AHCA (Advanced Heavy Combat Aircraft) concept, 5/5.5/6gen? Su-30MKI replacement? TEDBF 2.0?

[randombully]

The adversaries will also have all of those - standoff platforms & weapons, but their 4.5gen jets will also be vulnerable.

Them being vunrable is the reason they're will be used from "standoff distances".
Easily 150-200 km behind friendly stealth jets.

 

[randombully]

Obviously the newer gen jets will be costly & hence in lower numbers. With time as things become economical,

Usaf has 6000-7000 fighter jets during 1955-1965 during cold war, now again it's cold lot more military spend relative to economy.
Now it has total 1600+ fighter jets.
In 1955-1965
Usaf had defense budget of 20-30 billion dollars.
Adjusted for inflation:- 200-300 billion dollars.
Even if we add bloatedness, as current budget of us military is bloated.
Then it becomes:- 350-400 billions.
Of dollars.

Current usaf budget is 250+ billions.

So if we take bloated value than usaf of 1955-1965 operated 3.75 to 4.3 times the fighters than today at 1.4-1.6 times higher budget.
That's because the per unit cost and maintenence has increased a lot due to tech heaviness
So those 6th gen jets no matter the production rate or maturity of tech will never be as economical as 4th gen or even 5th gen.
That's the reason cca's are being created.

At most due to increase in our own economy we can operate more than half the no. Of those 6th gen jets as the current no. Of su30mki.
So 130-150 at most by 2050.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

look dude...right now we r "actually" working on 4.5 nd 5 genration....which result "may be" fruitful untill 2035. after that do u really think in next 5-10 years, we r ready to make a 6 genration aircraft??? which will replace our su 30 mki. if yes, than excellent. if no, than we hv to replace su 30 mki with a 5 or 5.5 genration fighter.
1:- my assessment based on our recent capabilities, not based on other countries capabilities nd which technology they r using. so yes a 5-5.5 genration medium weight single engine fighter jet make more sense to replace our su 30 mki fleet. instead "any 6 genration aircraft". yeah we will remainb10-20 years behind than other countries in aircraft segment. but it will far better than today, when we r 30-40 year behind in fighter aircraft manufacturing. coz we r building a 4 genration (tejas) fighter now, which other countries made 30-40 year before. definitely in some areas, like aesa radar, RWR, bvr missile, jamming pods etc we r making current level of technology.
2:- if we imported any other countries 6 genration fighter or get engine etc....than that is different topic to discuss.

I'll reply to you further when i'm done clearing querries & concerns of @randombully
I can't handle multiple members rapidly & simultaneously, it can create confusion & misunderstandings.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

@randombully
Rather than replying every 5-10mins, please make a habit to gather your points, compact your draft point wise & make 1 reply for 1 reply.

 

[randombully]

@randombully
Rather than replying every 5-10mins, please make a habit to gather your points, compact your draft point wise & make 1 reply for 1 reply.

Alright, Will do.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

As for the "6th gen" you are talking what is a 6th gen?
Because the tech that amca mk2 will have will rival tech the stealth jets of 2035 will have.
Whether it's integrating as part of larger system comprised of many other fighters, Loyal wingman, force multipliers like awacs, reconnaissance.
Whether it's advance avionics.
Whether it's unammaned mode flying capabilities.
The only thing amca will have different Is other 6th gen jets will have relatively more stealthy and less manurable tailless designs and will be bigger in size( more range, endurance, more powerful avionics, but again f15 also has alll those compared to f16 but both are considered same genration) while amca will be medium weight.
So amca will not be able to fulfill the capabilities those large jets will fulfill but it doesn't mean it will be technologically a generation behind, we can just take amca's tech and scale it up in size for bigger jet.

Yes, we can inflate AMCA to AHCA with better engine like LCA inflated to MWF.
F-22 & F-35 are getting certain MLUs to make them 5.5gen. We have an opportunity to learn from it & put the MLU level in AMCA IOC/MK1 itself.
But the difference b/w 6gen & 5/5.5gen in theory at least is more RF+IR stealth, more IWB capacity, longer range weapons, internal DEW which cannot be done in any current 5gen jet. So AMCA cannot become 6gen, only 5.5gen. Its inflated version with little more geometric tweaking will do the trick to save time & cost to make AHCA MK1, while AHCA MK2 can be a cleansheet design but has to start today itself.

For example f22 and f35 both are considered 5th gen because of stealth.
But avionics wise f22 is the most outdated 5th gen out there, rafale f4, f15ex, j16 etc while being non stealth are more advance than f22 in avionics.
Not to mention f22 also lacks irst/ eots, DAS, and other sensors f35 have.

> Don't forget that F-22 is still super-secret even to closest allies, for only god & LM knows what.
> H/w & S/w updates are supposed to happen say every 5 years just like our phones, computers, changing the elements like storage, connectors, PCB-LRUs, RAM, CPU, etc. F-22 was made modular. The 1990s documentaries, interviews clearly mention this.
> DAS is an arrangement of MAWS, so F-22 has 6-axis DAS-MAWS AN/AAR-56. But F-35 DAS developed later would be better obviously.
> We still have to wait & see the MLUed F-22. May be it'll have HMDS & 1 screen like F-35. stealthy IRST & EW pods are tested. Later, may be stealthy DEW pod & laser-reflective coating below RAM.

If we take f22 as bench mark for 5th Gen, then it's not wrong to call f35, j20 as 5.5+gen jets, or even a 6th gen if we consider increased computation capabilities, network Centric capabilities and advance avionics as generational leap.

Nope, like i said above, many of those things might be coming in F-22's MLU. Stealth & sensor fusion were primary 5gen features. Supercruise, TVC were secondary features. F-22 with lowest RCS, sufficient sensor-fusion & avionics, TVC agility, undisclosed super-secret components, still remains the king/queen of 5gen & even 5.5gen after MLU.

And that 4th gen tejas m2 we are biulding will rival 5th gen in terms of avionics.
And that non stealth tejas mk2 we are biulding is more advance than f22 in terms of sensors and avionics.

Avionics is not just big touch-screen, adding some sensors but complete end-end setup. A good jet has to be updated not only inside but also outside.
If 4gen gets MLUed to 4.5, then 5gen also to 5.5 & some updates happen in short term.
So in general, older gen can never ever rival newer gen bcoz gen leap is said to occur when MLU is impossible, or very limitedly possible, or very costly. There's no point in talking about any 4.5gen jet here.

There's a reason usaf was thinking of retiring f22's by 2030.
And now they are going to upgrade Some f22 to f35's standard, while rest will be retired.

It could be a rumor, misleading propaganda. But bcoz capitalist private firms do overcharge so some jets could retire. At this time i don't think so but time will tell soon. But that's not the point when NGAD & F/A-XX will come.

We are also working on future tech that may come.
So by that time we will have all the tech for a advance(by the standards of 2035) stealthy heavy fighter jet.
The only thing that has a possibility to be our archellies heel by that time could be engine for a heavy fighter jet.

What is "archellies heel"? DRDO has shown slide on DEW pod. We've RAM, RAS. All we need is better engine & custom weapons for IWB.

Well then how about just joining French in their fcas project for naval stealth jet and ditch tedbf.
Our navy can order 60-100 fcas jets by that time.
Instead of 2038, even If facs comes in 2040 it won't be a problem.

> You're talking about import, not initiating a domestic airframe design.
> EU nations are far more richer than us, technically much ahead & France is the only neutral decision making country.
> When they have revealed the preliminary FCAS outine means they already did detailed talks, planning, a lot of preliminary CAD, CFD, wind tunnel tests, etc.
> So a country like ours who's currency is weaker & technical R&D is behind ends up in dragging the project. Imagine if African countries would like to join AMCA giving little money & not not contributing technically.
> FCAS project has other partners like Spain & Germany who are not so equally freindly to us & can do arm-twisting.

And as fcas is also supposed to be carrier capable it will be relatively smaller jet compared to other heaveir 6th gen jets.
That's one of the main reason why fcas and brutish gcap are more mixed into one project.

IDK if they have declared a Naval version but such size/weight conclusion from Engineering PoV is wrong.
What matters is the aircraft's structural strength to land, availability of space for it (with folding wings), takeoff capability with its engines in STOBAR or preferably EMALS-CATOBAR.



My laptops are very old, not compatible with CAD S/w like Blender, etc. Otherwise i would have shown my idea like artist Rodrigo Avella & that Russian guy "Paralay".

We are already going for jv with 100% know why and know how with either French or brits.
We can deepen the coorporation, by moving way past engine and joint development of future tech that will be used in our amca and their fcas.
Along with that future order of fcas for IN with indigenous engine, and avionics that are jointly developed, and domestic production of airframe with tot.
And French do seem desperate for a partner that can fund development of next gen jet, if they are willing to share engine tech then they most likely will not mind sharing others.
That way we can either shorten amca time or make AMCa more advance, and also have advance stealth jet for navy by 2040.
All while achieving atmanirbharta.
Because that's **The only way**we can initiate it today/now.
Or else it will be initiated after 2030 and enter service near 2050.
Well my pipe dream ends here.

> Bcoz our Kaveri is not up to the mark & private firms not ready, so we already have no choice other than JV for engines which will be finalized this year i guess as per news.
If we can arrange an engine like F135 also then AMCA can have 1 engine like F-35, so lesser cost & maintenance but loss of redundancy & safety.
> Apart from engines, the program head of AMCA said at Aero-India that it will have everything the F-35 has but after 10 years.
We're making EOTS, other sensors, radar & avionics.
We're also working on DEW pod which can be made conformal.
IDK about our own HMDS like that of F-35's. The next step of HMDS is virtua cockpit.
> So w.r.t. AHCA, all we need is a strong engine by JV, that's all.

Controlled is one thing.
Cca's and command jet being integrated as one large system is another
There's a reason both russian china going for twin seat j20 and su57.
Now LM has said with enough AI and systems f35 "can probably" work without WSO.
But locked Martin didn't say that it can be done by a tablet strapped to pilot.
Best way is still a separate wso behind pilot.
If it was as easy and effective to control them from awacs and sat com they wouldn't be going this route.

> Even if you watch websites & videos all day, you can miss something & evidently you have missed.
> So be carefull what example you give & follow, leader or lagger. Thinking leads to habits & actions. Russia & China are lagging behind USA. Every techie individual doesn't think & perform same way. May be the Russian & Chinese techies suggested AI-co-pilot but the decision making managers are not convinced. The WSO is just a liability wasting space. So the F-22 & F-35 don't have a trainer version or 2 seater bcoz of their technologies, training, experience, confidence. But the Russians & Chinese with much larger country, do operate 1-seat Sukhois but we don't.
> The CCA UCAVs are supposed to have AI logic for flight & fight. All they need is instruction by a touch-screen or voice. That screen can be a tablet. A computer-savvy non-techie can understand that, those gadget Youtubers also know this, no need for an industrial organisation to confirm it.
> Another point is that even if all jets are given MLU of big screen then many techies, pilots have already raised concern over failure of screen if a bullet hits somehow affecting the screen but the jet is still functional. Our IAF guys also said this at CAPS (Center for Air Power Studies). We can go for 2 screens like in some Sukhois but in there also we can find tablets.

Them being vunrable is the reason they're will be used from "standoff distances".
Easily 150-200 km behind friendly stealth jets.

Yeah, that's their fate to do brooming, mopping & get shot down easily by improved SAMs/AAMs, on both sides of conflict.
But a 4gen jet cannot be compared with 5/6gen. Nor it should affect the R&D of 5/6gen. These Western countries are making animations of their CCAs & MLUed 4.5gen jets operating the CCAs but they are also operating 5gen jets & making 6gen jets, while our 5gen will come after 10 years & we're still resisting, discouraging, lacking confidence to talk & initiate 6gen.

Usaf has 6000-7000 fighter jets during 1955-1965 during cold war, now again it's cold lot more military spend relative to economy.
Now it has total 1600+ fighter jets.
In 1955-1965
Usaf had defense budget of 20-30 billion dollars.
Adjusted for inflation:- 200-300 billion dollars.
Even if we add bloatedness, as current budget of us military is bloated.
Then it becomes:- 350-400 billions.
Of dollars.

Current usaf budget is 250+ billions.

So if we take bloated value than usaf of 1955-1965 operated 3.75 to 4.3 times the fighters than today at 1.4-1.6 times higher budget.
That's because the per unit cost and maintenence has increased a lot due to tech heaviness
So those 6th gen jets no matter the production rate or maturity of tech will never be as economical as 4th gen or even 5th gen.
That's the reason cca's are being created.

At most due to increase in our own economy we can operate more than half the no. Of those 6th gen jets as the current no. Of su30mki.
So 130-150 at most by 2050.

You're giving so much financial data but literally being childish in understanding.
When technology evolves tomorrow, the current latest tech becomes older, cheaper or not?
How can you compare 6gen with 5gen or 4gen? Will you compare today's latest phone, computer, bike, car with latest ones after 20 years?

>CCAs are being created due to many reasons & benefits-
- It needs AI, not just RC. It is only now the AI R&D is evolving.
- Human losss wil be less.
- Conflicts may end sooner.
- Less HR management, training, breifing, etc.
ETC

> And how many times will i say not to compare-
- Socialist mixed economy & Capitalist free market economy?
- USA's different isolated geography, geopolitics, global agenda, global bases, global market, different currency value, etc.

> At any given point in time, every big AF operates 2 gens of jets - fewer newer ones & more older ones. After few decades when even a newer gen comes, the older ones retire, the fewer newer ones become the more older economical ones, the even a newer gen becomes the fewer newer ones, the cycle continues endlessly.
So R&D never ever stops. I hope we won't discuss on this aspect even again

 

[randombully]

Don't forget that F-22 is still super-secret even to closest allies, for only god & LM knows what.

It was a super secret when in the 1990'a early 2000's, the bill to never export them came during those times.

After f35 it's not so much.
Closest allies don't operate them.
Production stopped.

As for the rest, in lot if my points you do agree.
In lot other, it's seems we are arguing with different person and interpretation different things.
For example, in comparison of 6th, 5th, 4th gen
It was purely economical, that cost of next gen will increase no matter how much tech matures, and no. Of fighter jets(, if economy of the country and budget remains the same) will decrease over time.
On of the "main" advantage cca's have is cheaper cost.

while our 5gen will come after 10 years & we're still resisting, discouraging, lacking confidence to talk & initiate 6gen.

And we will continue to do the same hesitation.
Because the only way we're ever going for a larger stealth jet now, is joining France in fcas.
As for fcas being carrier capable https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...r-system-will-operate-from-aircraft-carriers/
It's going the rafale route in development, first naval varient then airforce varient will be developed from it, much easier to do than reverse.
And carrier has limited space the size will be most likely somewhat smaller than other 6th gen.

So w.r.t. AHCA, all we need is a strong engine by JV, that's all.

Looks like we agree here.
Engine is the only hurdle we Will have for ahca, once we develop amca mk2.

You're talking about import, not initiating a domestic airframe design.

Read the entire thing before replying.

EU nations are far more richer than us, technically much ahead & France is the only neutral decision making country.
> When they have revealed the preliminary FCAS outine means they already did detailed talks, planning, a lot of preliminary CAD, CFD, wind tunnel tests, etc.
> So a country like ours who's currency is weaker & technical R&D is behind ends up in dragging the project. Imagine if African countries would like to join AMCA giving little money & not not contributing technically.

British pm literally offered us gcap program, we declined, they wouldn't offer it to an african country.
What we offer them in return is
1, extra money for development.
2, more order, our orders by that time would rival and surpass combined orders of France, Spain, Germany.
Though I do agree with problems due to German involvent if we try to join fcas

But a 4gen jet cannot be compared with 5/6gen. Nor it should affect the R&D of 5/6gen

That's where we both are fighting a different argument.
I never said it should affect the R&D
I said it won't be a replacement of su30mki.
As I beleive lots of su30mki, will be moved on to standoff roles, as standoff fighters.

For examples in bombers US B52, chinese h6, russian bear all are standoff platforms.
Even though they are all old as fuck





As for generational leap, its "your" criteria that generational leap happens when it can't be put into current generation jets.
We can also consider generational leap as a tech that can change the way we fight and gives massive advantage to the side having that tech, whether the tech be put into current gen jets( hence upgrading them into next gen) or not.




As for cca I'll continue the discussion later.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

It was a super secret when in the 1990'a early 2000's, the bill to never export them came during those times.

After f35 it's not so much.

There is big difference b/w having idea & knowking exactly.
Today many nations including us have developed own versions of things like RAM, RAS but unable to reach lowest RCS of F-22. So even after retirement of the F-22, B-2, F-117, there will be things secretive about it.
Other things can be ceramic RF blockers, its arrangement, cooling systems, certain EW capabilities, etc.
There are few things about SR-71 also still a secret.

As for the rest, in lot if my points you do agree.
In lot other, it's seems we are arguing with different person and interpretation different things.
For example, in comparison of 6th, 5th, 4th gen
It was purely economical, that cost of next gen will increase no matter how much tech matures, and no. Of fighter jets(, if economy of the country and budget remains the same) will decrease over time.
On of the "main" advantage cca's have is cheaper cost.

I simply observe things going on in the tech world & desire our country to catch up within few decades.
People can argue on Capitalism Vs Communism Vs Socialism w.r.t. Finance & Economics, but reality of Physics, Chemistry, Maths doesn't change.
Whether it is manned or unmanned jet, its cost will depend on -
- its design, size, features.
- competition or monopoly of maker.
- economic model of country.

And we will continue to do the same hesitation.
Because the only way we're ever going for a larger stealth jet now, is joining France in fcas.
As for fcas being carrier capable https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...r-system-will-operate-from-aircraft-carriers/
It's going the rafale route in development, first naval varient then airforce varient will be developed from it, much easier to do than reverse.
And carrier has limited space the size will be most likely somewhat smaller than other 6th gen.

Read the entire thing before replying.

Assuming we join FCAS then I called FCAS an import rather than JV bcoz like i said they have already outlined its shape, which depends on preliminary research on components also. ADA doesn't have any outline or even a sketch. Otherwise I would be very happy to see our 6gen as result of JV also rather than waiting for ADA for 10/15/20 years. IDK if FCAS-JV talks are happening officially or planned.
But remember my points of concern w.r.t. -
- weaker currency contribution. Russians milked us for PAKFA when Rubles & Rupee have identical value.
- what we can offer & contribute technically to FCAS. The Japanese & Brits had big disagreements on GCAP airframe design. Tempest + Mitsubishi FX -> Old GCAP -> New GCAP.
- possible arm twisting by Spain, Germany.

Engine is the only hurdle we Will have for ahca, once we develop amca mk2.

IDK if ADA mentioned exact difference b/w AMCA MK1 & MK2 or IOC & FOC.
But AHCA airframe & components design should start immediately.

British pm literally offered us gcap program, we declined, they wouldn't offer it to an african country.
What we offer them in return is
1, extra money for development.
2, more order, our orders by that time would rival and surpass combined orders of France, Spain, Germany.
Though I do agree with problems due to German involvent if we try to join fcas

The same concerns as with FCAS -
- Can we afford that etra money?
- It'll be humiliating for our scientists & engineers if they can't contribute something significant. They have their weapons, virtual cockpit architecture ready. Rolls Royce Vs GTRE no comparison. Their DEW testing might be going on.
- US$ Vs Euro. 1 US$ = 87 INR. 1 Euro = 94 INR, that's even worse.

That's where we both are fighting a different argument.
I never said it should affect the R&D
I said it won't be a replacement of su30mki.
As I beleive lots of su30mki, will be moved on to standoff roles, as standoff fighters.

For examples in bombers US B52, chinese h6, russian bear all are standoff platforms.
Even though they are all old as fuck

And i clarified on it that mentioning Su-30MKI is bothering you unnecessarily, that's probably bcoz of missile launch capability. You can't expect any stealth jet to launch such BIG missile internally obviously. May be from externl hardpoint but pylons are not stealthy. That way obviously no stealth jet can replace MKI.
It is merely a coincidence that looking at Su-33 & after studying the cut-away diagrams of various jets, the minimum size/volume/weight a stealth naval jet with 2 engines for safety which i can imagine is in class of Sukhois.
It is just a size estimation & we don't have anything bigger than AMCA due to engine limits.
So bcoz my vision of AHCA is a multi-role one with custom weapons, it unintentionally becomes like a Su-30MKI replacement.
Whatever MKIs we have licensed produced, we have to use them obviously the way IAF wants. Their upgrades are also justified. But IMO money should not be spent on making new MKI airframes by HAL.
And finally 1 day all 4gen jets will rest in pieces.

As for generational leap, its "your" criteria that generational leap happens when it can't be put into current generation jets.

No, who am i, a low IQ techie, to define industrial standards when i already said many times that in every domain the leader(s) define the standards & lagger try to follow or compete.
It is just an observation of the flying jets globally & searching for common pattern of differences in them. Kindly look at the original table in 1st post. I also said that people can refine it.

We can also consider generational leap as a tech that can change the way we fight and gives massive advantage to the side having that tech, whether the tech be put into current gen jets( hence upgrading them into next gen) or not.

So it is you who want to propose a new scale of differences. But you have to give very specific example or a table like i made for a clear picture.
It doesn't really bother me what version # people wanna consider for their understanding. Hence i suggested to compare a table of features bcoz version # doesn't decide battle outcome but the features.

 

[randombully]

Today many nations including us have developed own versions of things like RAM, RAS but unable to reach lowest RCS of F-22

That seems pretty exaggerated, due to propaganda in support of f22.
That marble size rcs of f22, at 0.0001-0.0002m2 that us military talked about, is just wrong, its 100% just from one angle, the most optimised angle, viweing angles of jets from front cover 120°+angle, that's why median or avg rcs is better.
The same here for f35's golf ball size, though its more accurate than f22,

Based on simulations of shape( assume all surfaces to be metal), "average" frontal rcs of f22 at +20° To-20° arc is 0.10-0.18m2(slighly higher than f35 which has 0.08-0.1m2)
If we reduce it by using by 70x( -18-20DB) we get 0.001-0.004m2 avg value.
The 70x no. For ram Comes from golf ball estimate of f35, so we are using ram as advance as f35's ram( in ideal case, in real lifef22, f35, j20, su57 will be slightly less stealthy as depicted here)in this estimation.
But again f22's ram is just not as advance, we do hear about f22's ram being lot more fragile than f35's ram, as for can it reduce rcs the same rate as f35's ram, probably not.
So at "most" f22 is slightly more stealthy than j20 from front, because of its shape.
Also as you can see in pics f35 has more better and smoother surface finish than f22, the latest pics of j20 also seem to match f35 in terms of surface finish.
So f22's stealth could probably be slightly worse than j20 from " front"
And f22's bulkhead unlike f35 single peice forged was assembled traditionally.
And in f22 composites by "structural" weight are 37% and in f35 60%,
So lot more metal, means relatively higher ir signature, and higher rcs too( in an all composite part like all composite tail with ram would absorb more radar waves than a metal tail with ram coating).

. So even after retirement of the F-22, B-2, F-117, there will be things secretive about it.
Other things can be ceramic RF blockers, its arrangement, cooling systems, certain EW capabilities, etc.
There are few things about SR-71 also still a secret.

I do agree with that, while not as good as f35, but yeah it's still stealth tech.

 

[randombully]

So it is you who want to propose a new scale of differences. But you have to give very specific example or a table like i made for a clear picture.
It doesn't really bother me what version # people wanna consider for their understanding. Hence i suggested to compare a table of features bcoz version # doesn't decide battle outcome but the features

I didn't said new scale, I meant as its not official, so it better to keep the criteria somewhat flexible.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

That seems pretty exaggerated, due to propaganda in support of f22.
That marble size rcs of f22, at 0.0001-0.0002m2 that us military talked about, is just wrong, its 100% just from one angle, the most optimised angle, viweing angles of jets from front cover 120°+angle, that's why median or avg rcs is better.
The same here for f35's golf ball size, though its more accurate than f22,

Based on simulations of shape( assume all surfaces to be metal), "average" frontal rcs of f22 at +20° To-20° arc is 0.10-0.18m2(slighly higher than f35 which has 0.08-0.1m2)
If we reduce it by using by 70x( -18-20DB) we get 0.001-0.004m2 avg value.
The 70x no. For ram Comes from golf ball estimate of f35, so we are using ram as advance as f35's ram( in ideal case, in real lifef22, f35, j20, su57 will be slightly less stealthy as depicted here)in this estimation.
But again f22's ram is just not as advance, we do hear about f22's ram being lot more fragile than f35's ram, as for can it reduce rcs the same rate as f35's ram, probably not.
So at "most" f22 is slightly more stealthy than j20 from front, because of its shape.
Also as you can see in pics f35 has more better and smoother surface finish than f22, the latest pics of j20 also seem to match f35 in terms of surface finish.
So f22's stealth could probably be slightly worse than j20 from " front"
And f22's bulkhead unlike f35 single peice forged was assembled traditionally.
And in f22 composites by "structural" weight are 37% and in f35 60%,
So lot more metal, means relatively higher ir signature, and higher rcs too( in an all composite part like all composite tail with ram would absorb more radar waves than a metal tail with ram coating).

I do agree with that, while not as good as f35, but yeah it's still stealth tech.

> Many people don't pay attention that apart from RAM, F-22 airframe takes care of minute features to reduce RCS, like -
- no ladder, IFRP, DSI, canopy arc, AoA sensor;
- lesser surface bumps,
- conformal flush air data sensors,
- very small DAS aperture, etc.
- It has enough EW antennas & techniques.
Moreover an export jet like F-35 JSF cannot be allowed to be more stealthy than domestic F-22.

> It is better to trust what the design team & test pilots say in documentaries & interviews, otherwise our designers & pilots can also be doubted, especially when lagging behind so much.
> It doesn't matter to the world how fragile is USA's RAM, how costly, etc bcoz USA will not stop their R&D at any cost.
> The frontal RCS is discussed more bcoz in most cases that's the approach/encounter angle. Otherwise obviously RCS varies as per angle in 3D & RF band.



But bcoz of the changing RCS with angle the median or average cannot be taken, Engineering doesn't work that way of shortcut statistical assumptions bcoz the biggest RCS is perpendicularly either dorsal or ventral, which will increase the median/average value. Median is actually far dangerous than average. So thats a big error actually & cannot be used in computations.
> Simulation of shapes is 1 thing but full scale hollow models of real materials of various jets are made & tested in Anechoic chambers & RCS test ranges from every spherical angle in every RF band. That costs a lot of R&D money & gives far accuarte readings than sims.






> The RCS library in the mission computers are not just a simple list of average/median values, but different values at different angles, complete spherical coverage. This huge tabulated data is referred in real time when radar detects & tracks a target, its orientation, distance. The new data can be recorded, refined, redistributed.
> So looking at the unparalleled R&D USA has done after WWs, in aeronautics & aerospace, their inventions, labs, manufacturing & testing facilties, S.O.P.s & protocols, i believe their figures are achievable. Leaders don't need to bluff or do propaganda if they lead by 30-40 years. But that's just my view. Others can have theirs, but in any domain, qualification & experience matters.

 

[randombully]

Many people don't pay attention that apart from RAM, F-22 airframe takes care of minute features to reduce RCS, like -
- no ladder, IFRP, DSI, canopy arc, AoA sensor;
- lesser surface bumps,
- conformal flush air data sensors,
- very small DAS aperture, etc.
- It has enough EW antennas & techniques.

J20 and f35 has all these too.
And they have even lesser surface bumps.
You can also see this in the pics I sent you.

Moreover an export jet like F-35 JSF cannot be allowed to be more stealthy than domestic F-22.

Why?
Usaf, USMC, USN also uses it, why would they intensionally make their main 5th gen fighter some what less stealthy than they can?
You know f22's will retired before f35 right?

The RCS library in the mission computers are not just a simple list of average/median values, but different values at different angles, complete spherical coverage.

I would say f35 has lower values of rcs in all the different angles, except from below than f22.

So looking at the unparalleled R&D USA has done

That's why f35 should have better stealth than f22.

Also found this on quora, it had "former pilot" written
In 2005 the USAF said the F-22's RCS was the same as a steel marble, and that the F-35's would be that of a metal golf ball. People deduced from that, that the RCS of the F-22 was .0001M2 and the F-35's was .001M2. But at the time the F-35's RCS had not even been pole tested. Then in 2010, Lockheed Martin announced a break-through stealth structure called fibermat, that not only made stealth an easy thing to maintain on the F-35, but apparently is extremely good at absorbing radar waves. A few years after that, General Hostage of ACC said the F-35 is more stealthy than the F-22. General Bogdan, head of the F-35 program, confirmed that in Senate testimony.Apparently the F-35's frontal RCS is better than f22.

F-22/F-23 Radar Cross Sections Update · Issue #4101 · PygmalionOfCyprus/cmo-db-requests

DB Selector DB3K Affected DBID(s) 691, 2201, 4972, 5952, 4858, 3821, 4875, 3319, 4107, 5852 Summary of Changes The F-22A Raptor has a frontal Radar Cross Section (RCS) in CMO DB503 of 0.010m2 which...

github.com

*Ausairpower also ran RCS simulations on the J-20 and Su-57, and their modeling data included simulations of the radar reflection performance of the aircraft in all directions, using tried-and-true modeling techniques.In the comprehensive modeling simulation, we find that J-20 and Su-57 have the same VLO characteristics in the simulation of different bands. For example, in the simulation of J-20 in the band of 8GHz and above without RAM/RAS, a large area less than -15.5dbsm appears in the front hemisphere of the J-20 model. As the band increases (starting from about 12GHz), the J-20 model will become more and more stable. There are even quite a few -40dbsm areas (equivalent to RCS 0.0001㎡).*

The last line here is interesting, about j20 having some areas/angles with with 0.0001m2.
So yeah, I can also quote j20 is 0.0001m2 rcs fighter jet.

But as you said before about rcs not being one value and different values depending on angles, then for overall large area of fighter jet, let's say from front, then combined radar return should be higher in real world cases.
Which again would mean that 0.0001m2 is highly exaggerated.

Then this

"This is extremely important, very well put in your comments above. Always people claiming "sources say" but they take it out of context completely when it comes to the "golf ball" or "steel marble" rcs estimate, that is from one or multiple angles only and yet they take that estimate and apply it to an a viewing area of 120 degrees or even 360 degrees and for all radar bands, which makes zero sense whatsoever, especially to those who have a basic background or understanding in this area - which some do and have ran various RCS simulations factoring in RAM/no-RAM against different frequencies (VHF,meter,decimeter,centimeter) and their results are much more in-depth and realistic than what misled users on Quora and Youtube or AviationGeek have to say.

Stealth and RAM technologies cannot evade Raleigh scattering just like radars cannot evade the 4th inverse root law of range. Based on many simulations of RCS, stealth planes would need so much RAM to have an all around RCS of -40 dBsm against E-M band (3-12GHz) that they wouldn't even be able to fly in the first place... it would weigh down the craft tremendously. Of course newer technologies will continue to absorb high frequency radars, but VHF/UHF will still be the Ace card against stealth"


That's all.