What is that ball on the front of the Su-57?

EOTs does have some exposure.

It's in a faceted and coated bubble similar to the F-117's canopy, it's not really an issue.

Attached: nice front exposure..jpg (1712x1062, 232K)

The gold-based metal tint and the faceting basically make the EOTS mechanism radar-shielded.

>The gold-based metal tint and the faceting basically make the EOTS mechanism radar-shielded.

yeah yeah I heard the same thing of a radar shielded IRST from Russia's side. like the IRST above that is still some extra surface than F-35 without one would have more stealth than one that has one.

Well, assuming the IRST is shielded and opaque to radar, having a spherical bubble on your nose isn't exactly helpful for RCS reduction.

They're both shielded from radar, one is just a fucking ball

>a fucking ball
That thing has a pretty wide diameter. Do you really think someone could get it in?

ehhhh no radio waves will still bounce off the EOTs. You can cry that it will bounce the waves away from the source but in airspace where SAMs are present you become a bigger target to them on where those RF waves are bouncing than the aerial threat ahead of you.

Well, that's the entire principal behind the geometry of stealth, user. Shaping goes a long way towards reducing radar returns.

Other than lower RCS and upgraded sensors and electronics, how else does the SU-57 improve on previous gen Russian aircraft?

It bounces off every surface, even that covered in RAM. The important thing is that it's scattered in a direction that is useless to the radar station.

I think it looks a lot cooler than the older ones.

>lower RCS
debatable

>Well, that's the entire principal behind the geometry of stealth, user. Shaping goes a long way towards reducing radar returns.

Fair point just waiting how it will look when the 1st one goes into production. forum.keypublishing.com/forum/modern-military-aviation/149000-su-57-news-and-discussion-version_we_lost_count/page7

Tell ActionJackson I said hi.

You're fucking retarded

Attached: imgp76.gif (529x322, 16K)

Obviously its not as low as F-22s or F-35s, but is it really not an improvement over SU-35s and SU-30s?

This went way over your head didn't it? Its shaped to bounce off RF waves but there is no argument I am hearing from you than an F-35 with EOTs is more stealthy than an F-35 without one.

It almost certainly is. You can take very minimal steps to alter geometry and turn an otherwise very visible aircraft into something that's somewhat low observable.

Attached: BomberRCS.jpg (602x599, 45K)

It definitely is, I think the general claim is that it's sitting around 0.1m^2 but just the internal weapons carriage alone should contribute to a decent amount.

AIs will make that shit obsolete

Mobius 1 you have permission to consume yummy tendies

It probably is, but only to the 0.1sqm range for return size, which most other 4.5s get.

I feel like every user here needs to create a key forum pub account because no one knows whats going on especially thinking measurements are the same from both countries when they are completely different.

I'm not very well-versed in DSP, but my understanding was that most of the limitations on radar detection range come down to hardware and physical properties as opposed to the software used to filter out noise.

Nobody was ever making that argument you absolute mongoloid, we were saying that the housing of the EOTS produces a smaller impact on the overall RCS of the F-35 compared to the increase in RCS caused by the spherical shape of the Su-57's 101KS-V's. The internals of the EOTS are mostly irrelevant when determining its affect on radar returns, the flat planes of the EOTS cover return less radar waves than the spherical cover of the 101KS-V.

Attached: F-35_VFA-101_CAG_101.jpg (1355x900, 247K)

>but there is no argument I am hearing from you than an F-35 with EOTs is more stealthy than an F-35 without one.
It's designed from the ground up with the EOTS glass as part of its shaping, it's not enough of a difference to matter against a theoretical "no-EOTS"model. And it's a critical capability as part of the design anyways.

>high vis paint scheme on F-35
Holy shit, that's sexy.

Your RCS is your RCS no matter what kind of diferent formula or numbers the Russians try to spin with their aircraft.

>Nobody was ever making that argument you absolute mongoloid, we were saying that the housing of the EOTS produces a smaller impact on the overall RCS of the F-35 compared to the increase in RCS caused by the spherical shape of the Su-57's 101KS-V's. The internals of the EOTS are mostly irrelevant when determining its affect on radar returns, the flat planes of the EOTS cover return less radar waves than the spherical cover of the 101KS-V.

Cover less well the F-35 is a small aircraft ya mutt. but the RF waves can still bounce to other radar sources in a covered airspace.

I think colored RAM, or at least radar-transparent, paint was a side project they has to do that.

But one of the key tricks is that since the RAM is baked in, they only need to tape the seams when prepping for a max-stealth operation.

>but the RF waves can still bounce to other radar sources in a covered airspace.
That is not how radar works, dingus.

>the RF waves can still bounce to other radar sources in a covered airspace.
Holy fuck lol you're literally retarded, make sure to never stop namefagging.

SPHERES ARE NOT PREFERRED WHEN TRYING TO ATTAIN A VLO RADAR SIGNATURE

Yeah, shame Grim Reapers got shut down though.

Attached: thiskillstheIADS.jpg (3008x1960, 391K)

if you have 10 billions data point the AIs will be capable off picking up real signals even in the presence of noise.

>That is not how radar works, dingus.

geometry not even once or comprehension.

covered airspace referring to multiple radars.

Hes pretending this hypothetical F-35 is in the middle of a bunch of different radars all trying to paint it, and the reflected radar that bounces off the angled surfaces of EOTS gets redirected to a different radar so its not more stealthy.

>SPHERES ARE NOT PREFERRED WHEN TRYING TO ATTAIN A VLO RADAR SIGNATURE

Yes I have not said a sphere is better muttoid. but that the EOTs is great to pick up in a covered airspace.

>The gold-based metal tint and the faceting basically make the EOTS mechanism radar-shielded.
thats one of the dumbest things I've read on here today.

Attached: 1548352617492.png (330x319, 62K)

A radar needs to get its own signal back as a function of the speed of light to have any data of value. Randomly being scattered into noise-floor strength to stations not looking for the signal is worthless.

Ever wonder why the F-22s canopy is gold?

It's been how it's done since the F-117, dumbass. If the EOTS bubble were a radar danger spot, the canopy would be way worse.

gold is very absorbent.

>but that the EOTs is great to pick up in a covered airspace.
But, again, it is not.

>I have not said a sphere is better muttoid
Then why the fuck are you replying? Nobody has claimed that a protrusion from the airframe will not result in a slightly increased RCS. You're strawmanning pretty fucking hard.

Any theoretical radar system that can pick up on the planar nature of the EOTS glass can pick up anything else so there's absolutely no reason to bring it up when comparing aircraft.

LMFAO... triggered dumb niggers. if that shit worked, the whole plane would be covered in it. all it would take is a thickness of few atoms of gold.
but that's not how rays work. you can't block radar with a thickness that small. you need lambda/2 minimum.
that coating has a very minor effect. it's still reflectitve as fuck.

stay retarded kids.... or pick up a book and stop being so damn stupid.

Attached: 1560450511096.png (600x580, 572K)

Here I drew the arrows in the pic if you dont think a SAM from below will not pick that up and exchange radar information with aircrafts than I dont what to tell you.

That's what a covered airspace is.

Attached: nice front exposure..jpg (1712x1062, 374K)

The F-22 has a gold canopy and the F-35s canopy is more of a red.
Is the F-35s a evolution of the F-22s?

Attached: F-22&F-35.jpg (1024x683, 33K)

The point isn't to be completely radar absorbent, it's to prevent radar waves from bouncing off the complicated internal structures being hidden and preventing an even greater return.

OK, now you're just obviously a troll, nobody could be this stupid without doing so on purpose.

>Haha Im only pretending to be retarded! Jokes on them!

It's the emergency seminal launcher

You do understand that the F-117 was made up almost entirely of flat surfaces, right?

>He thinks the F-35, carrying one of the most advanced signal analysis systems ever flown, wouldn't know exactly where a SAM system is and evade or destroy it without flashing that exact angle
Fucking trolls.

looks like a jew

Attached: oy vey.jpg (800x600, 55K)

That reminds me, I'd love to see F-35s in that blue/blue wavy scheme the Japs are using on some planes.

Flat surfaces facing away from a radar source. The EOTs shown is great against a radar from the front but the return of the RF will still reflect from below.

>He thinks the F-35, carrying one of the most advanced signal analysis systems ever flown, wouldn't know exactly where a SAM system is and evade or destroy it without flashing that exact angle

Still does not change the fact of becoming a bigger radar target from multiple sources.

The F-35 would have to be almost straight overhead for that angle, you're a moron. Similarly, the F-117 had a perfectly flat underside.

>Still does not change the fact of becoming a bigger radar target from multiple sources.
That's not how it works.

This photo is pure sex. Thx user.

Most likely. I never noticed the difference before. Neat.

Almost the entire underside of the F-117 is flat.

Flat oblique surfaces are better for RCS than spheres. The amount of time that a SAM would be at the proper range and angle to take advantage of that small increase in RCS from the EOTS glass becoming less oblique is so slim that it is a non-issue.

F-35 is flat like the f-117 but the eots isn't. it is shaped to reflect RF waves away from the source but other sources still pose a threat.

Attached: not flat at all..jpg (920x691, 127K)

>That's not how it works.

but for physics it does.

Such a low-energy troll.

Attached: 5uwlf-9fUYnZsCyf2Mq8BHoM7oFAC8mmE_Il2RrHejc[1].jpg (1920x1200, 458K)

>but for physics it does.
That's not how radar works, troll.

nice underside. Can I see the EOTs closer?

It looks biological and borderline erotic. Almost like something from Alien. Did H.R. Giger take up aerospace engineering in his later years?

Attached: Untitled.png (1366x768, 1.6M)

anyone at a control center using multiple radar sources can distinguish 1 target better than one alone.

Name some tracking radars that work like that.

still see edges on the outer line and I am question whats behind that triangle glass shaped thing which looks edgy?

Again, not how radar works.

god damn... that thing must reflect a ton of radar back.

Not in any useful direction.

The one you're talking to is Commatard, Armatard's slightly well-versed cousin. Hope you guys have your headache pills.

If you want to use it in an air-to-air role you gonna put it at the top. Even ignoring the fact that IRST and EOTS are different concepts.

this is not true

t. information theory

thedailybeast.com/newest-us-stealth-fighter-10-years-behind-older-jets

IRST.
>Isn't that ball very unstealthy?
It is if you're a brainlet that prioritizes stealth over efficiency instead of using it as an instrument to increase efficiency.

Attached: t-50 (4).jpg (1200x801, 77K)

>Taking a tabloid seriously

The fuck is this even supposed to mean? What are you trying to say?

If you take that headline at face value you should huff car exhaust and just finish the job.
What the fuck do you mean by efficiency.

Stop typing your responses to these retards faster than me you’re making me look bad.

>BomberRCS.jpg
Nice fairy tale, too bad the source is some random internet blog.

flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-prepping-advanced-eots-and-legion-pod-for-f-422810/
foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/is-the-f-35s-targeting-system-really-10-years-behind-cu-1676442535
defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/194043/fully-74-of-export-f_35s-delivered-until-2024-are-obsolete.html

>Taking a tabloid seriously

taking you seriously

So then it is unstealthy.

It only affect RCS against opponents top and frontal, while a bottom placed EOTS affects RCS against ground based radar stations.

Efficiency is the (often measurable) ability to avoid wasting materials, energy, efforts, money, and time in doing something or in producing a desired result.

Attached: putin & a suka (1).jpg (604x579, 63K)

>only
Considering it mostly an air superiority fighter, frontal RCS is pretty important.