As per Russian sources, Su-57's stealth is very good and so far Ukrainian IADS has failed to detect it.
PAK-FA / Sukhoi Su-57 - Updates and Discussions
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
This is not about radar performance, it's about being able to fly outside the cone of the radar before the radar can alert the MKI of the M2000's presence.
The thing is a radar beam is visible at a longer range than the detection range of the radar itself. So if you can move out of the way of the radar cone, and sustainably stay out of its way, then you will avoid detection entirely. This is the tactic the M2000s used to defeat the MKI in 2010.
You essentially move out of the way and then get closer through a blindspot. The MKI is just looking at a different direction at that point.
This is purely a head-to-head comparison.
Avionics rule the roost here. Yeah, the J-10 relative to Su-35 or J-16 is inferior. But we were talking about J-10 vs F-16. To the PAF, the J-10 with next gen avionics and weapons is obviously better than their 2000s era F-16s.
The IAF deemed the Bars was sufficient to defeat J-10, JF-17, and F-16 so there was no need for a radar upgrade. But the EW, comms, computers, weapons etc have received multiple upgrades. It's also not like PLAAF's J-10, J-11, and J-16 could defeat the Bars too. Now, with J-20, we need advanced GaN class AESA with AI for low RCS detection, not just any simple AESA.
AL-31FM1 comes from Salyut, IAF won't be replacing Saturn's engne with a different company's technology. The IAF took a look at 117S and decided it wasn't worth the cost. They preferred to continue upgrading AL-31FP.
MKI has had R-77-1 since 2019-20, 400 were ordered after Balakot strikes. And has also received Astra Mk1. It was opertional in Sindoor.
Russia won't fall. India will continue buying Russian oil and so will China. And their coming militarization will put the West on the backfoot and by then the PLAN will begin catching up with the USN in terms of capital ship capabilities, while India alternatively creates pressure on both US and China via the IN's expansion. All this is just 10-15 years away and by then oil will become another commodity due to the expansion of green hydrogen, ethanol, and isobutanol. Oil will switch into the petrochemical business while energy will be generated regionally in all countries.
10-15 years is not enough to disrupt Russia. India is still 10 years away from becoming truly secure from external pressure. China is just a few years way too.
Both Russia and China have a serious population problem though, but the same afflicts the US and Europe in terms of their white populations. We can't tell how foreign policies will change over 10-15 years in China, Russia, and the West because of that.
Greater Israel is a fantasy. The Jewish population is too small to hold that much land.
Peace between India and Pak is a fantasy too. India would like peace. But a peaceful Pakistan will cease to exist without a serious civilizational enemy like India to sustain the military budget that keeps the country in one piece. Pakistan will either peacefully or violently balkanize, regardless of whether India was involved in its balkanization or not. There are 4 major ethnic groups that hate each other, and recently two of them have militarily allied to fight the other two.
India has created the NSTC through Iran instead.
Now MKI has a counter to that French tactic. Anyways, it's not going to be 1 MKI vs 1 Rafale, rather a group vs another group and there that tactic won't work.
Having missed the post-Cold War era of the 1990s when Soviet blueprints were sold by the ton, India's military-industrial complex has always suffered from a profound lack of independence and strategic leverage.
Furthermore, oil remains the true lifeblood of industry; from synthetic fertilizers to asphalt, modern industry simply cannot exist without petroleum, alongside coal and iron. It is far more than just a source of power. The so-called 'green energy transition' is entirely a hoax—a fabricated demand manufactured solely to sustain an auxiliary bureaucratic class. Even nuclear energy is largely a front for nuclear weapons procurement; electricity itself is ultimately a cheap commodity.
Crucially, China possesses zero probability of defeating the United States at sea, regardless of which military branch it deploys. The conflicts involving Iran, the Red Sea, and the Black Sea serve as definitive proofs. Air power can no longer shift the geopolitical balance, and naval power has even less of a chance. In reality,
All it takes is a few Honda jetskis buzzing around the Philippines, than take some Harpoon missiles packed into commercial land containers,
to completely paralyze the entire fleet could shut down the entire theater. The asymmetric, paradigm-shifting impact of these anti-ship missile containers on naval warfare far exceeds the disruption brought by FPV drones to land warfare.
Finally, the enduring conflict between India and Pakistan is a geopolitical trap deliberately laid by the British Pig. Had the Soviet Union spearheaded India’s post-colonial state-building, the subcontinent would never have been balkanized along purely religious lines
It's actually made for group tactics.
Flying & fighting in the Dassault Rafale: Interview with a Rafale combat veteran
From the perilous deck of an aircraft carrier, Pierre-Henri ‘Até’ Chuet took the Dassault Rafale M into combat in Iraq. We spoke to him to find out more about the Rafale, a remarkable …
hushkit.net
M2000 does pretty much the same thing.
A French pilot from Garuda.
To gauge the aircraft's maneuverability, the pilots need to have visual contact with one another. It doesn't take much for a dogfight to ensue. A skilled fighter pilot isn't one who engages on equal terms—he’s an assassin; he strikes from behind and relies on cunning. The goal is to get as close as possible to the enemy radar—a system where the beam resembles a cone: the further away you are, the wider the view, but the closer you get, the narrower the angle becomes. So, the objective is to slip underneath that cone (at 10 nautical miles, the area being swept is smaller than at 40). The aim is to exploit the limits of enemy weapon ranges, duck under the radar cone, and create a situation so chaotic that data links fail to alert the pilot that another aircraft is passing right beneath him...
It basically says the M2000 used maneuverability to get under the radar cone and EW to prevent other MKIs in the network from alerting the target MKI.
The objective here, at least from what has been said, the fight started BVR, but the situation was such that the MKI never saw the M2000 to the point where the M2000 could quite literally fly under the MKI.
And they tried to make the exercise as real as possible.
The parties first agreed that "all participants will only use their available weapons system". In other words, they must be "honest" to use means of detecting and tracking targets, and fight in accordance with their real possibilities. The idea was to come as close to real conditions in missions of interception, fire support and tracking using the latest generations of fighters. At the same time in the most complex scenarios in each camp provided a mixture of aircraft of all three parties.
In 2010, Rafale only served as targets, but Indian pilots were given back seat rides to show off its capabilities. So any win or loss was only against M2000.
Thanks to being on a swashplate and inherent beam-agility of Virupaksha, a group of MKIs, separated 50-100 kms from each other and at different altitude, would track any incoming Rafale(from any vector). With Virupaksha, there is no place to run or hide. It will also have insanely good ECCM to reject EW played by hostile jets as it's designed to track 0.01m2 target in heavy clutter over 200kms away.It's actually made for group tactics.
“I don’t know why they’re compared so often – it’s really not the same design, ideas or philosophy. We’re a truly omnirole platform. Typhoons are great, they like to use their big engines at 40,000 feet. I can’t count how many times I’ve shot down Typhoons at 45,000 feet in the contrails. And my radar off, everything off, I was coming from 100 feet below, supersonic in the climb from below. Absolutely undetected. So I have absolutely no fear of the Typhoons. Both the tactics used by the Typhoons, the agility and the cockpit of the aircraft make it easier for us to take the advantage — basically we have better fusion of the sensors — so we can be way more aggressive in terms of tactics. It’s a great aircraft at high level, but we’re not dumb enough to try to fight Typhoons at 50,000 feet or 45,000 feet. We’re going to put them outside their comfort zone. Against devious tactics. Now if you want to rate a Typhoon with AMRAAMs against a Rafale at 50,000 ft, then, yeah, Typhoon is going to have better performances for sure. But as a Rafale pilot, I’m stupid if I take him on like that, so I’m going to move the combat a bit. I’ll fake a combat at 50,000 feet and I’m going to send a guy sneakily low level to surprise the Typhoon, it’s more easy than you think!”Flying & fighting in the Dassault Rafale: Interview with a Rafale combat veteran
From the perilous deck of an aircraft carrier, Pierre-Henri ‘Até’ Chuet took the Dassault Rafale M into combat in Iraq. We spoke to him to find out more about the Rafale, a remarkable …
M2000 does pretty much the same thing.
A French pilot from Garuda.
To gauge the aircraft's maneuverability, the pilots need to have visual contact with one another. It doesn't take much for a dogfight to ensue. A skilled fighter pilot isn't one who engages on equal terms—he’s an assassin; he strikes from behind and relies on cunning. The goal is to get as close as possible to the enemy radar—a system where the beam resembles a cone: the further away you are, the wider the view, but the closer you get, the narrower the angle becomes. So, the objective is to slip underneath that cone (at 10 nautical miles, the area being swept is smaller than at 40). The aim is to exploit the limits of enemy weapon ranges, duck under the radar cone, and create a situation so chaotic that data links fail to alert the pilot that another aircraft is passing right beneath him...
It basically says the M2000 used maneuverability to get under the radar cone and EW to prevent other MKIs in the network from alerting the target MKI.
The objective here, at least from what has been said, the fight started BVR, but the situation was such that the MKI never saw the M2000 to the point where the M2000 could quite literally fly under the MKI.
And they tried to make the exercise as real as possible.
The parties first agreed that "all participants will only use their available weapons system". In other words, they must be "honest" to use means of detecting and tracking targets, and fight in accordance with their real possibilities. The idea was to come as close to real conditions in missions of interception, fire support and tracking using the latest generations of fighters. At the same time in the most complex scenarios in each camp provided a mixture of aircraft of all three parties.
In 2010, Rafale only served as targets, but Indian pilots were given back seat rides to show off its capabilities. So any win or loss was only against M2000.
People raising kids know all this. Let's keep philosophy for our kids.
> If we remove RCS from focus, then Su-57 is certainly better overall in most aspects - agility, weapons, multiple radars, countermeasure, HMDS, etc.
> F-22 certainly lags in A-G capability bcoz it was not intended for it. But MLU is bringing AGMs like MAKO, SiAW.
> But in 5gen characteristics, stealth, sensor fusion comes 1st. There're military standards for H/w, S/w, production, tools, techniques, etc but no ISO standard for gen, hence nations can disagree on gen characteristics & priorities. But in the end stealth helps in 1st shoot & kill in BVR. Agility comes later in WVR. So stealth jet needs to be good both in & out.
> We need to concentrate on 5gen, not dilute the discussion by 4gen & other history.
> For now we're comparing technical features of jets, not politics, numbers, economics, etc which depends on nation to nation.
> This is international jets comparison, not national. So IDK what you mean by matching F-15's payload, 6+2 AAMs looks good internally. IMO if F-22 had 2 more CCMs then it would be perfect.
> Goals & objectives have to be time-bound also. In same era when world was operating 4gen, USA made 5gen. EU had to skip it to catch up at 6gen & Russia still improving Su-57, IWB & SWB pics recently emerging, just 1 TVC nozzle testing, etc.
> Su-57 has antennas in levcons, slats, rudders, so does F-22 (no levcon).
> F-22 also has L-band antenna in wings, on spine & belly.
It's the opposite. DRDO made a sovereign decision to not simply buy technology but to make it all inhouse. The Chinese needed the blueprints, but India did not due to the import option from multiple sources. And the tech India wanted from Russia wasn't given due to American pressure. Some people in India criticized that decision, but in exchange it allowed India to develop a lot of technolgies eventually and are now world class.
In 10 years, pretty much everything India needs militarily will be sourced domestically.
Today it's oil and coal (battery) for India and China. In 10 years, it will be ethanol, isobutanol, hydrogen, oil, and coal (battery). In 20 years, oil will primarily switch to petrochemicals, military use, and any other area where high efficiency is required. By then civilians will have transitioned to non-fossil fuels for transportation. Fertilizer production will use hydrogen and ammonia. At least India is switching away from asphalt to concrete for major roads and highways, while also switching from LPG to CNG/PNG.
India Moves Closer to E100 Fuel as Nitin Gadkari Clears 100% Ethanol Rules
India approves 100% ethanol fuel rules, enabling flex-fuel vehicles and aiming to reduce fossil fuel imports. Automakers launch new models.
You are giving too much importance to the Ukraine War and all the dilapidated ships of the Russians with significant weaknesses to non-conventional attacks, no different from the weaknesses of all modern tanks today to FPV drones.
India identified those weaknesses in the 90s and covered them up by the 2000s on ships while the Russians slept. Jetskis and container ships with missiles are not serious enough to be threats to a modern navy. The Russians have only recently started modernizing their navy with 22350. China's navy is modern and won't be defeated by such means either, neither will 22350.
China won't defeat the USN in open waters, but China will build like the USN, and fight close to Chinese territory where all American Pacific allies are and that's a threat to the USN. PLAN will match INDOPACOM in number of capital ships by 2035-40 and match the USN+Pacific allies before 2045. Even if technologically behind, PLAN will become a serious threat in open waters to the USN well before 2040.
India had the opportunity to solve it in 1948 and our great leader failed to do so.
The radar cone stays the same as Bars. This is not about what the jet will do inside the radar cone, but avoids the radar cone entirely.
The ECCM of the radar is irrelevant, the M2000 jammed data links.
Basically, the radar is not a factor in this scenario, the jet never flew into the radar's line of sight.
This is what the Rafale pilot says too. The sensor is spotted, but the shooter remains hidden. And Rafale can hide, while the MKI cannot. It's the same tactic the USAF says they will use with the F-15EX and F-35 combo, where the F-15EX shows itself and uses its radar while the F-35 makes the kill while hidden.
One must judge based on common sense, not on one’s own stance. One should first study the history and evolution of offensive and defensive weapon development, rather than relying on video games and imagination.It's the opposite. DRDO made a sovereign decision to not simply buy technology but to make it all inhouse. The Chinese needed the blueprints, but India did not due to the import option from multiple sources. And the tech India wanted from Russia wasn't given due to American pressure. Some people in India criticized that decision, but in exchange it allowed India to develop a lot of technolgies eventually and are now world class.
In 10 years, pretty much everything India needs militarily will be sourced domestically.
Today it's oil and coal (battery) for India and China. In 10 years, it will be ethanol, isobutanol, hydrogen, oil, and coal (battery). In 20 years, oil will primarily switch to petrochemicals, military use, and any other area where high efficiency is required. By then civilians will have transitioned to non-fossil fuels for transportation. Fertilizer production will use hydrogen and ammonia. At least India is switching away from asphalt to concrete for major roads and highways, while also switching from LPG to CNG/PNG.
Automakers such as Maruti Suzuki, Hero MotoCorp, Toyota, Suzuki, and Hyundai are now launching flex-fuel vehicles designed to run on high-ethanol blends, including E85 and E100.India Moves Closer to E100 Fuel as Nitin Gadkari Clears 100% Ethanol Rules
India approves 100% ethanol fuel rules, enabling flex-fuel vehicles and aiming to reduce fossil fuel imports. Automakers launch new models.www.thequint.com
You are giving too much importance to the Ukraine War and all the dilapidated ships of the Russians with significant weaknesses to non-conventional attacks, no different from the weaknesses of all modern tanks today to FPV drones.
India identified those weaknesses in the 90s and covered them up by the 2000s on ships while the Russians slept. Jetskis and container ships with missiles are not serious enough to be threats to a modern navy. The Russians have only recently started modernizing their navy with 22350. China's navy is modern and won't be defeated by such means either, neither will 22350.
China won't defeat the USN in open waters, but China will build like the USN, and fight close to Chinese territory where all American Pacific allies are and that's a threat to the USN. PLAN will match INDOPACOM in number of capital ships by 2035-40 and match the USN+Pacific allies before 2045. Even if technologically behind, PLAN will become a serious threat in open waters to the USN well before 2040.
India had the opportunity to solve it in 1948 and our great leader failed to do so.
Air defense missiles placed on land—such as the S-300, Standard, Patriot, and HQ-9—cannot defend against Iran’s Shahab, Shahed 136, or BrahMos. But when you put them on a Project 22350 frigate—especially without the support of forward radar networks—they can supposedly defend against Oniks and Zircon?
Can the United States, China, or India achieve what the Moskva could not?
The perfect kill of air power over sea power was already proven 100 years ago. The current reality is simply the verification of that last test; there is no need to go back and prove it again in 2026. This is called dialectical thinking.
As for the energy structure issue, I’ve been in this line of work since retiring from the military ten years ago. I won’t say much else, but replacing asphalt with concrete? That’s a garbage technique only used on village roads—simply the result of lacking asphalt.
Concrete is too hard yet brittle; under heavy loads, it gets crushed in less than three months. It’s a maintenance disaster, and its grip is also disastrous. The three layers of cement-stabilized base (whatever you call them) beneath the highway asphalt layer are already made with added cement. They serve as the skeleton of the road, used for shaping and bearing settlement deformation. And the asphalt skin is indispensable. As for ethanol and biofuels, would farmers give up high-yield, high-value crops to grow the corn stalks needed for that stuff? This reveals a basic lack of understanding of agriculture and food structure.
> If we remove RCS from focus, then Su-57 is certainly better overall in most aspects - agility, weapons, multiple radars, countermeasure, HMDS, etc.
> F-22 certainly lags in A-G capability bcoz it was not intended for it. But MLU is bringing AGMs like MAKO, SiAW.
> But in 5gen characteristics, stealth, sensor fusion comes 1st. There're military standards for H/w, S/w, production, tools, techniques, etc but no ISO standard for gen, hence nations can disagree on gen characteristics & priorities. But in the end stealth helps in 1st shoot & kill in BVR. Agility comes later in WVR. So stealth jet needs to be good both in & out.
> We need to concentrate on 5gen, not dilute the discussion by 4gen & other history.
> For now we're comparing technical features of jets, not politics, numbers, economics, etc which depends on nation to nation.
> This is international jets comparison, not national. So IDK what you mean by matching F-15's payload, 6+2 AAMs looks good internally. IMO if F-22 had 2 more CCMs then it would be perfect.
> Goals & objectives have to be time-bound also. In same era when world was operating 4gen, USA made 5gen. EU had to skip it to catch up at 6gen & Russia still improving Su-57, IWB & SWB pics recently emerging, just 1 TVC nozzle testing, etc.
> Su-57 has antennas in levcons, slats, rudders, so does F-22 (no levcon).
> F-22 also has L-band antenna in wings, on spine & belly.
View attachment 52347
View attachment 52355
> If we remove RCS from focus, then Su-57 is certainly better overall in most aspects - agility, weapons, multiple radars, countermeasure, HMDS, etc.
> F-22 certainly lags in A-G capability bcoz it was not intended for it. But MLU is bringing AGMs like MAKO, SiAW.
> But in 5gen characteristics, stealth, sensor fusion comes 1st. There're military standards for H/w, S/w, production, tools, techniques, etc but no ISO standard for gen, hence nations can disagree on gen characteristics & priorities. But in the end stealth helps in 1st shoot & kill in BVR. Agility comes later in WVR. So stealth jet needs to be good both in & out.
> We need to concentrate on 5gen, not dilute the discussion by 4gen & other history.
> For now we're comparing technical features of jets, not politics, numbers, economics, etc which depends on nation to nation.
> This is international jets comparison, not national. So IDK what you mean by matching F-15's payload, 6+2 AAMs looks good internally. IMO if F-22 had 2 more CCMs then it would be perfect.
> Goals & objectives have to be time-bound also. In same era when world was operating 4gen, USA made 5gen. EU had to skip it to catch up at 6gen & Russia still improving Su-57, IWB & SWB pics recently emerging, just 1 TVC nozzle testing, etc.
> Su-57 has antennas in levcons, slats, rudders, so does F-22 (no levcon).
> F-22 also has L-band antenna in wings, on spine & belly.
View attachment 52347
View attachment 52355
Just seeing that RCS=0.0001 is enough to make anyone laugh. And the Su-57 at 0.1—under a consistent methodology, they're all 0.3 to 0.5. 0.0001 is already below the detection floor of modern air defense missiles, making it immune to radar-guided missiles. That's a bit ridiculous. And it’s unclear what kind of authority Google browser is supposed to have. As for MLU—it's been in service for 20 years without one being installed, so what MLU are you even counting on? If that's the argument, you could pull out an F-4 and fit it with the same equipment. Also, I have no idea what the dorsal and belly antennas are for—the key point is they’re not radars, so I don’t know why you’re listing them. When you look at your own car, do you find the radio antenna on the front hood, on the rear trunk, or next to the A-pillar?
It took me a while to figure out what you were talking about.
> If we remove RCS from focus, then Su-57 is certainly better overall in most aspects - agility, weapons, multiple radars, countermeasure, HMDS, etc.
> F-22 certainly lags in A-G capability bcoz it was not intended for it. But MLU is bringing AGMs like MAKO, SiAW.
> But in 5gen characteristics, stealth, sensor fusion comes 1st. There're military standards for H/w, S/w, production, tools, techniques, etc but no ISO standard for gen, hence nations can disagree on gen characteristics & priorities. But in the end stealth helps in 1st shoot & kill in BVR. Agility comes later in WVR. So stealth jet needs to be good both in & out.
> We need to concentrate on 5gen, not dilute the discussion by 4gen & other history.
> For now we're comparing technical features of jets, not politics, numbers, economics, etc which depends on nation to nation.
> This is international jets comparison, not national. So IDK what you mean by matching F-15's payload, 6+2 AAMs looks good internally. IMO if F-22 had 2 more CCMs then it would be perfect.
> Goals & objectives have to be time-bound also. In same era when world was operating 4gen, USA made 5gen. EU had to skip it to catch up at 6gen & Russia still improving Su-57, IWB & SWB pics recently emerging, just 1 TVC nozzle testing, etc.
> Su-57 has antennas in levcons, slats, rudders, so does F-22 (no levcon).
> F-22 also has L-band antenna in wings, on spine & belly.
View attachment 52347
View attachment 52355
The so-called L-band antenna on the back of the F-22 refers to the GPS navigation antenna, operating at 1.2 GHz to 1.5 GHz.
On the belly are the Link-16 data link antenna and the IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) system, at 0.9 GHz to 1.2 GHz.
The Su-57's L-band radar, on the other hand, operates at 1–2 GHz. This not only gives it target direction-finding capability, but also makes it a purpose-built jamming and suppression electronic warfare tool tailored against NATO's Link-16 data link system.
So this L-band and that American L-band are not the same thing.
Even that idiot F-22's Link-16 data link can only receive data, not transmit it.
- We can enjoy by LOL, ROFL, LMAO, etc as per our comprehension but doesn't help technically.
- No matter what methodology & angle is taken for reference, just like diferent students score different, similarly different nations have different success levels with their R&D & products in any domain & segment. So someone will emerge to be leader & others as laggers. I'm not saying to believe media blindly, there're millions of techie citizens today. But citizens have to consider some face value. And it's ok to have different opinions.
- Common citizens use some internet browser which direct to YT, Quora, Wikipedia, forums like this, official sites, blogs, etc. If youre unhappy, you tell us alternative, we'll follow. This is casual chat forum which doesn't ask more than UNVERIFIED email to register. Don't expect everyone tobe journalist, in contact with DoD.
- Aren't you aware of 11 Bn$ MLU ARES (Advanced Raptor Enhancement and Sustainment). Haven't you seen the pics of stealthy EFTs, IRST pod, TacIRST, some coatings being tested on F-22 & business jet testbeds?
- This is discussion, not argument, use +ve & neutral words. No, with some exceptions, most MLU equipment cannot be put into F-4 or older gen bcoz they're custom built, it is mismatch, illogical, as the overall efficiency is due to all components in the system.
You've shared some good tech data so far, with touch of philosophy. But, you wanna compare use of antenna on car with 5gen fighter jet?
- It's ok if you or me or any member don't have idea of something. Who is aero-pro here? And many things about these military products are meant to be secret while people can guess endlessly. So let me make my guess & you can make yours.
- The antennas on spine & belly would be used to have spherical RF coverage like EO-DAS, so that when flying low or high, no enemy can pounce from below or top. They may aid MAWS too.
- L-band antenna can be used for SatCom, GPS, radar, SAR mapping, CNI (Communication, Navigation, Identification), etc. With so many uses obviously different nations on their products will use for different set of purposes.
> From cutaway diagrams on internet since years -
- F-22 has separate GPS, SatCom & L-band antennas on spine + set of IFDL (In Flight Data Link) antennas + Band-2,3,4 antennas for EW & CNI.
- On belly, 1 is MLS (Microwave Landing System) & other is L-band.
One fundamental rule for discussion is not to bring up things that don't exist. You're welcome to talk about the F‑22A, but you can't go on about some mythical F‑22C with side‑looking phased‑array radars, or an F‑22F plastered with random antennas—unless, of course, you're willing to fork out the cash and actually get the programme off the ground.- We can enjoy by LOL, ROFL, LMAO, etc as per our comprehension but doesn't help technically.
- No matter what methodology & angle is taken for reference, just like diferent students score different, similarly different nations have different success levels with their R&D & products in any domain & segment. So someone will emerge to be leader & others as laggers. I'm not saying to believe media blindly, there're millions of techie citizens today. But citizens have to consider some face value. And it's ok to have different opinions.
- Common citizens use some internet browser which direct to YT, Quora, Wikipedia, forums like this, official sites, blogs, etc. If youre unhappy, you tell us alternative, we'll follow. This is casual chat forum which doesn't ask more than UNVERIFIED email to register. Don't expect everyone tobe journalist, in contact with DoD.
- Aren't you aware of 11 Bn$ MLU ARES (Advanced Raptor Enhancement and Sustainment). Haven't you seen the pics of stealthy EFTs, IRST pod, TacIRST, some coatings being tested on F-22 & business jet testbeds?
- This is discussion, not argument, use +ve & neutral words. No, with some exceptions, most MLU equipment cannot be put into F-4 or older gen bcoz they're custom built, it is mismatch, illogical, as the overall efficiency is due to all components in the system.
You've shared some good tech data so far, with touch of philosophy. But, you wanna compare use of antenna on car with 5gen fighter jet?
- It's ok if you or me or any member don't have idea of something. Who is aero-pro here? And many things about these military products are meant to be secret while people can guess endlessly. So let me make my guess & you can make yours.
- The antennas on spine & belly would be used to have spherical RF coverage like EO-DAS, so that when flying low or high, no enemy can pounce from below or top. They may aid MAWS too.
- L-band antenna can be used for SatCom, GPS, radar, SAR mapping, CNI (Communication, Navigation, Identification), etc. With so many uses obviously different nations on their products will use for different set of purposes.
> From cutaway diagrams on internet since years -
- F-22 has separate GPS, SatCom & L-band antennas on spine + set of IFDL (In Flight Data Link) antennas + Band-2,3,4 antennas for EW & CNI.- On belly, 1 is MLS (Microwave Landing System) & other is L-band.
------Oh, so whatever you happen to believe is 'valuable reference,' and whatever you don't like is just 'too ancient to count.'
After all, other people aren't like you—many of them might actually know a thing or two about this field. But in my nearly 30 years of surfing the internet, you are genuinely the first person to equate the F‑22's 1–2 GHz radio comms gear with Russian L‑band radars, and then proceed to compare them with a straight face—truly, a stroke of genius.
Car antennas or mobile‑phone antennas are indeed highly comparable to the F‑22's Link‑16 receiver,
because in the US Army this system（What you mean by the F-22's back or abdomen...）
looks like this: antenna on car↓
--------------- This is hardly black magic; if you feel like it, you could strap one onto the Su‑57 too.
If it makes you happy, you can fit six of them—front, back, left, right, top, and bottom.
- So fundamentals of geometry also we have to consider.
- Nobody's stopping you to ignore HMDS, AGMs, side radar MLU possibility which might surface suddenly. That's why i marked few things in red & wrote "may be" or "future".
- But b/w people like you & F-22 engineers quoting F-22's RCS, i've to consider them.
- Similarly, b/w Su-57 engineers & others, if they quote RCS or compare with some object then i'll definitely consider Su-57 engineers,
- I've to consider AMCA, J-20/35/36/50, FCAS, GCAP engineers for their RCS.
- But it's a fact that round surfaces are worst RF reflectors & S-duct is an addition to front RF blocker helps to lower RCS.
- And so the angled front MLD (MLUed to TacIRST) & angled under-wing IRST better than round IRST, hence EOTS on multiple jets have angled cover.
- These antennas are basic fighter need of 5gen.
- You wanna state that Su-57 can have all the types of antennas but not F-22 either in current state or in MLU?
It's pretty clear which nation(s) is/are struggling with R&D since how many years.
- You need to stop getting personal & rude.
- I'm just an average IT engineer in 40s & enthusiast on military. What about you?
- You should take time to read. I said L-band has multiple uses & F-22 has multi-band antennas too.
- Ever heard of conformal antennas? Stealth jets cannot have blade antennas sticking out.
Diagram made in 1997 on internet since decades -
Some pics of disclosed MLU items -
Rafale can't hide from MKI UPG. no matter what ECM or other tactics it may employ. If MKI UPG. is designed to defeat J-20s behind our IADS cover, then Rafale will be no match for it.
After all that effort you put into Googling those glossy pictures,- So fundamentals of geometry also we have to consider.
- Nobody's stopping you to ignore HMDS, AGMs, side radar MLU possibility which might surface suddenly. That's why i marked few things in red & wrote "may be" or "future".
- But b/w people like you & F-22 engineers quoting F-22's RCS, i've to consider them.
- Similarly, b/w Su-57 engineers & others, if they quote RCS or compare with some object then i'll definitely consider Su-57 engineers,
- I've to consider AMCA, J-20/35/36/50, FCAS, GCAP engineers for their RCS.
- But it's a fact that round surfaces are worst RF reflectors & S-duct is an addition to front RF blocker helps to lower RCS.
- And so the angled front MLD (MLUed to TacIRST) & angled under-wing IRST better than round IRST, hence EOTS on multiple jets have angled cover.
- These antennas are basic fighter need of 5gen.
- You wanna state that Su-57 can have all the types of antennas but not F-22 either in current state or in MLU?
It's pretty clear which nation(s) is/are struggling with R&D since how many years.
- You need to stop getting personal & rude.
- I'm just an average IT engineer in 40s & enthusiast on military. What about you?
- You should take time to read. I said L-band has multiple uses & F-22 has multi-band antennas too.
- Ever heard of conformal antennas? Stealth jets cannot have blade antennas sticking out.
Diagram made in 1997 on internet since decades -
View attachment 52372
View attachment 52373
View attachment 52375
Some pics of disclosed MLU items -
View attachment 52368
View attachment 52369
View attachment 52370
here’s the cruel punchline: the F-22 still has no side-facing AESA arrays, no L-band radar, and it’s stuck with a castrated, gimped version of the US Link-16 data link. It can’t even do fire-control handoff and target sharing between two F-22As—so much for net-centric warfare. No air-to-ground missile. No long-range air-to-air missile. No anti-ship missile. And forget about anything like the Su-57’s active jamming suite designed to fry incoming AAM seekers—the Raptor has exactly nothing.
Its central processor? A PowerPC 603 RISC—raw computing power on par with a 20-year-old PSP game console. Or, if you prefer, an iPhone 3. That’s the silicon brain inside the world’s most overhyped “superfighter.”
（You, as the IT engineer, can only communicate with him in the Symbian language.）
Your American daddy is so goddamn stingy he won’t even throw the F-22 a recycled, salvage-pulled processor — the kind you can get for five yuan with free shipping, ten-yuan flea-market e-waste on a Chinese junk stall — for that “mid-life upgrade” you keep babbling about. And yet, how spectacularly filial of you, still fantasizing about stuffing it full of the nice toys — side AESA arrays and all that horseshit.
Year after year, the F-22A clocks 20 years in service — and comes back as fresh as the day it rolled out. Heh.
Last edited:
Does exceptionally hating USA & venting your emotions, abusing members on foreign forums make F-22 disappear or improve a day in your life?
You are also free to provide data but you don't want F-22 data to exist.
Or perhaps Americans want to rely on compensating for it via networking with other assets.
Even if you're taken in front of F-22, allowed to touch it, pointed at it & told "see, here is this XYZ antenna", still you won't accept it.
You want to accept Su-57 specs, pics, diagrams, infographics, but not F-22's.
For secure, two-way sharing, it relied on a unique, directional stealth datalink known as IFDL (Intra-Flight Data-Link), which meant it could not easily share its sensor data with legacy fourth-generation jets.
RACR (Raptor Agile Capability release) upgrade address this issue.
But IFDL worked well among F-22s.
2013 onwards F-22 got Link-16 receive capability.
2020 onwards, USAF began equipping the F-22 fleet with MIDS-JTRS (Multifunctional Information Distribution System Joint Tactical Radio System) terminals, granting the F-22 full two-way (transmit and receive) Link-16 capability.
If the MLU doesn't include them in IWB then there's still chance to be carried externally.
Let's see.
....
I'm not in favor of importing US fighter jets, so this cheap, uncivilised "daddy" comment doesn't apply to me.
Your laptop/PC in front of you.
Your preferred OS, browser, search engine site with you.
Yet you don't/can't/won't search.
If you spent 30 years in internet search means you're in 40s age, so start communicating in civilized way. As Chinese citizen you represent China. Please do so nicely.
I asked you to tell us which browser, search engine, websites the citizens of all countries should use.
You are also free to provide data but you don't want F-22 data to exist.
And i also said may be in MLU.
Or perhaps Americans want to rely on compensating for it via networking with other assets.
Nothing special about it, not a UFO tech.
Even if you're taken in front of F-22, allowed to touch it, pointed at it & told "see, here is this XYZ antenna", still you won't accept it.
You want to accept Su-57 specs, pics, diagrams, infographics, but not F-22's.
Link-16 uses high-power, omni-directional transmissions, which compromises the F-22's stealth.
For secure, two-way sharing, it relied on a unique, directional stealth datalink known as IFDL (Intra-Flight Data-Link), which meant it could not easily share its sensor data with legacy fourth-generation jets.
RACR (Raptor Agile Capability release) upgrade address this issue.
But IFDL worked well among F-22s.
2013 onwards F-22 got Link-16 receive capability.
2020 onwards, USAF began equipping the F-22 fleet with MIDS-JTRS (Multifunctional Information Distribution System Joint Tactical Radio System) terminals, granting the F-22 full two-way (transmit and receive) Link-16 capability.
Earlier along with AIM-260 JATM, there were talks to have some custom AGM like F-35 has AGM-88G-AARGM-ER, NSM/JSM, MAKO, etc.
If the MLU doesn't include them in IWB then there's still chance to be carried externally.
Let's see.
AIM-260 JATM
I'm sorry to say - Your comparisons & analogies are totally out of domain, out of timeline hence illogical because -
- earlier with car, now with videogame, cellphone.
- YF-22 flew in 1990. In 1990s, F-22's CIPs were compared to average supercomputer.
- F-22 flew in 1997,
- iPhone-3 was released in 2008, operated at few 100 MIPS. But even same powerful computer H/w but for different application cannot be compared straight.
- Su-57 flew in 2010, so its computers would be expected to be better but doesnt look like that.
- 2012 onwards F-22 computers got upgraded in Increment 3.1 & 3.2A.
- In 2020s the upgrades have continued, specs supposd to be secret.
- As per current search on your hated Google, F-22's CPU runs at 10.5 (BIPS) billion instructions per second, while Su-57 computers operate at 2-3 BIPS. If this is wrong, you can provide correct data.
What do you do for living?
....I'm not in favor of importing US fighter jets, so this cheap, uncivilised "daddy" comment doesn't apply to me.
Your laptop/PC in front of you.
Your preferred OS, browser, search engine site with you.
Yet you don't/can't/won't search.
If you spent 30 years in internet search means you're in 40s age, so start communicating in civilized way. As Chinese citizen you represent China. Please do so nicely.