Something I always wondered, like active noise cancelation on audio devices, is there an équivalent for for radar emissions ?

@@adr1uno638 I think Rafales SPECTRA jammer does something like that.

The distance-dependant nature of stealth makes it obvious as to why the Chinese developed a powerful AA missile ... and makes it extremely confusing as to why others have not. A missile that can stay above mach-4 for 35-40-miles would make stealth even more powerful. As in, perhaps it's more valuable to have a couple of extremely high-performance missiles than to have 4-6 AMRAAM that are easily defeated at anything more than 12-14 miles. The option in DCS to adjust the burn-time, weight and hit-to-kill vs proximity fuse would be informative (not that I play anyway).

Good catch bro.

Ok Doctor, whatever you say. When are you starting your you tube channel? Or are you way too painfully geeky and awkward?

While energy of waves is increased by increasing frequency, it is vastly different to assume that if I increased the frequency of my radar that output energy will have increased. This is not the case at all. And without question increased Radar output does increase detection range. However increased frequency of a given radar system don't mean increased output. On such systems when you increase frequency you do so with smaller amplitude waves. So then the only real question that matters? Since the radar power is fixed then by changing or using a different frequency for the radar can you increase stealth detection range? And the answer is yes you can! But this is in general achieved by using lower frequencies - not higher ones. And if you both increased frequency and power you also increased stealth detection range. Increased frequency will not help stealth detection range, but increased both power and frequency will and can result in increased detection range - it's just not a great way to achieve this goal of increasing detection range.

It seems that more people are aware of a photon's energy being proportional to frequency, but less people are aware of an EM wave's energy being proportional to the square of the field's amplitude. So since more people are aware of Plank's equation for a photon, they just assume it applies directly to an EM wave as well, forgetting that Planks' equation applies to a single photon. So they jump from a single photon's higher energy, to the EM wave having higher energy, to higher energy per unit time hence power, to fourth-root of that which leads them to higher detection range. But for an EM wave most people don't consider that it's not a single photon but rather the total number of photons whose energies together result in a wave energy value dependent on the amplitude of the field and not it's frequency, and that field amplitude itself being dependent on the amplitude of the voltage differential applied to the antenna which is radiating the field. So if the voltage amplitude remains the same, even if the variation in the voltage is at a higher frequency, that just results in a "lower number of higher energy" photons which result in the same field amplitude, hence same wave energy.

@@xenoaltrax485 But that all fine and dandy. The simple matter is detection range is significant changed when the frequency of radar is changed, and the RCS formula shows this. So, even for the same given energy output of the radar system, a change in frequency can significant change the detection range - even when total energy remains the same. so, over all, in this discussion. I don't think there was or much confusing at all. We know for a given radar system - and given source power, we can change the detection range - and overall power in this setup will not have changed, but detection range does, and that for this discussion really all that matters. (because we OFTEN can't change the available power systems driving the radar system, but we can without question change the frequency of that system, and that can get us increased detection range. Now in a compact fighter jet, changing that frequency by significant amounts is not always practical (because the antenna system will not work correctly, or very well), but it is far more so possible for ground stations. The issue THEN becomes how can we for a given system optimize the power that we have. I mean, the power of such systems is not going to be increased without efforts. So, we have a given available power - the trick then becomes how to use that power available to increase detection range. We using all the power we can get - that's a given. But, by changing the frequency used for that same given power, yes, we can increase detection ranges.

Yup, from Pytor Ustimev.

Only problem with that is that Lockheed first experimented with Stealth on a P-80 after the war, using RF stealth RAM materials found on German U-Boats, then experimented with wire-based RCS reduction techniques on the U-2 that proved impractical, then began work on the A-12. The Titanium variable geometry inlet spikes were replaced with Lexan/polycarbonate spikes as part of the extensive RCS reduction measures implemented on the A-12, including its vertical stabs and all leading and trailing edge surfaces being made of composites. Pyotr Ufimtsev had not even been assigned to the Moscow Institute of Radio Engineering and Electronics when the post-War technical exploitation programs were in full-swing out of Wright Patterson. The Germans pioneered RF stealth in operational use on U-Boats during the War. Pyotr Ufimtsev didn't father anything and was more likely assigned to explain mathematically the information gained by Soviet agents and assets who passed this information from within the US. Everything most people think they know about stealth is a series of lies, left to fester in the vacuum of long-term NDAs that were honored to the grave.

Radar Cross Section Lectures.

@@LRRPFco52 If it's all in long-term NDA's that were honored to the grave, then how do you know any of it?

Read that one very interesting

😂😂😂

I would say that this is an oversimplified explanation of the Su-27's aerodynamic superiority. While the detail may be true, the entire Sukhoi body is highly elaborated aerodynamically and all of it contributes to the aerodynamic performance, over a large range of flight situations. I know Germans to be quite methodic, so possibly the article you mentioned had more paragraphs to be read.

@@SerbanOprescu it basically boils down to a table, which stated, that if everything else is the same and only the inlets are different and you have at Mach 1 100% thrust, the SU-27 would loose 14% thrust at Mach 2.5, the eurofighter 20% and the F16 50%. The paragraph before that table described, how these differences occured. Because of stealth restrictions, the F-22 will likely perform equal or slightly worse than the eurofighter. On the other hand, even old planes like the F-4 Phantom could reach Mach 2.25 and the F-22 can, depending on the source, reaches Mach 1.8 at dry power, so there might be some restrictions, we are not aware of. It is probably more relevant, how good they accelerate at certain speeds and altitudes and how much fuel they burn to sustain certain speeds, because they determine, how much speed you will have at the beginning of an engagement/gain during the engagement. In some older manuals, like for the F-4, you can find such charts, but for modern fighters there is a reason, why they are classified. The top speed is useless, if you have to fly 200 km in a straight line and burn all your fuel to reach it.

@@gbornitz There are some interesting facts, here, and a good explanation as it stands, but I will let these without a new answer. However! - as for the straight run burning up fuel, I have a true story that still makes me laugh and that refers to exactly this type of a situation: During a Red Flag exercise in Canada, the American air force came with F-18s, guided by an AWACS, to face a fleet (in that particular day) of RAF fighter pilots flying Tornados - the same as in the German Air Force, albeit with British electronics. As the two lines of fighter jets approached, suddenly one of the RAF pilots slammed the afterburner, and "pedal to the floor" bolted towards the American lines. He reached very fast 1,8 Mach, thrusted clean through the US lines and bore down straight on the AWACS. Now the AWACS was a good 200 km behind (as far as I remember), so it must have felt protected - but the supersonic Tornado was growing on their radar faster than a galloping buffalo (or the Spartan fly drawn on the shield, if you know the story), and the AWACS has no defense. Soon they saw they had no alternative but to turn tail. And turn the tail they did, and in a haste. They were biting their nails as they were trying to put some distance between the carnivorous British pilot and themselves, aiming for a saving grace and hoping. What saved then in the end was the Brit's fuel gauge, which was draining faster than a puddle in the desert, but the harm was done. By the time the Tornado had to return in order to come home in flight rather than walking, the American F-18s were left without an integrated command and control, and were demolished by the very well trained British pilots. It was 'carnage'. On the ground, the Brits tried to exchange pleasantries with their vanquished opponents, but the Americans didn't even show at dinner time in the mess. This is a true story. Achso, Georg, es ist möglich dass sometimes running in a straight line to the point of going empty might have a use, especially in the hands of a good pilot.

There are several false assumptions about any max V0 for the Su-27 for starters: 1. The Su-27, or any 4th Gen fighter, doesn't fly to the max V0 and isn't capable of doing so. The adoption of turbofan motors pretty much put an end to achieving placard limits, even on Functional Check Flights, for most 4th Gen fighters. The F-16 is an outlier in this regard, able to achieve 2.035 Mach in a clean configuration, which has no relevance to a combat configuration. 2. The Su-27's main design advantage over US 4th Gen fighters is combat radius/range, due to its size, shaping, and fuel fraction. It doesn't need EFTs. 3. While 3rd Gen fighters were all about hitting and exceeding Mach 2, they needed to RTB immediately. The F-4 could break through Mach 2 easily even with External Tanks and 4 AIM-7s, but they had turbojet engines optimized for that segment of the flight regime. If only you could have fuel fraction like the Su-27 and speed like an F-4, but then sub and transonic regime is sacrificed without a major revolution in propulsion technology. 4. The placement of IRSTs on the nose of a fighter compromises the ogive shape, and has real aerodynamic penalties in the supersonic regime. The fastest F-14s were the initial prototypes without any ALR bulb or TCS. F-14D with dual IRST/TCS was the slowest, lucky to hit 1.8M on post-maint check flight and would still compressor stall at that speed, even though it had massive thrust advantage over TF30-equipped F-14s. One of the main causes of Su-27 losses is engines coming apart. It's not an air vehicle you want to push anywhere near its limits. Study the accident history of Flankers. It's embarrassing. Now load it up with AAMs, none of which are carried in recessed or conformal stations, and the thrust-to-drag ratio decreases. The F-22A can run it down like a dog even if the Su-27 tries to turn and run at supersonic speed. The F-22A can do that against supersonic F-15Cs and still achieve over Mach 1 in closure rate. This was demonstrated during its initial tactics development exercises. In reality, there are no advantages to the Su-27 other than range, which is a function of its huge fuel fraction.

@@gbornitz And yet the F-22A has demonstrably-superior supersonic performance over the Eurofighter, even with clean-nosed EF (no IRST). EF with IRST has noticeably-reduced max V0, not capable of reaching M2.0. RAF has it listed at 1.8M max with PIRATE IRST. F-22A is like a sled at altitude with very positive acceleration response even at 60k Flight Level, whereas Typhoon pilots say it wheezes up above 50k feet. So the inlet and serpentine ductwork plus next generation motors in the Raptor defy the assertions that it has inferior performance due to "stealth compromises". The Su-27 was the pace-setter for superior performance demanded by the ATF program, including forecast performance upgrades throughout the life of the Flanker series. They overmatched it in spades, with kinematics being the least-important aspect of that demonstrated unfair overmatch.

J20, the first jet featuring double vortex aero design with canard leveled with delta+ fairings, first jet to feature these combo aero config.

Likely also the less stealthy of all of them.

@@Milvus_In_Excelsis for sinophobic

Honestly with how powerful it's AESA radars is and operating under the sensor umbrella of K2000/K500s AWACs I doubt that is a big issue these days

@@minus21334 Yes physics is sinophobic.

Everybody and their uncle appears, suddenly, to be in love with the YF-23, I wonder if it has anything to do with the attempt to make it the base for Japan next generation fighter.

Basically what the US is doing with stealthy pods for external ordnance.

The aerodynamic properties of the airframe will determine the amount of thrust you need to push from your engine to reach the speed you want. A very good airframe will let you go fast with a low % load on the engine (= fuel efficient and cooler) or simply use a smaller engine. The high bypass engines have problems with reheat and efficiency at high altitudes. And the size can be a problem. If you want a very efficient bypass engine you will need to have a large bypass ratio. The air intakes can have many forms. Simple straight ones, with variable ramps, are ofc very good. Many single engine aircrafts have curved or S shaped ones. That shape "hides" the fan blades (radar) and also serves as a diffuser that slows down the air, preventing supersonic air entering the compressor and fan. I think that the most aerodynamically detremental feature of the F-22 (or any other stealth ac) is that it can not be built with the area rule in mind. They are all a bit "stubby" because the requirements, for the physical stealth design features, makes them have this design.

@@secularnevrosis I think the "stubby" look is more the result of the internal weapons bays. All stealth aircraft look a little bit pregnant.

@@kathrynck Can they build a better and faster F117 so that it can be a real fighter versus a bomber.

@@rgloria40 It's not particularly maneuverable. It also doesn't have a lot of power. The F-117 is surprisingly "cobbled together" from mostly off the shelf parts. It has some small commercial airliner engines, seat, instruments, etc, mostly pulled from parts piles of other aircraft. No radar at all. And the coatings aren't terribly exotic on the F-117 (though it is very toxic, so hazmat needed for applying coatings). They're actually really cheap to make. They really don't have much speed, or capability to handle G-loading though. But... if you start a clean slate design, from the ground up to be more of a fighter... but limit yourself to lower cost tech, I think you could make some kind of cheap stealth fighter. You'd end up with something like a grippen or F-20 tigershark, but stealth. The F-35 is kinda that idea, but on a larger scale, with a whole lot of feature-creep making it very technologically advanced. But it's built to be reasonably priced. There's something to be said for having a more minimalistic design though. Less eggs in one basket. I think there would be a market for a small stealth fighter, with a single engine in the 18-20,000 lbs thrust range. Probably use no radar at all (like the F-117), use something like the IR/EOTS from the F-35 as the whole sensor suite. You'd definitely want HOBS + HMDS, cuz even though it's kinda fancy for a minimalist design, it's way too potent to pass up. There's a type of missile which is "missing" from modern arsenals right now I think... just put the IR sensor head of something like an AIM-9X, into a larger missile, folding fins for compact internal storage, and inertial or networked guidance out to the target until the IR sensor is close enough to lock on. With no radar in it, it would be somewhat cheaper than the AIM-120. And it would also avoid giving any obvious sign of it's approach. Fighters have IR detectors to see when they're being fired upon by passive homing missiles, but on most planes, they're not completely reliable. If the missile had good glide properties, and went cold well before the final approach, it could just sneak up on a target if used outside the target's radar's scan area. I envision it as something like an "air to air" Stormbreaker bomb (250 lbs, but can glide at about a 5:1 descent), but with a rocket booster on the back, and an AIM-9X seeker on the nose. It wouldn't be able to chase a maneuvering target, but it could pretty easily sneak up on a target if used from the right approach vector. And it would be cheap(ish), and fairly compact. But at the end of the day, you'd be looking at a plane which costs at least $60m, likely closer to 80m. And the F-35 only costs $80m due to economy of scale in it's production. So... just get an F-35, it's far more capable. But for countries which don't have access to buying the F-35, there would be a market for such a plane definitely. Technically, an F-117 could pretend to be a fighter if it were upgraded to have HOBS targeting, and just acted as a non-maneuverable platform to sneak air to air missiles into range. It'd be pretty effective at night. But F-117's are defenseless in daylight if spotted. I think most countries are looking to unmanned stealthy drones as low cost/high risk unmaneuverable ordinance platforms to fill in the low budget range. Air to ground is already commonplace for such drones, and I'm sure multiple parties are looking at air to air options (like the loyal wingman project in the US).

@@kathrynck Against the Russian in Ukraine, it might be good enough. For example, look at the World war 1 trenches....

Yes but it is negligible

Watch the video, whenever he makes a point, at the very bottom of the video on a small black highlight, in white text, he lists his source

@@ArizonaAstraLLC thanks

@@jpierce2l33t That's a little extreme. Just out of curiosity, what source are you using for this information?

Some fighters have gold in the canopy, and while this is all classified, everything I've ever read about US stealth aircraft says the F35 and F22 use ITO. Google will provide you with several sources, including military magazines, research papers, etc.

I thought it was what I explained. I show the geometric reflections if there was a reflective surface and then I explain exactly what you said. At least that was my intention. I didn't use the term Salisbury screen though...

@@Millennium7HistoryTech I think he basically meant some stealth jets don't use gold in the canopy...some use ITO, some use gold, some use ITO+gold. PS - I'll stop being an ass. I'm just quite upset over the conflict in Ukraine, and I've become very anti-Russian military...I used to love it, too 😞

@@jpierce2l33t so you let sentiment influence your judgment? Wow, how basic.

Muy bueno*

Why not just build the entire plane from transparent materials, then you got no return at all!

@@AmericanDiscord Hahaha I actually did consider that but you can't - I think modern fighters already use a lot of composite materials but they tend not to have the strength and rigidity required at high speeds and high-g maneuvers. I think.

That is already a huge part of RF stealth. The Radome has to be RF transparent/permeable, so the structures behind the Radar have to have RCS reduction measures incorporated into their positioning and shaping. For the nose, that includes the antennae array and the bulkhead behind it. Carbon Fiber is transparent in RF spectrum, so its extensive use helps reduce the RCS considerably. The F-35A/B/C use extensive CF structures down to the bulkheads, runners, spars, and spanners in the tail booms and 4 tailplanes, which increases strength, reduces weight, and reduces RCS dramatically.

Lots of lifting area, lots of internal fuel, and space for dual actuators laid on their sides for each control surface.

@@LRRPFco52 well, yes, that. But I was wondering more of the aerodynamics of it. The delta wing has some characteristics normal wings doesn't, so I wonder if this diamond shape might have an ace up its sleeve. ☺

@@lordsqueak The thing about the diamond wings is that they have a pretty aggressive sweep angle without too much span, which helps keep drag down at low AOA for the high speed regime. For take-off, landing, and lower speed regime of flight, they have all kinds of lift. Paul Metz said it was a joy to fly. The YF-23s were a lot lighter than the YF-22s, with the same basic propulsion cores, so they had excellent acceleration. The YF-23 test pilots said the GE YF-120 equipped PAV2 was a different airplane compared to PAV1 with the Pratt motors.

@@LRRPFco52 very interesting, Thank you.

Diamond wings are the best planform for stealth because they align the diffraction spikes of the right wing's leading edge with that of the left wing's trailing edge, and vice versa (leading edge of one is parallel to trailing edge of the other). They are one of the worst possible planforms from an aerodynamics standpoint, as they have an excessively low taper ratio coupled with zero sweep of the centerline. Using geometric and/or aerodynamic twist can mitigate some of this inherent deficiency to end up with a decent wing. For details on this, I refer you to "aircraft design a conceptual approach" by Raymer, section 8.4.

"At one time I happened to come across a story in KZfaq that the F. 16 is faster than the F. 35, So how come that the F. 35 has the same speed as the S.U. 35 which in the previous story was said is way much faster than the F.35" You need to ask yourself how do you intend to use the fighters. Weaponless the F16 is faster than F35 Mach 2 vs. Mach 1.6+ With weapons the F35 is faster . This point is something these content makers on YT like to ignore in their videos. It's probably an inconvenient truth .

There is no aircraft that can 100% evade detection, I don't care if it was made by aliens, it can be detected under certain circumstances.

First to clarify: any plane can be detected by any sensor (radar, infra red), only the distance will be different. A plane at Mach 2 will certainly create enough heat, so that a modern IRST will track it at 50 to >100 km distance. But with clouds or fog, this number will drop significantly to maybye 20 km. At this range, also many radars can detect stealth planes.

Yes. Aero-heating of all supersonic leading edges is a significant factor in IRST detection range and tracking ability. In many instances, it's better to hug the Mach at high subsonic speed with a fuel consumption optimized for that region, vs burning a lot of fuel only to rush to your early detection. F-35s have been defeating F-22s in Large Force Exercises since 2017 since they have major advantages in IR spectrum.

Nope. RAMs effectiveness depends from the frequency. What works in radar domain doesn't work in IR.

@@Millennium7HistoryTech Yes, thank you for clarifying that it is only Radar frequency specific.🙏

Electronically created, generated or altered 'stealth' is, would be part of Electronic Warefare & ELINT/SIGINT, and as such, will be highly misreported & misinformed, or be ignored, due to aspects covered under-such protocols, being viewed as extremely top secret by many nations, for any good channels & experts, (such as M7*,) who ascribe to factual information and providing informative 'gists' of technical subjects. I suppose any passively induced EW effect could be considered more stealthy than from an active EW effect.., ...but then the passive is still likely a function of the structural materials & structural RF design node focusing & dissipation and the actual crafts design.

If you have a used book store in your area, I recommend the ARRL antenna handbook. They provide a really good foundation for understanding this stuff. Basically, phased arrays and parabolic antennas are equivalent as far as directional gain. The advantage of phased arrays is that they're steered electronically rather than mechanically and are able to transition from looking in one direction to another instantaneously.

@@GoSlash27 I get that, but there is advantages in averaging out the noise by having large distances between multiple elements, In radio astronomy they prefer to use multiple spaced antenna than a single large one. In sonar, it’s a multi element towed array. Etc etc.

The benefit of multiple spacing, on (ground radars) is that the signal arrives at these antennas at different times and therefore at different phases. (nanosecond/degrees of phase.). By combining these signals(phases) you can either strengthen the signal return or weaken the signal return.

@@brucebaxter6923 In the phased array or AESA installation on modern fighters, there's not a large distance between elements, it's all λ/2 So no, there's no noise cancelling going on as a direct result. Modern DSP algorithms will take multiple echoes from a single target and average them into a mean, which causes the noise to statistically cancel. What *is* interesting is that using a phased array perpendicular to the flight path allows you to fake a much "larger" array with the right algorithms, allowing you to build an extremely detailed picture of the target at much higher resolution than would otherwise be possible. This is the basis for synthetic aperture radar, which is useful for identifying targets beyond visual range. It also allows you to independently steer multiple beams. In comparison, the parabolic reflector or cassegrain is a big clumsy radio wave bucket.

@@GoSlash27 Yes, I do agree. I was thinking the inverse though, a dish has a solid area, but the phased array has more like a percentage of the same area, like more efficient for the same realestate? Synthetic aperture is the phrase I was trying to think of, does the smaller the aperture collect smaller noise as well as greater signal?

Thanks for pointing out, I will check it out

@@Millennium7HistoryTech It might not be directly implied, but great content (hence the subscription); thanks for the interesting content to watch. While I knew a lot of the things mentioned, the engine ducts acting like waveguides was new, and given I did microwave waveguides, diffraction, interference etc in my undergrad physics labs, I should have thought about that before now. Sadly in my lectures I did Stealth last week, so a little late to talk about it this year, maybe next year.

That's what they did with stations 1 & 11 on F-35s, plus the pylons, rails, and missiles themselves are made with LO features. In practice, the frontal RCS on F-35s is about the same and allows air planners to configure some F-35s primarily for A2A, and others more for getting into the threat MEZ for deep strike mission sets for phase 1 of the sortie, before they swing into other opportunistic sets. You can configure with 6 AAMs, while others carry only 2 AAMs and 8 SDBs, or 2 JDAMs, or 1 JDAM and 4 SDBs, etc. Lead OCA/DCA flights, lead D-SEAD flights, trail deep strike flights, trail OCA/DCA flights, trail follow-on strike flights, in waves.

@@LRRPFco52Wait, so they did make externally mounted weapon's for the F35 that don't drastically increase the RCS, but that's only used after the initial strike? Just making sure i understand you correctly

@@kalle5548 You can launch all your initial sorties with varying configurations between totally clean and mostly clean with only AIM-9X Block II+ on stations 1 & 11. The Offensive Counter-Air focused F-35s might have 6 AAMs including -9Xs externally, while D-SEAD and strikers are clean with internal bombs and 2x -120s each. If you watch mass sortie launches at any of the Flag LFEs, you see this type of force mix. It presents as 3 basic configuration approaches for JSF: 1. VLO Clean 2. VLO w external AIM-9X 3. Dirty with external pylons under wings for bombs, cruise missiles (rarely seen) Everyone is either in a 1 or 2 configuration class. USMC does more dirty configurations sometimes.

@@LRRPFco52 Yo, huge thanks for taking the time and typing that out

@@LRRPFco52 "2. VLO w external AIM-9X" any idea of the RCS penalty of this configuration? I suspect the RCS of Aim-9X to be pretty small, but was wondering what You thought..

Lost cause, it can self alter the coefficients in the algorithm.

@@Millennium7HistoryTech

I wrote to you about an old type of French radar.

Loss of air mass flow into the ductwork at high AOA. Your leading edges on the wings blank out the airflow, which passes up and over top-mounted intakes. They work fine for straight and level flight with minimal AOA and tame maneuvering. For rapid changes in AOA, you suffer from compressor stalls and stagnation. It's a great question though.

@@LRRPFco52 aoa= angle of attack:) for the uninitiated

Being it was the 1970s and the DOD is notoriously slow at adopting new computer tech it's totally believable.

Supercruise is mainly engine dependent, which is one of the main technological/financial hurdle to overcome when trying to develop a 5th gen fighter. It improves stealth as using afterburner is all too flashy/hot/loud when your aim is to reduce the chances of detection. It also helps with not having to carry external fuel tanks or requiring more frequent in-flight refueling.

@@glidingstar In the 1980s, we were focused on supercruise in 4th Gen mutual detection fighter metrics where it would be great to have that kind of trsnsonic ability and separation kinematics without giving an AB-induced IR signature bloom that IRSTs and IR missiles could cue-in. With the levels of RF and IR stealth we have, it doesn't make a lot of sense to aero-heat the leading edges and increase IR detection range for the threat, so remaining undetected trumps kinematics as you compress the WEZ/NEZ. Better to find a NEZ window and exploit it unseen, vs launch from supersonic speeds in a mutual detection skirmish with initial sacrificial BVR missiles that posture the fight based on first-shoot.

@Vat RW I've been in the aerospace and defense sector since the 1970s, studied the NATO AeroE course materials for 3 years, and spend decades at the USAF Flight Test Center very close to several developmental programs. Again, you can take the most optimized fighter design with a balance between finess ratio and lifting surfaces with excellent T/W ratio, but the moment you attach pylons, rails, and weapons, the design is significantly compromised by parasitic drag. 5th Gen with internal bays don't suffer from that problem, and therefore maintain their slick configuration advantage. We dealt with this problem for decades, and it's one of the biggest complaints from the 4th Generation.

@Vat RW MiG-23 absolutely has superb supersonic acceleration, but is very unstable in the yaw axis the higher in Mach value that it goes. Raptor doesn't need AB to go Mach. It will supercruise into the Mach 1.5-1.6 region easily in mil power. Nothing else does that, including Su-57.

@Vat RW Su-57 was originally supposed to match or exceed the F-22's kinematics with a high supercruise value. It was downgraded a few years ago to Mach 1.2 cruise without AB since they can't get the required performance from the engines, and Izdeliye-30 motors still aren't ready. I've never seen a claim from Russian language sources for Mach 2 supercruise. There were 2 main phases of Su-57 prototypes, where the aircraft grew in length, wingspan, and weight in the 2nd phase due to weight increases from all the avionics, sensors, and combat systems. The production design needs more air mass flow and power to reach the planned KPPs, with accompanying boundary layer management to facilitate higher Mach values. There is also an inherent design flaw aerodynamically with yaw instability, where the aircraft will depart controlled flight and not recover, which is what happened to the 1st production serial Su-57 on its pre-delivery functional check flight by one of the best test pilots in Russia, who tried everything to recover it. The reason for this is how tiny the vertical stabs are and how flat the airframe and wings are, which blank out the vertical tails at certain yaw rates. The Su-57 is a critique of where Russian developmental and production capacity are currently. Izdeliye-30 was supposed to be in production already in 2014.

You mean it wouldn't go faster if the airframe were aerodynamically optimized?? Or that it doesn't need as powerful engines to get the speed? How does that even work...I mean logically?!

@@secularnevrosis "How does that even work...I mean logically?!" It(F22A) is the only in service Fighter on the planet than can do Mach 2+, pull 9-Gs, Super Cruise at Mach 1.8, all while carrying a full war load of 8 missiles and 9 tons of fuel. For a fighter as in ready to to do battle with actual weapons. Nothing is as fast or maneuverable, and it is not even close. We have seen supersonic F15s running away from F22s, and the F22 pilots ran down those same F15s with over Mach 1 of closure. Those are F15s!!. The F22 is as aerodynamically optimized as a fighter can get, given what it was designed for. So, I agree with Carl the F22 being about brute force misses the mark bye a mile. The effects of internal and how it reduces RCS is well known, but the positive effects on kinematics is usually ignored. Like in the video

@@bjjace1 There are more manuverable fighters. But that is not the point. Do the F-22 have better aerodynamics than many other *stealth fighters* ? I bet it has. Does it have better aerodynamics than a fighter jet that is aerodynamically optimized? It cant be. That would upset the stealth geometry, in the same way stealth design is not optimized for aerodynamics. The advantage of carrying the payload internally is also a must for having the best stealth configuration. If you put the same engines on another platform it would be faster. Not because the F-22 is "bad" but because you can make it more aerodynamical. Then you could get away with less fuel. The F-4 was really fast in the day (it's still a fast jet). It was as aerodynamical as a brick, but had two powerful engines that made up for that. But you said it best your self: "The F22 is as aerodynamically optimized as a fighter can get, given what it was designed for. "

@@secularnevrosis There are more maneuverable fighters." No, there is not. There are aircraft, that are not carrying any weapons that are more maneuverable than a F22, but it beyond disingenuous to claim those aircraft are "fighters". Weaponless Aircraft facing any modern fighter is nothing. It is utter Bull Shit. Almost every single video Gus had made references military aviation, and specifically fighters and weapons. Per the Channel: "in this channel we are going to cover military history and military technology in particular, with a heavy bias on aerospace, from slightly unusual point of views. Yea, I would say it is very unusual to discuss a Fighter's aerodynamic performance and the fighter's weapons, yet ignoring the aggregate effect the weapons have on that fighter's performance. No , aerodynamicist, engineer, or physicist would do that. Professional Air Forces don't judge aircraft performance or aerodynamics in a vacuum. "If you put the same engines on another platform it would be faster." Another nebulous phrase. Faster than what? If You replace the F15's engines with F119 engines. Sure, it will have more thrust, but swapping engines does nothing to mitigate the drag inherent on all 4th Generation aircraft. It won't be faster than the F22 if it is carrying weapons. The laws of physics are clear on this. Again, we have combat loaded F22 doing Mach 2 in a 20 degree nose high climb and accelerating. During its testing phase, but has inferior aerodynamics???? "But you said it best your self: "The F22 is as aerodynamically optimized as a fighter can get, given what it was designed for. " The F22 is designed to shoot down other fighters/aircraft. It was designed to have no equal in that regards. It was not designed to win a meaningless contrived race, or some ill-defined you-tube aerodynamics competition. Remember, I did not bring up the F22. Gus did in his video. I'm not out trying to bash other jets, I just think this video in particular falls very short with regards to the nuances of fighter performance. He set a pretty high bar for himself with his other videos. "Does it have better aerodynamics than a fighter jet that is aerodynamically optimized? "It cant be." It can't? Why Not? This has not been proven or shown in any meaningful way bye anyone here.

@@bjjace1 " There are aircraft, that are not carrying any weapons that are more maneuverable than a F22, but it beyond disingenuous to claim those aircraft are "fighters". " Almost all modern fighters are able to preform 9G turns with a full AA suite. With 6 Harpoons or GBU's? No. But there are still aircraft that have no problem with doing that. "Yea, I would say it is very unusual to discuss a Fighter's aerodynamic performance and the fighter's weapons, yet ignoring the aggregate effect the weapons have on that fighter's performance. " The aircraft needs to fulfill the tasks that its supposed to do. That is why carrier based aircraft have different specifications, STOL have simmilar but different specs and so on and so forth. "If You replace the F15's engines with F119 engines. Sure, it will have more thrust, but swapping engines does nothing to mitigate the drag inherent on all 4th Generation aircraft. It won't be faster than the F22 if it is carrying weapons. The laws of physics are clear on this." Yes it's the F-15. Mighty as it is, it's not even a "4:th generation" airframe. The electronics are up to standard for a 4+ gen aircraft. The F-119 has dry: 26,000 lbf and >35,000 lbf AB. X2 If we compare that with the F141G. Dry: 13,000 lbf and 22,000 lbf AB. X1. That engine happens to be used in a "4-5:th gen" airframe. The JAS39E. One engine is able to let that fighter "super cruise" at Mach 1.2 and reach Mach 2, with full AA suite and a droptank. The older and less powerful JAS39 A-D series could super cruise clean. Why is that? Because its more aerodynamic than the rest of the 4:th gens. So if we put the F-119 engines in an aerodynamically optimized airframe we should see the an even better result. As you said: "The laws of physics are clear on this." "The F22 is designed to shoot down other fighters/aircraft. It was designed to have no equal in that regards. It was not designed to win a meaningless contrived race, or some ill-defined you-tube aerodynamics competition." Like all other fighters? All fighters are designed after that premise. To do what they are designed to do with in the constrains of the design. And if you missed it, I talked about the compromises you need to make in order to have good stealth and all other things you want. If you want good stealth and speed = internal weapons = big engines = lots of fuel = large and heavy airframe. "Why Not? This has not been proven or shown in any meaningful way bye anyone here." Please see the video again and look at his other videos regarding aerodynamics. If you still don't understand what he is talking about just ask. Ok?

I don't accept his premise about aerodynamics being compromised. The Su-35 should be able to at least match the F-22A in supercruise, but it can't. Why not? Now attach the stores for a combat configuration and all the arguments about aerodynamics favoring legacy designs disappear.

YF-23 was most definitely area-ruled with the main compromises not related to stealth, but to the large engine cowlings originally designed to house thrust-reversers for the STOL capabilities that were dropped.

​@@LRRPFco52 I have my doubts too. Mig-25/31 or Arrow doesn't look much different, "just a brick". And there is also the issue of inlet regulation. It is the drug and inefficiency of inlets above Mach2 that holds F-22 back.

@@peceed The YF-22 had a higher leading edge sweep angle. F-22A saw a reduction in sweep angle, which I thought was interesting. They reduced the volume of the engine cowlings on the F-22A as well, since the STOL requirement was dropped with the space for thrust-reversers no longer necessary.

@@LRRPFco52 Lockeed used a lot of YF-23 ideas, I heard about low drag supersonic wing profile and much more curved surfaces.

As a fellow Westerner I concur, the Su-27 and its many subsequent variants is the most beautiful fighter aircraft ever built. It should have an exhibit in an an art museum.

*Laughs in F-15

Efficient in what way? It's just an upgraded SU27.

Have to agree with you. Totally.

F22 is a beast but the vertical twin fins looks ridiculous. Just from an aesthetic viewpoint. Fricking huge ....but stealthy and ugly from the side. Just an opinion on looks.

Still same general shaping, though the Su-57 prioritize stealth a little less than say the F-22. Rivets, protruding FLIR, and non-stealthy exhaust nozzles reduce its stealth compared to the F-22.

@@5133937 Not really, Su-57 is pretty much the only one which chooses to have spaced engine (besides the YF-23) to use 3D thrust vector nozzles and have a completely different weapon bays layout. But that doesn’t mean it is better that the Raptor though.

@@Minh-Tran-04 Yeah the spaced engines and weapons bays are different, but the general lifting-body delta-wing design with no forward canards, rear horizontal stabilizers compressed into the main wings, canted vertical tail fins, and the general shape of the nose and cockpit area all follow the same pattern as the F-22 and all the other stealth jets.

@@5133937 Well yeah, you got the point. After all stealth designs still have to follow some choices after all, although not all of them have exact same features like each other.

@@5133937 the SU57 is not stealth at all. Just stealthy at best. A clean F16 Viper has a lower RCS than the SU57.