus the leaked Su-57 docs revealed a 0.1 RCS and they’ve only been able to produce a handful. I have serious doubts with Russia being able to deliver on ideal upgrades.
@@rzr2ffe325 the "leaked" docs are just a Sukhoi patent that has been public for a while now, highly dubious that they would just publish such secret information
Guys are making Su-157 mod as well, it has laser turret behind the nose capable of destroying aircrafts and missiles mid-flight from ~200nm. It will be unstoppable.
Simba is back. Someone new is needed to restore balance to the Force again.
I sensed a disturbance while I was away.
Two USAF generals have said the F-35 is stealthier than the F-22 so I think yeah run it as .002. I assume part of that stealthiness is not just RSC but I don’t think DCS can model that?
Unfortunately yes, in DCS the F-35 will never be as strong as in real life
@@LarsAchermann this. There's so much DCS lacks
For example IRL AESA radar has immense advantages over PESA radar which simply can't be modelled within DCS, and the computing power of the aircraft behind the radar matters a ton too. For example the F-35s radar can opperate in a "low probability of intercept" mode that makes it completely impossible for classic RWR to detect it, and even highly advanced and computerised RWR may need several seconds to detect a hard lock, if it can at all.
Another example is sideways RCS. DCS models RCS very simply, irl it is highly variable with what angle you look at an aircraft from, it changes with the deflection of the control surfaces, and depending of the frequency band of the radar. The F-35 and F-22 are designed for all-asoevt stealth. Meaning they have a vet low RCS from every angle. The SU-57 only with frontal RCS in mind. As soon as it turns to notch a missile it's RCS will be no better than the frontal one of a super hornet or similar while the F-35 will not have this problem.
Other advantages the F-35 has that aren't modeled include:
- The F-35s EOTS and DAS function as a superior version of an IRST, and without compromising radar signature.
- The DAS has the ability to passively detect IR signatures near itself at full 360° angle.
- the F-35 can, in fact, supercruise. This was added with a software update. It can only do this for 100km or so at a time as far as I'm aware though, as keeping this up would stress the engine leading to higher maintenance costs.
- the Towed decoy of the F-35. A sort of jamming pod on a string that the F-35 can trail behind it meant to trick missiles into hitting instead of the real plane.
@@d.thieud.1056 True. Aircraft are getting more and more complex, especially the F-35 because it is as advanced as nothing else out there. In real life, the F-35 could easily take one 3-4 Felons at the same time.
@@d.thieud.1056 huge knowledge though, props
I have heard from some sources (if I can remember where I will post the link) that the F-35 frontal aspect RCS is something a lot smaller and I do mean a lot smaller. I think the F-22 has better RCS is the ventral and dorsal tho not by much. The Su-57 has some frontal RCS of around 0.02- 0.08² and it's RCS everywhere else is virtually non-existent in stealth which is why they call it low observability. Supposedly the RCS of the Su-57 anything other than front aspect is over 1.0m². For the love of God I'm trying to remember where I read this because just over a week later Sukhoi themselves came out and said it's best described as "low observable". This is when mind you that everyone was saying the Su-57 has better stealth than the F-22.
Now we just need to get thr F-35's insane maneuverability added into the mod.
I assume you're joking because they do call her Fat Amy for a reason
@@noidea7695 watch some vids of the f35 at an airshow, its probably more maneuverable than a f16, paired with higher aoa than the fa18
@@noidea7695 not joking. The F-35 WAS called Fat Amy, that was before the dogfight trials between it and F-16's, the Air forces most capable dogfighter outside of the F-22.
The F-35 absolutely annihilated the F-16 in mock dogfights, and the pilots of the F-16s were all veterans and experts of their planes.
Witnessed it with my own eyes. The F-35 tore up the MCAS Beaufort air show. Watch some videos instead of reading about names.
@@noidea7695 Your name is pretty accurate. Those things irl at air shows are like mini f-22s. FCS still on.
3:12 I think the predicted one is more realistic and consistend, so take that.
But for the future you will need that kind of analysis for every aircraft
Another great vid boys. Welcome back Simba.
You should‘t interpolate the figure between IRST open/closed… basically it‘s never gonna fly around like that so choose either one i‘d suggest
I would say with the F-35 the US official number is taking a standard deviation high amount for the RCS. I would say change it to halfway between the two numbers given.
If the calculated RCS of the F35 is a little low then I would expect the calculated RCS of the Su to be a little low too. Maybe bump it up to 0.015?
That's actually along the lines I was thinking.
But who’s to say that the value GR took as ‘publicly released’ is correct. The value they use for the F-22 is an order of magnitude lower so the F-35’s RCS being 0.002 m2 really isn’t that unlikely…
@@MaxIsStrange1 it’a about the distance between the 2 values being as realistic as possible.
Thank you Simba for your service!!!
The problem is, RAM coating is presumably optimised against X band radars and thus not very effective against AWACS. Given the 0.002 vs 0.005 m2 discrepancy could reasonably be attributed to the RAM coating, it actually depends on what is the adversary radar (or can DCS model different RCS for different radar bands?).
For AWACS or LR radars, I would go with 0.005.
For fighter jets and rockets itself, I would go with 0.002.
Possibly, you could go with 0.002 and boost the AWACS radar?
Piece of further evidence:
Based on the 1999 incident in which F117 was shot down, it is beleived that F117 has RCS of 0.0012 m2, while publicly available data says 0.003 m2. The same proportion holds for this 0.002 m2 vs 0.005 m2 case. And the F117 case could again be attributed to the RAM coating.
However, update of radars should be done in line with such stealth improvement. For example, Gripen radar has mk4 version available since 2017, that should see a 1 m2 at 225 km (as opposed to the original 90 km range), or 0.002 m2 at 47-48 km (25-26 nm).
Assuming the same upgrade was done to SAAB AEW&C, with the original version allegedly capable of detecting 1m2 at 225 km, it should now be boosted beyond the instrument range. The F35 should be seen at about 60 km with the old setting, 150 km with the upgrade, and the new Global Eye at 216 km, asuming 650/450 improvment corresponding to the instrumented range. That is 117 nm! - for a brand new AWACS operating at low enough frequency to overcome the RAM.
The F-35 shaping alone (not counting RAM), is extremely low signature in the VHF, UHF, and L Bandwidths as well. When you factor in its various types of layered fiber mat RAM, the dB reduction is quite dramatic. These have intentionally not been accounted for in the 3rd party RCS evaluations done by GarryA and Eloise.
All of the ranges you listed for Gripen E and GlobalEye simply are not even close to reality. AWACS especially don’t have any special capability in detecting true VLO fighters. 5th Gen pilots frequently comment on how they don’t get any value for AWACS being airborne either, because they see so much more with their own interleaved formations using LPI data links.
I wouldn’t mention a tiny fighter like Gripen E or AWACS in a serious discussion about the modern unfair first-look, first-track, first-PID, first-shoot fight.
I like seeing the “scientific methods” y’all use to entertain us!
Likewise. As he mentions, these videos mean nothing without without the explanations of the information in them
Cap where did you get the 0.005 m2 rcs for the f-35? Here is an excerpt from a research paper at the naval post graduate institute on stealth aircraft. I highly recommend giving this chapter a read, it’s not very long, and it details other attributes that make a plane stealthy aside from the shape/coating. Shape is just one piece of the pie. I’ll link the chapter below.
“According to November 2005 reports, the US Air Force states that the F-22 has the lowest RCS of any manned aircraft in the USAF inventory, with a frontal RCS of 0.0001~0.0002 sqm, marble sized in frontal aspect. According to these reports, the F-35 is said to have an RCS equal to a metal golf ball, about 0.0015 sqm, which is about 5 to 10 times greater than the minimal frontal RCS of F/A-22. The F-35 has a lower RCS than the F-117 and is comparable to the B- 2, which was half that of the older F-117. Other reports claim that the F-35 is said to have an smaller RCS headon than the F-22, but from all other angles the F-35 RCS is greater. By comparison, the RCS of the Mig-29 is about 5m2.
Much has been improved between the design of the F-22 and the F-35. The F-35 doors for landing gear and equipment, as well as control surface, all have straight lines. The F-35 does not require "saw tooth" openings to divert RF energy. One reason the openings on the F-35 are straight lines is reported to be embedded electrical wires near the edges which interfere with RF signals. The F-35 RAM is thicker, more durable, less expensive and, being manufactured to tighter tolerances compared to that of the F-22. The tighter tolerances means less radar signal can penetrate openings and reflect back to its source. The newer RAM is more effective against lower frequency radars, and maintenance should cost about a tenth that of the F-22 or B-2. Some forms of RAM have electrical plates or layers within the layers of carbon composites.”
faculty.nps.edu/jenn/ec4630/rcsredux.pdf
The median average result from Google search.
@@grimreapers You should give credit to the people who made the measurement, I have just seen their posts, they are not happy
Given that this 0.005 variant is already so good that eyeballing it does a better job than radar, I think keeping it at the higher number makes sense, if you go all the way down to 0.002, you might as well not equip the enemy with radar anyway.
IRL infrared sensors can see fighter sized targets out to 30km so any radar stealth better than that is more or less redundant.
@@hughmungus2760 Radar guided missiles will have a lot of trouble tracking even after the parent plane locks on.
@@hughmungus2760 VLO includes RF and IR spectrums, as well as visual and sonic realms. Considerable (billions of dollars with instrumented test ranges and IR sensor measurement devices) effort has been put into IR signature reduction on the F-117A, B-2A, F-22A, and JSF series. JSF airframe, propulsion, and surfaces have extensive IR VLO techniques employed. Short story is that none of the published detection ranges for IR sensors work for JSF. You have to develop a detection range, conditions, approach, and closure speed matrix to analyze these numbers. With JSF, assume about 1/3 of the values for legacy fighters.
So if you see an F-16C approaching you subsonic at 50km headed towards you at Mach 0.85, you will be lucky to see an F-35 at the same speed and aspect at 16.5km. This means you were dead long before ever having a chance to see who shot you down. 16.5km is within visual range on most days.
Also, for long-range detection using 4.5 Gen IRST sensors, you need an advanced Radar-cueing capability, preferably an AESA with good beam resolution and a very fast processing back-end driving it. The Long Wave Detection ability of an IRST is very limited because it’s in search mode with Radar-cueing, meaning wider scanning azimuths with less detection range capability. This is also true for the Radar.
Assuming you do get a Radar-cued IRST track, you now have to Positively Identify that track and wait until you are within weapons parameters after PID. These are all impossible feats against an F-35 with a superior AESA and its low RF/IR signature, and superior detection ranges, tracking ranges, and 635 NCTR parameter PID capability with Block 3i, not even 3F. They see you, track you, PID you, and set you up into WEZ/NEZ way before you even know you’re being targeted. This is an unfair fight totally in their favor by several order of magnitudes.
@@LRRPFco52 The stealth on the F35 is neither all aspect or broad spectrum,
thats why all those features are demanded of 6th gen US fighter designs.
Particularly recent revelations have shown that the engine on the F35 has an overheating issue I wouldn't be so confident with its IR stealth being particularly amazing.
@@hughmungus2760 F-35 VLO features absolutely are broad spectrum even with just the shaping. The carbon nanotube fibermat RAS has a much wider range of RF absorption than critics and proponents ever imagined, and the CF tailplanes are mostly transparent in RF spectrum.
The F135 turbofan is the most reliable afterburning turbofan ever built. It doesn't have overheating issues. Keep in mind there are tons of neophytes pontificating in this space who can't even tell the difference between a turbojet and a turbofan, let alone the difference between a stator, combustor, or high pressure fan. But they sure know that the F135 is a crap motor with all sorts of imagined issues.
If only there was a way to analyze the fleet data from previous generation motors, like say the F100 series and F110.
Hey Cap! Given how public figures can be so challenging with claims of all sides either over or under reporting the potential of their aircraft, it makes it hard for any consistent modelling between aircraft of different sources. If it would be possible to run these independent models for as many aircraft as possible and use these results it would at least give a fairly consistent model for the RCS of each aircraft. There is always the possibility of further materials tech and differences between radar absorbent coatings meaning that there will be greater variation between aircraft from different sources, but as there is no way to know the capabilities of each producer estimating that they are all equal seems the best outcome we can hope for.
Love the vids, keep up the great work! Hope baby reaper is well and not giving you too much trouble!
The source are running these consistent modelling across many aircraft, icnluding F-16 and Rafale C:
basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2023/01/15/f-35-vs-j-20-vs-su-57-radar-scattering-simulation-summary/
The seventh rule of Fight Club is: fights will go on as long as they have to.
The people's champ! That's some surgical flying
Would interesting to see the British f-35 with the meteor to see if that changes the outcome
Biriths F-35 still not using the Meteor missiles. Only from 2026.. The missile is too big for the hull, so MBDA came up with a smaller missile design. Which will work. Test launches scheduled around the mid of 2025. How I know? Read British news websites. :D As it is official.
Shape, aka design, is what matters most regarding stealth. RAM is just there to pick up creeping waves and the like. It's also really important in things such as engine inlets, even if it's s-shaped or y-shaped. But other than that, it won't change RCS value drastically
Which if the general Su-57 shape is roughly 0.1 RCS the RAM isn’t going to help that ten fold or more. I doubt Russia is as advanced as the US in stealth coatings anyways.
2 things that would be interesting to model: the electrooptical system of the f35 (that diamond shaped think beneath the nose) and the reduced thermal signiture of the f35 that would hinder the enemies EO systems
Spoilers: Model a SniperXR, make it slightly worse, and you have the current EOTS system.
It's not super-great but it's slated for overhaul. It was one of the earliest systems "locked in" on the design. EODAS is getting overhauled too.
@@fnhatic6694 It’s also fused with the forward quadrant DAS camera on top of the nose, the AESA, and all the RF antennae embedded in the leading edges and airframe in a frontal aspect A2A scenario, interleaved with its flight mates’ ships as well. The IR resolution of EOTS is a consideration for A2G, but not as much for A2A. The new IR systems with Block 4 will smoke all of that as you point out, but it’s currently an extremely capable system without peer.
@@LRRPFco52 The sensor fusion sounds simple but it's what makes the F-35 so damn cool.
People on the outs don't "get it" but I always described the avionics as 'video game shit' because it's as seamless and integrated as video games. I love the F-15 but it's like the damn Battlestar Galactica where nothing is networked and talks to each other.
I think I'd trust Heat Blast and the team's work more than "official" figures. God Save the People's Champion Simba!
good to see Simba back!
since the plane in DCS is a sphere none of this really matters unless you take not the frontal RCS but instead an average RCS from different angles of the plane models
I'd say frontal RCS is more important than sideways.
Perhaps they should calculate the middle between the frontal RCS and the average RCS
I would like to see you guys try to recreate a recent Chinese simulated attack on a US Carrier group, which they ran 20 times and claim succeeded in destroying the carrier and most of the ships in the carrier group. They used a 3 wave attack strategy or something. You can read about it online if you look.
Cap, would you be able to do something like handful of F-15/18 missle trucks with a couple F-35s running ahead as hive mind via Link 16 (using AWACS if needed to simulate Link 16) vs handful of non stealth Su/Mig running with a couple Felons in tow??
I'd like to see how the F-35 linked to missile trucks would look like in a large air superiority battle.
I would absolutely change the RCS of the F-35 to 0.002. While you're modifying it, can you please fix the flight model so it's more kinematically correct? Also, the radar has recently been said to be close to about as powerful as the old E2D awacs. Can you model a better radar?
Oh, and i would use the Su-57 with the RAM coating.
Stealth coating won’t help Su-57 that much because the partially exposed engine faces are the most egregious contributor to radar reflections.
I think that the heat blast figures are overly optimistic for all aircraft. Real world stealth is incredibly complex with factors that I shouldn’t even discuss here. The semi official public estimates are probably the best numbers to use in game, not heat blast, IMHO.
Could use other measures to even up fights asymmetrically. For example, give the Su-57 side an AEW aircraft or a SAM site.
What about sideways RCS? For tasks like notching missiles or or when cranking this can matter a lot, and the 57 seems far less optimsked for this, which I think aight to be reflected in the way you modelnitnto some extent too.
Additionally. Does their software model creeping waves and other less radar radiation propogation? The F-35s RAM coating for example isn't uniform but carries electricall conductivity in certain areas to make creeping waves release radiation in directions that aren't back at the emitter. Even if the SU-57 has a "relatively primitive" RAM coating now, it's likely to still be missing subtle nuances like this.
Unfortunately, DCS models RCS as a single value that never changes, and none of the nuances are taken into account.
I think to be fair, both should use the simulated or neither should.
Wooo love the vids!
I'd say split the difference on the F35 so .0035 and the .012 for the Felon
Welcome back Simba
i know nothing about flight sims, jets or anything, I don't know how I even fing found this. But I'm addicted. I watched some of those 2 hour full scale battles. Were dope af. What I am wondering is how long can you fly for?
Personally, I like the longer videos. If I don't have time for the whole video I can always continue where I left off later. And usually UA-cam app saves your spot where you left off.
Y’all really need to try to model the hmd system the lightning has as it along with the distributed aperture system are it’s aces in the hole
Yes fair comment.
I want the F-35A to be represented more closely than their analysis has done. The F-35 doesn't have RAM coating, the radar absorbent materials are baked into its skin. I've stated this before, but the USAF has officially came out and said the RCS of the F-35 is LOWER than the F-22.
They also noted that a factory of safety is applied to damages to the surface of the F-35 will maintain its stealth profile, so it's much stealthier than this unknown RCS. The F-35A's RCS needs to be at least lower than the public F-22 number. I have provided the quotes below:
Two USAF Generals on the F-35 Stealth
---
Gen. Gilmary Michael Hostage III, then head of Air Combat Command, said at AFA’s September conference that the F-35 “has drawn a lot of criticism” for some of the sacrifices USAF has had to make to pay for it. However, “it is my professional judgment that recapitalizing our aging legacy fleet with a fifth generation capability is a national imperative,” he declared.
Hostage caused a stir in late spring when, in press interviews, he said the ----F-35 would be stealthier than the F-22-----, its larger USAF stablemate. Conventional wisdom had pegged the F-22, with its angled, vectored-thrust engines, as a stealthier machine than the F-35. Hostage also said the F-35 would be unbeatable when employed in numbers, which is why the full buy of aircraft is “so critical.”
“I would say that General Hostage … is accurate in his statement about the simple stealthiness of the F-35 [with regard] to other airplanes,” Bogdan said in the interview. The statement was accurate for radar cross section, as measured in decibels, and range of detectability, he said, and he scoffed at the notion that anyone can tell how stealthy an aircraft is just by looking at it.
---
Chief of Low Observability for the B-2 On the F-35 Stealth
---
On a radar map, a 747 would appear the size of a hot air balloon and an F-16 would look like a beach ball. Drill down to legacy stealth aircraft and Lockheed’s F-117 Nighthawk would show up as a golf ball while an F-22 Raptor might appear as a pea. With the F-35, Lockheed is getting down to pebble size, according to Robert Wallace, senior manager for F-35 flight operations.
Wallace, a former chief of low-observability for the US Air Force’s B-2 bomber, says the F-35 has leveraged LO qualities from the bomber - but he could not elaborate on specifics.
Pilots will see a more advanced low-observable signature on the F-35 versus the F-22, but it’s the maintainers who see the greatest leap in durability. Each time a fighter returns from flight, maintainers must bring the aircraft’s stealth signature back to its original fidelity. But a fighter confronts more demanding missions than a bomber, pulling 9g while flying from hot, desert environments to high, cold altitudes.
---
There's more quotes that corroborate this report but only provided these two for brevity
Try:
a pair of SU-57 and four SU-35s vs four F-22s and four F-35s (to explore the relative scarcity of airframes).
I say that you should use the new stealth model cause the production mode looks more like a stealthy that’s the first one the software that he was using looked vey accurate so prob it’s best to use it
Most military information coming out of Russia is faked. Low confidence in images should be assumed until proven otherwise.
Simba almost taken out by his own missile.
We're not Simba's fan club. We're his PACK!
I'd split the difference on the f-35 and go with 0.0035m^2. I'd also assume the ram coating on the su-57 isn't that good (and it's just the sort of maintenance Russian generals often pocket the money for and then don't do) and go with 0.06m^2.
WW2 Ghost squadron. Do an attack with war birds that have no RCS so they can only be detected visually and defend pearl harbor or something like that.
Petition to get cap to show us his baby. You gotta show us your family Cap, specially the babyyyyyy.
2.5x reduction in radar cross section means 25% reduction in detection range. It's a 4th power relation.
Fat Amy slims down to become Fit Amy. Use the new figures from me cap.
Simba, Simba, Simba 🙅🙋🙆💁
thanks
shouldn't you do the average RCS and not the frontal?
im confused as to who to believe in here when it comes to the values of RCS on the Su-57. I mean Cap has a good point when given detailed breakdown of the RCS values, modelling, and photographic evidence by heat blast even though it is just speculation, it could well be that the production SU-57's in the photos dont even exist. it could be even be that russia has not one engineer competent in the area of aeronautical engineering or VLO tech development.
I guess i just have to take all the veteran engineers in the comment section at their word with their solid convincing arguments such as "western tech is superior", "Russian tech is overrated", and "Russians dont have any understanding of VLO tech" and so on...
I think ill just take Cap's stand on the issue and keep a narrow mind into thinking that there is no possibility that the russians could ever develop any kind of tech in any field whatsoever. Like Cap said "Its not my problem".
Definitely we should just move into full prediction based modeling, so 0.002 for our lovely fat Amy! Looking forward to seeing a better modeled J-20A with RAM and WS-15 taking into consideration too; then we can have a more fact (or better speculation) based comparsion of 5th gen jets in DCS.
I would stick to the official numbers
So 0.005m2 for the F-35
About the Su-57
There is an official paper from Sukoi itself that stated the RCS of the Felon from 1dbm to -10dbm so about 0.1m2 to 1m2
That's why I would stick to the old rcs model of 0.12m2
Cap, the interpolation between 0.006 M squared and 0.01 M squared is 0.08 I believe, not 0.012 as stated.
Yeah the 0.005 figure is from 2005 so they must be lower today move to 0.002
At was enjoyable, good fun. 👍👾
Another thought is that less of the SU-57's front profile is RAM coatable. They can't cover the front of the IR targeting thing with anything, and the engines' air intakes are straight, so you'll get some reflection off the non-coatable turbo fan blades. The side profile too, clearly has some of the engines' outlets exposed. So I'd say the theoretical minimum rcs would be around 20% of the full cross section or 0.024m^2, leaving an rcs of 0.098m^2 that could be RAM coatable.
So I wouldn't go any lower than 0.034m^2 for the SU-57s RCS.
"Not very brave of them" - there's brave and there's alive.
I thinks it’s fair that if your using the the model for one it should be the same for both. So I side for the lowering of the f-35’s radar cross-section
The stealthier planes are fun, but standard public data models can be STANDARDS :)
You dont thank those who made the RCS estimates XD ?
as that took me like several months of tinkering.
He doesn't thank the US or Russian militaries, or Google, or Wikipedia editors, or whatever other pages, posts, or comments he comes across either so... 🤷 But I dount he expects any of those other people to watch the videos, so maybe had he known that gratitude would reach the relevant party then perhaps he would have made mention. In his place allow me, thanks to the person or people who publicly posted the results of their research and analysis, if that is in fact you, then thank you. 👍🫡
when we look at the russian tech that has been shown publicly in ukraine it is EXTREMELY hard for me to believe that a.) russia could afford more than 10-15 of these aircraft, b.) that they are in any way brilliantly maintained, and c.) that they have ANY understanding of advanced stealth coatings.
I think you have been too believing of the very biased, totally pro Ukrainian, Western MSM.
You said it yourself, shown publicly, by your propaganda media. So your whole argument is invalid.
And they already have 24 of them
We'd probably say the same thing with the US and the past 10 years in Afghanistan. S400, functional hypersonics and toe to toe radar technology along with T90m. Considering the budget and bureaucracy of decision making I think it is not a matter of know-how but time money and production. We've also seen in submarine tech Russia consistently keeps a leading pace with the US. So... could they make a B2 tomorrow. No that's a simple and straight no. But, does that mean they are somehow an advisory we should laugh at and scoff at because they've dumped most of their metal laying around into this war. No. Let's not forget most of the West is funding Ukraine with the same 70's shit Russia is using.
The scary thing is, we see with Wagner that Russia even on a small level is breaking free of the soviet mindset of war. Wagner is not afraid of mistakes, they had a completely flexible approach to Bakmut and consistently analyzed and adapted to their problems. That's pretty much the opposite of the RF. However, this is changing and that's a Russia that is a hell of a lot more scary than the current one.
The difficulty with the US military tech, is it's in a long run war extremely difficult to produce at the rate it expends. Even simple things like artillery is something that would take us 4 years to get to a point where we could produce as much as we'd need to fight 1 front, let alone 2 fronts.
So, in the end, I'd suspect Russia to have some version of this coating maybe similar to what the F117 would have.
@@antoniohagopian213 i'm sure they are perfect in every way hahahaaha
I think the RAM-coated Felons should be the standard Felons going forward. The same goes for the improved F-35s. They both help to keep the matches unpredictable and unpredictable equals interesting. I won't be surprised if future Felons come with improved RAM coatings IRL.
Now I want to see if the RAM-coated Felons will make life harder for the fourth gen fighters in future battles.
The non-coated Felons had a life expentacy measured in seconds whereas the RAM-coated Felons were able to hang on for a little longer.
The F-35s sidekick mod is meant for six fox threes only. The A and C variants will be getting them but the B will not due to its smaller weapon bays.
I think to be fair that both should use the simulated values, as both versions of the 57 are using it. That or bump up the Su-57 to 0.03m^2 to as the F-35's simulated RCS is 2.5 times smaller than the public figures.
always enjoy watching your vids. Anyway plan to mod KC-135 to RC-135 W/V SIGINT/ELINT. It probably is Datalinked by now. They see everything not optical. RC-135S is for that.
Please let’s upgrade let’s see the difference I’m sure the model is accurate. I’m excited to see it!
Atta-kid Simba
thank you I try to please the crowd.
I think u go for their predicted number as publicly given number is probably slightly increased to not give full capabilities away
Personally, I would look at all the figures from all the sources, then remove the biggest and smallest and go with an average of all remaining.
last i checked the f35 can't operate any IR missiles in its internal bay due to heat issues. the heat during internal storage tends to mess with the IR seeker.
that means the f35 MUST have external mounts to use IR missiles.
any use of external munitions will have a rather large effect on RCS signature.
any flight with sidewinders will not be at your LO RCS setting.
Its not purely a heat issue, its that Sidewinder is designed to launch from rails with umbilical's while the F-35 only has bomb racks internally. Supposedly IRIS-T has an adaptor in the form of a coolant drop pod on the nose to allow it to be carried internally by the F-35.
Do you guys model the electro optical system for f35?? I don’t expect y’all to be looking through the aircraft with the DAS system but could you integrate its irst? The f35s stealthy infrared search ability could be pretty unbalanced
Yay!!!! Simba’s back!! ❤