The capabilities of the Su-57E in a competitive battle with the F-35A. Export potential without leakage of critical technologies


As you know, the criterion of "cost - effectiveness" is one of the primary indicators that provide experts and knowledgeable observers with the opportunity to assess the degree of success of a program for developing a particular type of promising military equipment, as well as to predict the future position of its export modifications on regional and global arms markets. Meanwhile, to conduct this kind of analysis, the expert should have information not only about the average cost of the product, but also about the “optional package” attached to this product under contracts concluded with foreign customers.


Against this background, the assessment of the export potential of the 5th generation Su-57E domestic multi-functional fighter is particularly relevant in comparison with the American promising Fn-35A Lightnung II fighter, which is actively promoted on the world arms market, all the more so since the Russian-Egyptian contract for the supply of the Air Force Algeria's first 14 vehicles, concluded between the defense department of this North African state and Rosoboronexport at the end of December 2019, are already ready for sale, and gaining operational b Eva readiness the first production Su-57 "first step" for VKS Russia will take place by July 2020.

The potential of the Irbis-E airborne radar is not colossal, but quite acceptable for a competitive confrontation


According to the Military Parity publication, citing anonymous informed sources, the “optional package” of Su-57Es prepared for export sales will be noticeably different from the electronic “filling” of the Su-57 combat aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Forces. In particular, the “heart” of the on-board electronic equipment of exported vehicles can be the on-board radar with passive FAR N035 “Irbis-E” mounted on multi-purpose fighters of the “4 ++” Su-35C generation, while the modification for the airborne complex will have a promising multi-module airborne radar system with AFAR H036 "Squirrel", represented by the X-band front-view antenna array H036, side-view antenna arrays Н036Б-1-01Л and Н036Б-1-01Б (centimeter X-band operation), as well as antenna modules of meter L- d wavelength range Н036L-1-01 integrated into the socks of the wing of the Su-57.

Unlike the AFAR-radar AN / APG-81, developed by the Electronic Systems division of the Northrop Grumman military-industrial company to equip the F-35A fighters, as well as the Squirrel (Sh-036) H121 radar from the Istok Scientific-Production Enterprise and NIIP them. V.V. Tikhomirova, with transmitting and transmitting modules with individual gallium nitride low-noise microwave transistors (amplifiers) and attenuators (attenuators) in the architecture of the receiving and transmitting paths, the onboard radar with passive phased array H035 Irbis-E can boast only one transmitter based on the lamp traveling wave, feeding a certain group of transceiver modules through phase shifters. As a result, the Irbis-E radar is incapable of generating a flexibly simulated radiation pattern with spatial “dips” in the direction of the directors of electronic interference from the enemy (EA-18G “Growler” aircraft, as well as carrier aircraft for the RE / ANQ-249 NGJ-MB containers) ), in connection with which the level of its noise immunity will be noticeably lower than that of the Lightning radar and Squirrel.

Moreover, the “optional package” of F-35A multi-role fighters in the “Block 4+” modification (both for the US Air Force and for export sales) provides for the introduction of electronic warfare mode in the AN / APG-81 airborne radars, which will be achieved through a software update armament control systems with loading software add-ons that enable the use of Radio Frequency Tunable Filters (RFTFs) integrated into the architecture of the APG-81 transmission path and feeding certain arrays of transceiver modules. Thanks to this, the APG-81 station will be able to form a narrow high-energy “interfering beam” in the form of targeted response, as well as imitation interference, significantly reducing the effective detection range of radars based on Cassegrain antennas, waveguide-slot antenna arrays, as well as passive headlamps. Unfortunately, Irbis-E does not have such a reserve.

Nonetheless, the unique energy potential of Irbis-E (peak power of about 20 kW and power in the “precise target tracking” mode of about 2 kW), providing a target detection range of type “F-35A” (EPR 0,2 sq. M ) more than 200 km, can still give odds to any Western European or American airborne radar station (especially when the enemy uses medium-intense radio electronic interference). For example, the same AN ​​/ APG-81s are capable of detecting the Su-57E (EPR about 0,2-0,3 sq. M) at a distance of no more than 120-130 km, and this is in a no-noise environment! When the pilot uses the "drying" of the on-board complex of electronic warfare Himalayas, this figure will decrease to 110 or 100 km.

At about the same distance, the Irbis-E radar will detect the F-35A, whose pilot will use the APG-81 airborne radar in the radio counter mode. Therefore, in a duel situation caused by a hypothetical long-range aerial combat, the Su-57E with the H036 radar and the F-35A staff will have approximately equal chances of establishing air supremacy, especially given the fact that the development program of the long-range long-range aerial combat rocket “Product -180 "with a" long-playing "dual-mode solid propellant rocket motor reached the final stage.

This solid propellant rocket motor, with a specific thrust impulse of more than 265 s, will provide the “Product 180” with high speed and energy qualities (and, therefore, the ability to perform intensive maneuvers during the interception of the target) even at the terminal section of the trajectory located 130-140 km from the vanishing point from the inside fuselage of the Su-57E suspension. As a result of this, the 5th generation export “drying” is able to establish stable parity even with those F-35A, which in the future will be equipped with the “long-range” Meteor MBDA “Air-Defense” with integrated rocket-propelled engines.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

50 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Pessimist22 20 January 2020 05: 16 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    And what is already a contract for the supply of SU 57 to Egypt?
    1. Same lech 20 January 2020 05: 26 New
      • 7
      • 2
      +5
      And what is already a contract for the supply of SU 57 to Egypt?

      They forgot about Turkey ... they have not yet begun to deliver to their Air Force, but we are already talking about deliveries abroad ... isn't it too early.
      1. Nikolaevich I 20 January 2020 06: 02 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        Quote: The same Lech
        They forgot about Turkey.

        Duc, the Turks are still those "frames"! yes Try to go round them on a dirty ass! From the Su-57E they will still turn the snobel ... stop them Su-57, and even the 2nd stage, give it! recourse
      2. Stalllker 20 January 2020 16: 03 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        We had a similar situation with the T-90. From an economic point of view, it’s normal to sell the Lite version on the side, so that you can rivet the Pro version at home, without burden on the budget.
        1. Pavlov Sergey Alexandrovich 21 January 2020 06: 52 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          It is quite common practice, otherwise we will not pull such an expensive aircraft in reasonable quantities for the Russian Aerospace Forces. As the United States did not pull the f-22, it will pull the f-35 because they sell it a lot to anyone.
    2. Nikolaevich I 20 January 2020 05: 55 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      Quote: Pessimist22
      And what is already a contract for the supply of SU 57 to Egypt?

      Not to Ebiptu, but to Algeria .... it seems to be, in any case, they wrote "zhurnalyugi" ...
      1. bessmertniy 20 January 2020 06: 31 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        Nevertheless, let me repeat that at SU-57 it makes sense to introduce a moratorium on deliveries abroad over the next 10 years. Then - for God's sake. And first, for yourself. hi
        1. NEXUS 20 January 2020 12: 06 New
          • 10
          • 1
          +9
          Quote: bessmertniy
          Nevertheless, let me repeat that at SU-57 it makes sense to introduce a moratorium on deliveries abroad over the next 10 years. Then - for God's sake. And first, for yourself. hi

          It doesn’t work out that way ... the project needs to be developed, but there is not enough money for it. The same situevina was with the T-90. It’s expensive to pull such a project yourself. There, even the mattresses took their vassals to help ... and all this time we pull the project ourselves, without funding from outside.
          1. lucul 20 January 2020 14: 41 New
            • 3
            • 2
            +1
            It doesn’t work out that way ... the project needs to be developed, but there is not enough money for it.

            Yes, money - at least .... eat. They have no desire to spend ....
            1. NEXUS 20 January 2020 14: 43 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: lucul
              Yes, money - at least .... eat. They have no desire to spend ....

              And from the fact that they have a lot of money or not much, nothing will change in the project of the 57th, since they do not want to invest in full. And I understand them partly, since there are a bunch of other projects for the Armed Forces, which also require non-frail investments.
    3. the most important 20 January 2020 09: 26 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Quote: Pessimist22
      And what is already a contract for the supply of SU 57 to Egypt?

      There is! But only Egypt still does not know about it ....
  2. andrewkor 20 January 2020 05: 25 New
    • 10
    • 12
    -2
    Maybe it will be .... And when will they arrive in part of Russia?
    10 years ago, one of the KLA men optimistically said about the Su-57, F-22 and F-35: “We will do it later, but better!” God grant that it works. Competitors during operation have already identified and eliminated all the jambs, and Su -57 just started to fall!
  3. rocket757 20 January 2020 05: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Not many countries take military equipment and immediately fight.
    They want to be prepared for various surprises.
  4. 123456789 20 January 2020 06: 24 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    200 + = 500 700
    22 + = 35 57 soldier
  5. atalef 20 January 2020 06: 33 New
    • 10
    • 10
    0
    The capabilities of the Su-57E in a competitive battle with the F-35A.

    Due to this e5th generation export “drying” is able to establish steady parity even with those F-35A

    Eugene . Your house is simply hung with the skins of unkilled bears.
    How can one compare what does not even exist at all?
    From the word in general.
  6. Odysseus 20 January 2020 06: 55 New
    • 14
    • 6
    +8
    What is this, a joke ?
    Su-57 - 0 serial boards in the Air Force (1 wanted to pass-broke), 0-export contracts. (Only rumors about Algeria). And in the middle of 2020, it is only planned to hand over the first production aircraft of the Air Force (and not achieve operational readiness, as the article says)
    F-35-491 is serial, in 11 countries it is delivered. Plus several more are negotiating.
    Who is there a competitor to? Let's not lose adequacy. The Chinese, for example, having been supplying the J-2 to the troops for 20 years, do not say that he is a competitor to the F-35. They say we are going step by step.
    Let's form 1 Su-57 squadron in our own air force. Then we will take the next step.
    1. Alexey LK 21 January 2020 16: 54 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Odyssey
      Who is there a competitor to?

      Quote: Odyssey
      Let's form 1 Su-57 squadron in our own air force. Then we will take the next step.

      In fact, a smart approach is to first think, calculate, simulate, and then order something. This is usually done. And you suggest, apparently, the opposite. Do not confuse aircraft as a product and aviation forces as combat units. The first is a competitor, the second is rivals, opponents (potential). If we are talking about competition, i.e. about market prospects (namely, about this article), then the author’s approach is correct, and your comment is not very. hi
  7. Errr 20 January 2020 07: 25 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    From the text of the article:
    The “heart” of on-board electronic equipment of export vehicles may be an on-board radar with passive phased array N035 Irbis-E
    Due to inappropriate geometry of the Su-57 head fairing, it cannot rotate the N035 radar. Too little interior space.
    1. kit88 20 January 2020 09: 46 New
      • 8
      • 1
      +7
      Translating into Russian, this article does not make sense, since the H035 stupidly does not fit into the Su-57 in size.
  8. Amateur 20 January 2020 07: 40 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    especially since the Russian-Egyptian contract for the supply of the Algerian Air Force the first 14 aircraft

    Mr. Damantsev! Will Egypt pay for Algeria or vice versa - Algeria for Egypt?
    It looks like a hodgepodge of names, numbers and strange conclusions began to lead to irreversible processes when writing articles fool
    1. Stirbjorn 20 January 2020 08: 47 New
      • 4
      • 3
      +1
      Quote: Amateur
      Mr. Damantsev! Will Egypt pay for Algeria or vice versa - Algeria for Egypt?
      Does it matter who will pay for whom ?! Anyway, the Su-57E plane is still in the project only wassat
  9. mag nit 20 January 2020 09: 12 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    On Armata E the contract is already E?
  10. Maks1995 20 January 2020 09: 34 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Yes, all commentators are right - the skin of an unkilled bear.
    From myself - they’ve been sharing it for about 3 years. It's funny and sad
  11. rica1952 20 January 2020 09: 55 New
    • 1
    • 7
    -6
    India has long abandoned this unfinished aircraft, if they make a big discount they can and will take it.
  12. infantryman2020 20 January 2020 09: 59 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    Already with might and main (calmly, as if nothing had happened) are we comparing a heavy fighter with a light one? Not ashamed?
    1. ultra 20 January 2020 11: 46 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      The maximum take-off at the 35th 30 tons at the 57th 35. I would not call the "penguin" easy.
  13. Zaurbek 20 January 2020 10: 46 New
    • 3
    • 4
    -1
    The Chinese are already starting to enter the market with AFAR for 4th and ++ generation aircraft ... F15 / 16/18, Rafali and EF and Grippen are starting to be delivered with AFAR .... do you want to sell the 5th generation with PFAR ?!
    Everything goes to the point that no one will buy the Su35S and the Mig35S without AFAR in 5 years or buy, but with alternative AFARs, and alternative rockets of the centuries will go with AFAR.
  14. bars1 20 January 2020 11: 14 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    It is obvious that immediately it is necessary to modernize the Su-30SM, Su-35S and Su-34 equipping them with radars with AFAR.
    Su-57E with Irbis-E ... Mr. Damantsev knows a lot about perversions!
    1. Amateur 20 January 2020 12: 44 New
      • 2
      • 3
      -1
      Mr. Damantsev knows a lot about perversions!

      Do not speak! Only the technical masochist can write the following:
      with transmitting and transmitting modules with individual gallium nitride low-noise microwave transistors (amplifiers) and attenuators (attenuators) in the architecture of the receiving and transmitting paths, the on-board radar with passive phased array N035 Irbis-E boasts only one transmitter based on a traveling wave lamp feeding a certain group of transceiver modules through phase shifters.

      A person who specializes in articles of this kind, over and over again, writes a complete technical nonsense, instead of learning how the radar works.
  15. Gust 20 January 2020 13: 29 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Bullshit, you can’t cut an export car much. AFAR should be, definitely. Few sides were released, not because they could not, but because the refinement of the machine was continuing. To not work, as with the F-35.
  16. Pavel57 20 January 2020 15: 34 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    buy, do not buy. This market is very politicized. Least of all chances are Chinese aircraft.
  17. Passing 20 January 2020 21: 35 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Irbisa-E ... F-35A type target detection range (EPR 0,2 sq. M) over 200 km

    AN / APG-81 are capable of detecting Su-57E (EPR about 0,2-0,3 sq. M) at a distance of no more than 120-130 km

    The Su-57 has not implemented the full range of measures to reduce radar visibility that the F-35 has, some figure is clearly sucked out of the finger, or even both, so that all further considerations are not worth a damn.
    1. thanks 21 January 2020 00: 19 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Passing by
      Irbisa-E ... F-35A type target detection range (EPR 0,2 sq. M) over 200 km


      AN / APG-81 are capable of detecting Su-57E (EPR about 0,2-0,3 sq. M) at a distance of no more than 120-130 km


      The Su-57 has not implemented a full range of measures to reduce radar visibility, which the F-35 has, some kind of figure here is clearly sucked from the finger, or even both, so that all further arguments are not worth a damn ...

      To justify their conclusions and assumptions, a calculation is necessary, otherwise this is an unfounded statement ... We are waiting for the calculation and confirmation!
      1. Passing 21 January 2020 00: 55 New
        • 0
        • 3
        -3
        And if there are assumptions based on facts?
        the Su-57, unlike the penguin
        1) No radar absorbing coating.
        2) No coating of joints.
        3) The lamp is not solid, there is the worst, strictly perpendicular joint, the edge of which gives a direct reflection on the enemy radar.
        4) GLS glazing is not faceted, but spherical.
        Now a little logic:
        Why do Americans stubbornly cover airplanes with radar absorbing coatings, if they constantly cover up (the problem has not been solved so far), why do they need unnecessary expenses for factory (exclusively factory!) Repainting, why reduce the combat readiness coefficient?
        Why do they stubbornly coat the joints almost every departure, why should they increase the cost and complicate routine maintenance, why reduce the combat readiness coefficient?
        Why do they stubbornly make a non-bookless lamp, because it is significantly heavier than a book-binding lamp, and for aviation weight is one of the key parameters?
        Obviously, all this significantly reduces the EPR. How much exactly, I have no idea, but obviously all this hemorrhoids is not for the sake of an advantage of 0,1 sq.m
        1. thanks 21 January 2020 02: 30 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +1
          Passing, it turns out that one lie from the Internet, you have cited ...
          1. The Su-57 has a radar absorbing coating and the joints are also covered by it.
          2. The lantern has a metallized coating, and there is also a binding cover ...
          3. So nothing specifically could be said about the EPR of the Su-57 and F-35.
          4. About the detection of radar H036 "Squirrel" and AN / APG-82 aircraft: Su-57, F-35 could not bring anything.
          5. Nothing about the maneuverability and speed characteristics of aircraft: Su-57, F-35.
          6. Nothing was brought about air-to-air missiles of the indicated aircraft and their defeat of aerodynamic targets, etc.
          In general, a one-sided and dubious review. And if it does not, where are you from? At
          such a dislike for Russian technology.
          1. Passing 21 January 2020 05: 21 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            Quote: Mersi
            one untruth from the Internet, you brought ...

            The Internet is really a hotbed of myths and propaganda. There is a wonderful device for filtering - your own brains.
            Quote: Mersi
            Su-57 has a radar absorbing glider coating

            Read about the F22 painting technology, it is on the Internet. The bottom line is that the thickness of the paint must be a strictly specified thickness. great importance is attached to this. Now look at the spectacular two or three color coloring of any Su-57, we have somewhere one layer, somewhere two, somewhere three. The facts are available, it remains to draw my own conclusion, I have already made and voiced it.
            Quote: Mersi
            and the joints are also covered by it.

            Are we talking about the same thing? Covered not with paint, but literally smeared with some kind of mastic? That's how these bright convex contours, just the same?

            I’ve been looking for a long time, I won’t find everything, show me a photo of the coated Su-57, and I will finally breathe a sigh of relief. In the meantime, I will strictly follow the known facts - Su-57 has no coating of joints.
            Quote: Mersi
            2. The lamp has a metallized coating.

            Yes, I know for a long time that it has a spraying, I knew it before the first PAK-FA flight, but what does it have to do with it, did I even say a word about it?
            Quote: Mersi
            and also there is a cover of binding ...

            I do not understand your thesis. It is impossible to cover the joint on the lantern, it should open, if you mean that the binding has a radio-absorbing coating, this does little, the coating does not absorb the radio wave by 100%, it only weakens the reflected one. The joint strictly perpendicular to the movement will glow on the radar like a tree in the most important projection - the frontal. And this is nothing fatal flaw Su-57.
            Quote: Mersi
            3. So nothing specifically could be said about the EPR of the Su-57 and F-35.

            Naturally, I adhere to the facts, but there are no facts. All available figures are hypotheses.
            Specifically, about 0,3 for the F22 said the developers of the T-50. If you turn on the brain, we get "if we did F22, then we would get 0,3."
            There is a public statement by the F22 developers that is clearly interpreted as 0,0001 in the frontal projection, but everyone stubbornly refuses to believe it, because they do not understand how this is possible. So I will refrain.
            Quote: Mersi
            And if it does not, where are you from?

            Togliatti
            Quote: Mersi
            With such a dislike for Russian technology.

            I did not understand you, how is love-dislike and a sober view of things connected?
            1. thanks 21 January 2020 10: 12 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Passing, stay true to Lockheed Martin commercials. It has not yet appeared in the world to explore the F-35 glider to our Russian specialists. But amplitude ESR and average ESR are two big differences. For calculations, the average EPR value is used, and not the ideal amplitude value, which cannot be realized when the plane is flying. ESR = 0,0001 m2 or 1 cm2 - this is the ESR of a bumblebee. In general, this is just stupidity and no more - this is physically impossible to achieve!
              Quote: Passing by
              ... it doesn’t give much, the coating doesn’t completely absorb the radio wave, it’s only relaxes reflected. The joint strictly perpendicular to the movement will glow on the radar like a tree in the most important projection - the frontal. And this is nothing fatal flaw Su-57.

              Can you justify - due to what it weakens? The rest of your judgments are wrong ...
              1. Passing 21 January 2020 14: 25 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Quote: Mersi
                stay true to the commercials

                Do you even delve into what I wrote? I operate exclusively with facts and logic, give an example where I appeal to myths.
                Quote: Mersi
                But amplitude ESR and average ESR are two big differences.

                Ok, this is an important point, I figured out the question:
                0,0001 m2 only in a static state, in flight there is a continuous yaw, so only the average ESR has practical meaning.
                Quote: Mersi
                Can you justify - due to what it weakens?

                I am not an EPR coating developer, and I have no specific data. There is indirect evidence that the coating is very multi-layered, because it is applied precision and within weeks. This means that weakening occurs according to the principle of combining the antiphases of waves reflected from many layers of layers. No more conclusions can be drawn.
                Quote: Mersi
                The rest of your judgments are wrong ...

                Oh how! When there is nothing to hide the facts, and there are no logical counterarguments, they switch to the manipulative technique "I'm smart and you're not very." Continue the discussion in the same vein, your authority in my eyes is growing rapidly! wink
      2. Passing 21 January 2020 05: 48 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        And I even have a calculation!
        to paragraph "4) GLS glazing is not faceted, but spherical."
        I do not know the parameters of the OLS-50M, but they are probably similar to the OLS-35. For her
        https://vpk.name/library/f/ols-35.html
        Cap diameter 200 mm.

        Here is the OLS-50

        As you can see, the ball cap is almost full, slightly cut off from below. Since the ball is sprayed, we will accept it as 90% of the metal sphere with a radius of 0,1 m.
        The EPR of this metal sphere for centimeter waves is equal to its area. Total EPR = 0,9 * Pi * 0,1 * 0,1 = 0,028 sq.m
        Total, assuming that the ESR of the Su-57 is 0,3 sq. M, the contribution of the ESR of the OLS-50M is approximately 10%! The numbers are shocking! Every little thing is important in a stealth plane, and the EPR is actually made up of them.
        1. thanks 21 January 2020 09: 39 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Passing, this is for you information:
          1. This formula given by you for calculating the EPR of a metal ball cannot be used in this case, since the radius of the ball r of the cross-sectional area is comparable with the wavelength, and not many times more. There is no condition - r ball >> wavelength (r ball = 10 cm and the average wavelength of the AN / APG-81 radar is 2,5 cm). Therefore, your calculation is completely incorrect.
          2. The reduction of the Su-57 radio visibility is provided as a formmaterials that absorb and reflect radio waves in the structure and coating of the airframe, and electronic warfare.
          3. Modern methods can reduce the EPR to 70%.
          1. Passing 21 January 2020 14: 26 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Quote: Mersi
            There is no condition - r ball >> wavelength (r ball = 10 cm and the average wavelength of the AN / APG-81 radar is 2,5 cm). Therefore, your calculation is completely incorrect.

            For your information:

            Smoke thoughtfully rice 8.6
            The graph does not show the ratio R / L = 4, only R / L = 1, but the trend is obvious.
            My calculation is almost correct, perhaps a slight difference from the real one.
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. thanks 22 January 2020 01: 03 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Passing, ugly knowingly write a lie and present a graph for water droplets, while deliberately not giving formulas for calculating the EPR of a metal body, where the condition: r of the ball is much larger (larger than the larger) should be lengthy for your example!
              Therefore, you can smoke yourself thoughtfully and further ... Your calculation is completely wrong. And do not try to get out here.
              Quote: Passing by
              This means that weakening occurs according to the principle of combining the antiphases of waves reflected from many layers of layers. No more conclusions can be drawn.

              Passing, when you write something from the Internet - you need to understand. You are not a radio specialist and have not encountered radio technology and AFU, but are trying to argue. For you:
              The shift of the irradiating and reflected radio waves should be equal to a quarter of the wavelength ... And given the difference in power, incident (irradiating) and reflected radio waves - there will never be 100% suppression.
              1. Passing 22 January 2020 14: 57 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Quote: Mersi
                ugly consciously write a lie

                It seemed to me that this page would be enough, but not the question, here is an exhaustive full picture, page 205 and already laid out 206:


                My calculation is correct, it is a fact.

                Quote: Mersi
                when you write something from the Internet, you need to understand. You are not a radio specialist ... but trying to argue

                Quote: Mersi
                The shift of the irradiating and reflected radio waves should be equal to a quarter of the wavelength ...

                I do not see point blank what I am wrong at a fundamental level. Modern stealth coatings are based on the mutual absorption of waves reflected from layers. This is true? So. My amateurism does not prevent me from catching the main point. And a quarter of a wave or a half, for my theses does not play absolutely any role. The main thing is the fact that there are layers in the coating.
                Sorry, but you again turned on the mode "I'm smart, you're not very." For in fact, using your deeper understanding of the issue, you could not bring a single counterargument. Which makes my position even stronger.
                1. thanks 23 January 2020 09: 46 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Passing by
                  As you can see, the ball cap is almost full, slightly cut off from below. Since the ball is sprayed, we will accept it as 90% of the metal sphere with a radius of 0,1 m.
                  The EPR of this metal sphere for centimeter waves is equal to its area. Total EPR = 0,9 * Pi * 0,1 * 0,1 = 0,028 sq.m

                  Quote: Mersi (Mersi)
                  There is no condition - r ball >> wavelength (r ball = 10 cm and the average wavelength of the AN / APG-81 radar is 2,5 cm). Therefore, your calculation is completely incorrect.

                  Passing, on page 205, in the materials you submitted: "... Thus, the EPR of the ball, having rш >> (much longer) wavelength and a smooth ideal conducting surface, equal to its cross-sectional area, regardless of the wavelength and direction of radiation:
                  Qш = Прш ^ 2. (8.10)
                  Given above, the condition is - having rш >> (much longer) wavelength, a priori for your calculation is not performed, which means to apply formula (8.10) for your calculation in centimeter range must notthat I wrote to you repeatedly.
                  Quote: Passing by
                  My calculation is correct, it is a fact.

                  Passing, and no facts, loyalty to your calculation, there is absolutely no, but vice versa.
                  Quote: Passing by
                  Sorry, but you again turned on the mode "I'm smart, you're not very." For in fact, using your deeper understanding of the issue, you could not bring a single counterargument. Which makes my position even stronger.

                  Passing, I do not suffer from phobia and complexes - all the arguments above ...
                  1. Passing 23 January 2020 18: 00 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    Quote: Mersi
                    Considering the above, the condition - having rш >> (much longer) wavelength, a priori is not fulfilled for your calculation, and therefore it is impossible to use formula (8.10) for your calculation in the centimeter range,

                    Either you are not careful, or I don’t even know ...
                    Let's again, here is my factual logic chain:
                    1) According to page 205, Qш = Пи * Rш ^ 2. (8.10).
                    2) This formula is valid for the condition Rш >> (much more) Rш / Lш.
                    Now we look at the specific data where this generalized rule is derived from:
                    3) on page 206 a graph of the relationship of the ratio Qш / Пи * Rш ^ 2 (i.e., the deviation of the real value of the EPR of the ball (ball, not raindrops, raindrops are denoted by index k) from the calculated value by the formula Pi * Rш ^ 2), and the ratio Rш / Lш.
                    In this graph, we observe that with a value of Rш / Lш = 1, the deviation is small 10-20%, with an approximate value of Rш / Lш = 2, the deviation is a few percent. By extrapolating, for the value of Rш / Lш = 0,1 / 0,025 = 4, which relates to our subject of discussion, the deviation will be, as a maximum, a fraction of a percent, i.e. the formula Qш / Пи * Rш ^ 2 gives the result slightly, in the context of our subject of discussion, which differs from the real one.
                    Where is the mistake here? Indicate.
                    1. thanks 25 January 2020 00: 27 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      Quote: Passing by
                      Either you are not careful, or I don’t even know ...
                      Let's again, here is my factual logic chain:
                      1) According to page 205, Qш = Пи * Rш ^ 2. (8.10).
                      2) This formula is valid for the condition Rш >> (much more) Rш / Lи.
                      Now we look at the specific data where this generalized rule is derived from:
                      3) on page 206 there is a graph of the relationship Qш / Пи * Rш ^ 2 (i.e., the deviation of the real value of the EPR of the ball (ball, not raindrops, raindrops are denoted by index k) from the calculated value according to the formula Pi * Rш ^ 2 ), and the ratio Rш / Ли.

                      Passing by impossible value compare with times... That's right - having rш >> (much longer) wavelength Lи, in this case rш >> Lи.
                      Quote: Passing by
                      In this graph, we observe that with a value of Rш / Lи = 1, the deviation is small 10-20%, with an approximate value of Rш / Lи = 2, the deviation is a few percent. By extrapolating, for the value of Rш / Lи = 0,1 / 0,025 = 4, which relates to our subject of discussion, the deviation will be, as a maximum, a fraction of a percent, i.e. the formula Qш / Пи * Rш ^ 2 gives the result slightly, in the context of our subject matter, different from real.

                      Passing, the value of Rш / Lи = 2 is absent on the graphhowever, it’s said: “With the diameter of the ball, close to Li / 2, The EPR of a ball is four times its cross-sectional area. "That is on 400%. Your calculation of extrapolation is incorrect, as is your statement about a few percent. On the graph of Fig.8.6 there should be a jump, as with the value of Rш / Lи = 0,2, but it is not - since there is no value of Rш / Lи = 2.
                      However, the most important conclusion was omitted in this case by you: "When the ratio of the ball radius to the wavelength decreases to ratios Rш / L and less than or equal to 2, the function Ош / Пи * Rш ^ 2 = Rш / Lи (Fig.8.6) appears a series of resonant maxima and minima, i.e. the ball starts to behave like a vibrator, and that means him EPR strongly depends on the irradiated wavelength and direction. At the same time, it cannot be a standard in any way.

                      EPR ball, having rш >> (much longer) wavelength Lи and a smooth ideal conducting surface, is equal to its cross-sectional area regardless of the wavelength and direction of radiation.
                      Due to this property, a large ball with a well-conducting surface is used as standard when experimentally measuring the EPR of real objects by comparing the signal intensity!
                      1. Passing 27 January 2020 20: 54 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Mersi
                        it is impossible to compare the value of a value with times ...

                        If it’s impossible, I won’t. But this does not change the essence of the issue.
                        [/B]
                        Quote: Mersi
                        the value of Rш / Lи = 2 is absent on the graph

                        You find fault with the non-essential, what is the difference, what is the final value of the abscissa, 1,5, 1,8 or 2? The clearly traced tendency towards a decrease in the deviation from the EPR formula = Pi * Rsh ^ 2 is important
                        Quote: Mersi
                        “At a ball diameter close to L / 2, the EPR of the ball is four times the cross-sectional area." ... There should be a jump on the graph in Fig.8.6, as with the value of Rш / Lи = 0,2

                        You somehow implicitly express your thought, but if I understand you correctly, you dispute the reliability of graph 8.6 on the basis of the rule presented in the same source: “When the diameter of the ball is close to Li / 2, the EPR of the ball is four times its cross-sectional area . "
                        That is, deciphering your logical chain, if Rш = Lи / 2, then we get Rш / Lи = (Lи / 2) / Lи = 1/2 = 0,5. We look at the ratio of the EPR to the cross-sectional area of ​​the ball on the graph 8.6 for Rш / Lи = 0,5 and we see an excess of several times less than four times. Those. you are right, we have a contradiction, an error in the book.
                        But why are you so sure that the schedule is wrong, and not the rule above?
                        Okay, even if the layout of the book is mixed up, the graphic image is not correct, but the logical statements are true. What we have for our case:
                        The EPR of a ball with Rsh >> Li ... is equal to the cross-sectional area

                        In our case, Rш / Lie = 4. It is impossible to say whether our case relates to the above rule. A more specific rule is required, and it is there, literally the previous sentence:
                        With a decrease in the ratio of the ball radius to the wavelength to the values ​​Rш / Lie <or = 2, the function (...) (Fig. 8.6) has a number of resonant maxima and minima, i.e. the ball begins to behave like a vibrator.

                        Those. resonance phenomena are observed at Rш / Lee = 2 or less, and in our case, Rш / Lie = 4, resonance phenomena are not observed. Those. since there are no resonance phenomena, then there is no deviation from the EPR = Pi * Rsh ^ 2.
                        As required.
                      2. The comment was deleted.
                      3. The comment was deleted.
                      4. The comment was deleted.
                      5. The comment was deleted.
                      6. The comment was deleted.
                      7. The comment was deleted.
                      8. The comment was deleted.
                      9. The comment was deleted.
  • Aleks2000 20 January 2020 21: 49 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    IMHO, there is no competitive potential.
    Some will soon finish production, others have not yet begun.
    etc
  • YakimovSS 21 January 2020 12: 11 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    For example, the same AN ​​/ APG-81s are capable of detecting the Su-57E (EPR about 0,2-0,3 sq. M) at a distance of no more than 120-130 km, and this is in a no-noise environment! When the pilot uses the “drying” of the Himalayan electronic warfare complex, this figure will decrease to 110 or 100 km.

    Where does the data and calculation come from?
    Why all the time when I read your articles, at first there is interest, and then it simply covers with a wave of fiction and disgust?
  • Cossack 471 21 January 2020 21: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I’m a fighter in airplanes such as Su-57 is not strong But I immediately recall Tikhiy Don M.A. Sholokhov "a chicken in the nest and a testicle in p .... de" you don’t remember how Putin was somewhere at the exhibition and Erdogan wanted to buy Putin’s plane said “yes please” and in my opinion Manturov said “no need to rush Not so simple” Apparently he decides more than PU
    1. The comment was deleted.