Intake design and general stealth discussions

[Dev]

Yes, that has become apparent.

I studied the basics of physics at school about 30 years ago. And I don't think that during this time, something has changed much. To discuss this in this thread is not interesting to me.
I understand that you do not like my posts. Therefore, you are trying to get ahead of the words and try to discredit me with your pictures. Be higher, you are a "Senior Member" after all. Don't stoop to banal trolling.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Only one person in this topic has been researching stealth for 20 years, so "trolling" isn't the right word. Constantly doubting stealth is the troll behaviour.

 

[Dev]

Only one person in this topic has been researching stealth for 20 years, so "trolling" isn't the right word. Constantly doubting stealth is the troll behaviour.

All of these people have also been dealing with air defense and stealth issues for a long time. But you do not attribute trolling to those who doubt their data.

Spoiler: +

That is, you have a fairly selective approach to trolls.

 

[Scar]

Quite the contradiction there buddy, considering both sources are from two days ago.

Why so serious, buddy?!)) My post was ironical. Of course Americans don't want to sell F-35 to any country that purchased S-400 because it would be obvious that the real average RCS of the real thing during the countinuous radar scan is pretty far from all these 'marble' and 'insect' advertising metaphors.

 

[tequilashooter]

Quite the contradiction there buddy, considering both sources are from two days ago.

Why so serious, buddy?!)) My post was ironical. Of course Americans don't want to sell F-35 to any country that purchased S-400 because it would be obvious that the real average RCS of the real thing during the countinuous radar scan is pretty far from all these 'marble' and 'insect' advertising metaphors.

I was just adding sarcasm, I already know that Russian RCS values on stealth aircrafts are completely different to the values the U.S. gives as far as we know. In which this entire thread is basically no different from an Englishman arguing with another Englishman choosing what measurements to use between the imperial or metric system. People might laugh at this Englishman joke but that's how the majority of stealth thread debates go.

 

[Ronny]

Well, give another scan time, thereby prove that this is a surveillance radar.
Can't you give the numbers? Then what are we discussing here?
Your guesses! No, they are not interesting to me.
Same. Can you provide the correct information? No! Then there is nothing to discuss. I am not interested in guesses.

You don't have to make any guess. When I showed you that VHF radar won't have better range than X-band radar against stealth aircraft if the value you gave is correct
You said

I told you at the beginning that radars are compromises. And no one needs a radar with good range parameters, but at the same time poor scanning property

So I showed you SBX and TPY-2.

This average comes from the radars I know.
If you don't believe me, then you can ask a respected @stealthflanker what values he uses in his calculator(Dwell time).
This is the only value you got by cheating. Reducing the time by 10 times.

My value is different from you doesn't mean I'm cheating. My value is simply traveling time of pulse. Unless you can prove why it is physically impossible then I'm not quite interested in guess

Are you sure that this is the data of those years. HAWK has been modernized more than once. If my memory serves me correctly.
The first S-125s also did not ensure the defeat of such targets.

Yes I'm sure those are data of HAWK in those years, MPQ-50 entered service in 1971, about 8 years before the test with Have Blue taken place.

This memoir is certainly a good book. And we even have it in Russian. But still imaginative literature, not technical. I would not trust her unconditionally in everything.

Nope, Skunk work book by Ben rich isn't imaginative literature, a piece of imaginative literature would be something like Harry Porter or Lord of the Ring.
"Skunk work" is a factual documentary about the work that Ben Rich and his colleague has done.
Also, I think your attempt to twist fact get a bit desperate at this point
First, I showed you the USAF claims about as recorded on Aviation week, you dismissed that and said it is just piece of journalism with no factual value
Then I posted the radar detection range chart from CETC to which you dismissed because we don't know which radar they used and the X-band radar can be a very ancient one
Then I cite the anechoic chamber value of metal model and several radar scattering simulation, you dismissed them and said the models aren't correct (while at the same time ignore the fact that Soviet couldn't possibly get the correct model of F-22 before it is finished)
Then I quote the RCS statement from Robert Wallace which you again dismissed because "they are intangible comparison that can be interpreted in any way"
Then I post the number in monograph written by Major Michael F Hake, which you dismissed because he referred to an author that written about everything so it is unreliable.
Then I link the illustration in Lockheed Martin slide which you dismissed because it they are not number but just picture and you don't want to look for "hidden meaning that isn't there"
Then when I linked the Skunk's work book the first time, you dismissed my posts and said they can reduce the RCS of hopeless diamond model to very low value doesn't mean they can reduce the RCS of a real aircraft and the 1000 times lower RCS must mean they compared to a bomber
Finally when I showed you that they can make even the SR-71 to have RCS 100 times lower than F-14 and Have Blue to have 1000 times lower RCS than D-21 drone and they were able to remain invisible to the HAWK battery that they flew overhead at altitude of 2.4 km, then immediately to you this memoir is just imaginative literature and not factual document? and to think just a few pages ago you believe only in engineer comments and not journalism or guess

I do not know the of these objects. neither D-21 nor SR-71

This is D-21

Why do you come up with something that is not. The second diagram shows the signal attenuation versus the angle of incidence. With a perpendicular incidence, with a perpendicular polarization, the absorption will be 17 dB. That is, the reflected signal will be -17 dB. Which is shown in the graph. All! And there is no need to invent anything superfluous.

I didn't come up with something that doesn't exist. I'm explaining to you something that you misunderstood. The second chart that you posted earlier represent the reflection coefficient at the boundary of the material, it isn't the absorption rate of the RAM which happen after the wave already entered the RAM. If you don't trust me, you can google wave at dielectric boundary condition
T ihe

 

[Ronny]

US refusing to sell F-35 to any country that purchased S-400 because Americans don't want us to confirm experimentally the fact that F-35 cannot be seen by S-400(which would render it as useless and destroyed its sales) or any other LORAD at more or less significant range, due to F-35 super-tiny RCS, just as Americans told to the whole World all these years. I think we should be grateful to Americans - they don't want to ruin S-400 market success.

S-400 is a good system, but it doesn't operate by magic, if F-35 RCS is truly 0.1 m2 then you don't need S-400 batteries to disclose it. Plenty of countries which US sell F-35 to has long range anti air radar. Japan has SPY-1 along with APS-145 (E-2C) and APY-9 ( E-2D ) and APY-2 (E-767) , UK has SMART-L and S1850M, Australia has MESA (E-737)

 

[Dev]

So I showed you SBX and TPY-2.

But you did not provide data on scanning properties. Then why discuss what we do not know.

My value is different from you doesn't mean I'm cheating. My value is simply traveling time of pulse. Unless you can prove why it is physically impossible then I'm not quite interested in guess

Can you bring a radar with this position time? If not, then I'm not interested. I'll show you what values a respected stealthflanker uses.

As you can see, you are not seeking to know the truth, but simply cheating.

Yes I'm sure those are data of HAWK in those years, MPQ-50 entered service in 1971, about 8 years before the test with Have Blue taken place.

Give the documentation of those years with such figures.

Nope, Skunk work book by Ben rich isn't imaginative literature, a piece of imaginative literature would be something like Harry Porter or Lord of the Ring.
"Skunk work" is a factual documentary about the work that Ben Rich and his colleague has done.
Also, I think your attempt to twist fact get a bit desperate at this point
First, I showed you the USAF claims about as recorded on Aviation week, you dismissed that and said it is just piece of journalism with no factual value
Then I posted the radar detection range chart from CETC to which you dismissed because we don't know which radar they used and the X-band radar can be a very ancient one
Then I cite the anechoic chamber value of metal model and several radar scattering simulation, you dismissed them and said the models aren't correct (while at the same time ignore the fact that Soviet couldn't possibly get the correct model of F-22 before it is finished)
Then I quote the RCS statement from Robert Wallace which you again dismissed because "they are intangible comparison that can be interpreted in any way"
Then I post the number in monograph written by Major Michael F Hake, which you dismissed because he referred to an author that written about everything so it is unreliable.
Then I link the illustration in Lockheed Martin slide which you dismissed because it they are not number but just picture and you don't want to look for "hidden meaning that isn't there"
Then when I linked the Skunk's work book the first time, you dismissed my posts and said they can reduce the RCS of hopeless diamond model to very low value doesn't mean they can reduce the RCS of a real aircraft and the 1000 times lower RCS must mean they compared to a bomber
Finally when I showed you that they can make even the SR-71 to have RCS 100 times lower than F-14 and Have Blue to have 1000 times lower RCS than D-21 drone and they were able to remain invisible to the HAWK battery that they flew overhead at altitude of 2.4 km, then immediately to you this memoir is just imaginative literature and not factual document? and to think just a few pages ago you believe only in engineer comments and not journalism or guess

There are many words, but they are not specific.
You promised data from the manufacturer. Incidentally, I am citing technical data, not memoirs, journalistic articles and other "husk".
In order.

1. Memoirs are good. And I love this book. In my memoirs I will definitely write that I had 100 women a night.
Give RCS D-21. What could be compared with something.
Just do not rely on the SR-71. These are different objects and, as we already know, the RCS of the air intake without taking into account the airframe can give RCS of 10 ^ 2 m2.

2. I can cite the work of the US Naval Graduate School. There are also figures, but with reference to the globalsecurity site, which refers to an article by David Fulgrum.

3. David Folgrum's articles are different. Then he says that the EPR is only small from the nose, in 2009 he said that it is already from all sides. At the same time, he always said that the EPR of the F-22 is less than the F-35. But as we know, Generals Hostege and Bogdan denied this in 2014.

3. LM gives a reduction in range by 5 times. Okay, I'll only take your sources. In Fulgrum's first article, RCS F-15 is estimated as +20 dBsm.
100/5 ^ 4 = 100/625 = 0.16 m2

4. "Balls" and "peas" don't interest me either. The RCS of balls depends on the wavelength. Therefore, even different formulas are used. That is, I don’t even understand how to count these "balls".

I didn't come up with something that doesn't exist. I'm explaining to you something that you misunderstood. The second chart that you posted earlier represent the reflection coefficient at the boundary of the material, it isn't the absorption rate of the RAM which happen after the wave already entered the RAM. If you don't trust me, you can google wave at dielectric boundary condition

I am too lazy to comment on these nonsense invented by you. The graph speaks for itself. That when falling perpendicular to the RAM, the reflected energy will be 17 dB less. Less angle, less absorption.

With grazing incidence of the wave, the reflection coefficient of the material increases, reducing its absorbing properties (Fig. 8, b).

 

[Scar]

US refusing to sell F-35 to any country that purchased S-400 because Americans don't want us to confirm experimentally the fact that F-35 cannot be seen by S-400(which would render it as useless and destroyed its sales) or any other LORAD at more or less significant range, due to F-35 super-tiny RCS, just as Americans told to the whole World all these years. I think we should be grateful to Americans - they don't want to ruin S-400 market success.

S-400 is a good system, but it doesn't operate by magic, if F-35 RCS is truly 0.1 m2 then you don't need S-400 batteries to disclose it. Plenty of countries which US sell F-35 to has long range anti air radar. Japan has SPY-1 along with APS-145 (E-2C) and APY-9 ( E-2D ) and APY-2 (E-767) , UK has SMART-L and S1850M, Australia has MESA (E-737)

That's why i wrote "S-400...or any other LORAD". But what makes S-400 different is the fact it operated by countries that are not so much dependant from US and may disclose some things unpleasant for F-35 market image, and "US Stealth" brand in general. That's why such countries as India or Turkey will never get F-35, as well as any other S-400 user, more or less unbiased and independent from US.

 

[Seeker9]

US refusing to sell F-35 to any country that purchased S-400 because Americans don't want us to confirm experimentally the fact that F-35 cannot be seen by S-400(which would render it as useless and destroyed its sales) or any other LORAD at more or less significant range, due to F-35 super-tiny RCS, just as Americans told to the whole World all these years. I think we should be grateful to Americans - they don't want to ruin S-400 market success.

S-400 is a good system, but it doesn't operate by magic, if F-35 RCS is truly 0.1 m2 then you don't need S-400 batteries to disclose it. Plenty of countries which US sell F-35 to has long range anti air radar. Japan has SPY-1 along with APS-145 (E-2C) and APY-9 ( E-2D ) and APY-2 (E-767) , UK has SMART-L and S1850M, Australia has MESA (E-737)

That's why i wrote "S-400...or any other LORAD". But what makes S-400 different is the fact it operated by countries that are not so much dependant from US and may disclose some things unpleasant for F-35 market image, and "US Stealth" brand in general. That's why such countries as India or Turkey will never get F-35, as well as any other S-400 user, more or less unbiased and independent from US.

So what do you think why the russian Army want 1000 40N6 weapons for S-400 ?
For what you think the russians wanna buy them if not for fight against F-35 ?

 

[tequilashooter]

So what do you think why the russian Army want 1000 40N6 weapons for S-400 ?
For what you think the russians wanna buy them if not for fight against F-35 ?

Probably surrounding military bases outside of the country with ballistic missiles, maybe some cruise missiles, UAVs, helicopters, provide coverage to short range air defenses, other aircrafts besides the F-35 that maybe can carry hypersonic missiles, ships or submarines launching missiles, those are just all lucky guesses of mine.

 

[Scar]

US refusing to sell F-35 to any country that purchased S-400 because Americans don't want us to confirm experimentally the fact that F-35 cannot be seen by S-400(which would render it as useless and destroyed its sales) or any other LORAD at more or less significant range, due to F-35 super-tiny RCS, just as Americans told to the whole World all these years. I think we should be grateful to Americans - they don't want to ruin S-400 market success.

S-400 is a good system, but it doesn't operate by magic, if F-35 RCS is truly 0.1 m2 then you don't need S-400 batteries to disclose it. Plenty of countries which US sell F-35 to has long range anti air radar. Japan has SPY-1 along with APS-145 (E-2C) and APY-9 ( E-2D ) and APY-2 (E-767) , UK has SMART-L and S1850M, Australia has MESA (E-737)

That's why i wrote "S-400...or any other LORAD". But what makes S-400 different is the fact it operated by countries that are not so much dependant from US and may disclose some things unpleasant for F-35 market image, and "US Stealth" brand in general. That's why such countries as India or Turkey will never get F-35, as well as any other S-400 user, more or less unbiased and independent from US.

So what do you think why the russian Army want 1000 40N6 weapons for S-400 ?
For what you think the russians wanna buy them if not for fight against F-35 ?

First of all, i never heard or read about "the russian Army want 1000 40N6". And the second, 40N6 is a so-called "anti AWACS"missile with a range of 400km, which primary targets are larger AEW, tankers and bombers. In other words, 40N6 was designed for completely different tasks, than shooting at tactical fighters as F-35.

 

[quellish]

I studied the basics of physics at school about 30 years ago. And I don't think that during this time, something has changed much. To discuss this in this thread is not interesting to me.

I can not see how someone can be interested in radar, and radar cross section, but not be interested in physics. That does not make sense.

Radar is an application of physics. To understand radar you must understand physics.

 

[quellish]

In Fulgrum's first article, RCS F-15 is estimated as +20 dBsm.
100/5 ^ 4 = 100/625 = 0.16 m2

20dBsm = 100m2.

The RCS of balls depends on the wavelength.

The RCS of ANY object depends on the wavelength. More specifically, the wave length relative to the electrical size of the object.

 

[Dev]

I can not see how someone can be interested in radar, and radar cross section, but not be interested in physics. That does not make sense.

Radar is an application of physics. To understand radar you must understand physics.

My answer referred to a completely black body. I have known what it is for 30 years.

 

[Dev]

20dBsm = 100m2.

Well, as you noticed, I am exactly 100 and divide by 625.

The RCS of ANY object depends on the wavelength. More specifically, the wave length relative to the electrical size of the object.

Of course, therefore, in my data I did not provide abstract statements, but reported the frequencies for the air defense complex of this document.

 

[Nigelhg]

US refusing to sell F-35 to any country that purchased S-400 because Americans don't want us to confirm experimentally the fact that F-35 cannot be seen by S-400(which would render it as useless and destroyed its sales) or any other LORAD at more or less significant range, due to F-35 super-tiny RCS, just as Americans told to the whole World all these years. I think we should be grateful to Americans - they don't want to ruin S-400 market success.

That's not the main reason- the reason is the IFF that would have to be programmed in and it's sensitivity/secrecy.

 

[quellish]

20dBsm = 100m2.

Well, as you noticed, I am exactly 100 and divide by 625.

20dbsm = 100 m2

1/5 detection range:
100 m2 / 5 = 20 m2

20 m2 = 13.01dbsm

The RCS of ANY object depends on the wavelength. More specifically, the wave length relative to the electrical size of the object.

Of course, therefore, in my data I did not provide abstract statements, but reported the frequencies for the air defense complex of this document.

Across this thread there have been many "RCS" numbers posted. None of these specify at what wavelength that RCS value is for. The RCS of a object will change with the frequency, angle, etc. Saying the Su-57 (or F-22, F-117, etc.) have "an RCS" of X means nothing without that information.

Are we to assume that value is from the frontal aspect and is the lowest value across all wavelengths? Or just some particular wavelength? And there were even numbers that are the "average" RCS - the average RCS value across all wavelengths and angles? Or one wavelength and every angle (either way, an average is useless and gives a deceptively high number) ?

 

[Scar]

US refusing to sell F-35 to any country that purchased S-400 because Americans don't want us to confirm experimentally the fact that F-35 cannot be seen by S-400(which would render it as useless and destroyed its sales) or any other LORAD at more or less significant range, due to F-35 super-tiny RCS, just as Americans told to the whole World all these years. I think we should be grateful to Americans - they don't want to ruin S-400 market success.

That's not the main reason- the reason is the IFF that would have to be programmed in and it's sensitivity/secrecy.

IFF protocols are cross-platform and not dependant on the particular platform(i.e. F-35), you know. So nope, it's not because of some concerns about IFF secrecy.

 

[tequilashooter]

IFF protocols are cross-platform and not dependant on the particular platform(i.e. F-35), you know. So nope, it's not because of some concerns about IFF secrecy.

I am not being full of shit when I say I think the F-35 is a great aircraft, but my definition of the aircrafts purpose is entirely different from anyone elses as much as my definition of the Su-57's purpose is entirely different from everyone elses.

Big numbers, having the aircraft last until 2070, etc, You got to make a very good use of having that amount of aircrafts, in other words having your presence be known on every 3rd world country without nuclear weapons. Most of these countries at best have S-125s, S-200s and some other old shit short range air defenses. Forget about any of these countries getting S-400s be it the 2007, 2015 and newer radar sets in development for the system. Armenia, Ukraine, Slovakia in terms of the S-300 family list have the worst versions, Greece is at a so and so position with theirs(don't know if they involve short range air defense integration with those exercises or not). But systems like the S-200s and S-125s still seem to be considerably dangerous to countries using 4th gen aircrafts so the use of involving better all aspect stealth puts such pilots at a lesser risk and can have them better prepared if those countries ever so happen to get moderately good S-300 systems.

But of course when another superpower gets involved in a 3rd world country, funding and support for such groups grinds to a screeching halt. You cant kill of their scientists as easily as Israel can with the Iranians to stop them from making photonic radars, or progress with radar shadowing, quantum radars or gravitational analysis https://naukatehnika.com/zhizn-bez-sputnikov-novye-sistemy-navigacii.html etc. and its not even 2070 yet until the F-35s get replaced. I don't see F-35s actively destroying S-300s or an S-400 in Syria, nor do I see them stopping this adversary's ventures into the arctic and Antarctic region for more resources.

Basically air defense and aircraft arguements will go like this.

Boomer generation

Person 1: look how useless these russian systems are in Kosovo, Iraq, Armenia, etc.

Person 2: That is all old shit and not the kind of air defenses we normally used.

*chest beating and arguments proceed to take up entire thread of some poor forum.*

Zoomer generation

Person 1: look how useless these Russian systems are in Syria, those F-35Is did a great job.

Person 2: That is all old shit and not the kind of air defenses we normally used.

*chest beating and arguments proceed to take up entire thread of some poor forum.*

But still to this day my concern is about the usage of a huge amount of aircrafts making sure that it really is money well spent, than another aircraft getting the same job done with long range weapons against air defenses. That's the only criticism I have of the aircraft.

Russia is not intimidated to sell S-400s since they have nothing to lose such as selling 2007 91N6E radar and older variant missiles. But if the performance is that bad they can give excuses that its not the 2015 Nebo-M radar set, not the 103Zh6 Niobium-M radar set, not the 1L125 Niobium-SV radar set, not the new Nioby radar in development set or hell when the S-500 becomes operational. Sales of the F-35 are different with more things to lose than receiving data on the S-400 or vice versa. Because if a random country does say the F-35 performance is bad the U.S. cant say that is not the F-35 with the material to make it .00001m2 than its current .001m2. But if they say that they keep the best stealthier F-35s and no one else does that is receiving them, that will hurt future sales and orders of the aircraft.

 

[stealthflanker]

20dBsm = 100m2.

Well, as you noticed, I am exactly 100 and divide by 625.

20dbsm = 100 m2

1/5 detection range:
100 m2 / 5 = 20 m2

20 m2 = 13.01dbsm

The RCS of ANY object depends on the wavelength. More specifically, the wave length relative to the electrical size of the object.

Of course, therefore, in my data I did not provide abstract statements, but reported the frequencies for the air defense complex of this document.

Across this thread there have been many "RCS" numbers posted. None of these specify at what wavelength that RCS value is for. The RCS of a object will change with the frequency, angle, etc. Saying the Su-57 (or F-22, F-117, etc.) have "an RCS" of X means nothing without that information.

Are we to assume that value is from the frontal aspect and is the lowest value across all wavelengths? Or just some particular wavelength? And there were even numbers that are the "average" RCS - the average RCS value across all wavelengths and angles? Or one wavelength and every angle (either way, an average is useless and gives a deceptively high number) ?

Well Dev already explained i think. That the value applies to the radar within the manual he provided. For frontal aspect.

I would expect other SAM or Radar manual would have different value as they may work in different frequency.

 

[LMFS]

20dbsm = 100 m2

1/5 detection range:
100 m2 / 5 = 20 m2

20 m2 = 13.01dbsm

Is this the Physics we should learn???

 

[Dev]

20dbsm = 100 m2

1/5 detection range:
100 m2 / 5 = 20 m2

20 m2 = 13.01dbsm

If we look at the basic radar equation, we see the fourth root. That is, if we want to reduce the range by 5 times, then we must reduce the RCS by 5 ^ 4 times or 625.
But I do not mind what you estimated from the presentation of the LM RCS F-35 in 20 m2.
But that doesn't even matter.
You have confirmed my thesis that you can juggle indirect data as you like. You can divide by 5, you can divide by 625, you can not divide at all, you can take any RCS as a basis, etc. That is, you can get any numbers that will satisfy the beliefs of everyone.

Across this thread there have been many "RCS" numbers posted. None of these specify at what wavelength that RCS value is for. The RCS of a object will change with the frequency, angle, etc. Saying the Su-57 (or F-22, F-117, etc.) have "an RCS" of X means nothing without that information.

I said this 2 weeks ago.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/su-57-rcs-and-general-stealth-discussion.36240/post-431890

 

[Nigelhg]

US refusing to sell F-35 to any country that purchased S-400 because Americans don't want us to confirm experimentally the fact that F-35 cannot be seen by S-400(which would render it as useless and destroyed its sales) or any other LORAD at more or less significant range, due to F-35 super-tiny RCS, just as Americans told to the whole World all these years. I think we should be grateful to Americans - they don't want to ruin S-400 market success.

That's not the main reason- the reason is the IFF that would have to be programmed in and it's sensitivity/secrecy.

IFF protocols are cross-platform and not dependant on the particular platform(i.e. F-35), you know. So nope, it's not because of some concerns about IFF secrecy.

Yes -Apparently the russians were able to built the IFF to nato specification for turkey (STANAG 4193) but this raises questions about how closely the turkish and russians worked together and there could be other implications of this such as the ability to feed back radar signal intelligence on the F35 to russia etc.

 

[Ronny]

But you did not provide data on scanning properties. Then why discuss what we do not know.

Why do I need to provide scanning properties?
You calculated the scan time yourself
You made the statement that "no one needs a radar with good range parameters, but at the same time poor scanning property" pretty much imply there is no X-band radar with big aperture.
I only need to show a working X-band radar with huge aperture for your statement to be incorrect.

Can you bring a radar with this position time? If not, then I'm not interested. I'll show you what values a respected stealthflanker uses.
View attachment 648834
As you can see, you are not seeking to know the truth, but simply cheating.

So you can't actually prove that my scan time is physically impossible?. You are guessing that the value is wrong because you haven't seen another poster use it. Therefore it isn't possible?. I thought you aren't interested in guesswork? .
I respect stealthflanker but you should do better job of back up your point that "look at what this one poster does" .

Give the documentation of those years with such figures.

Fortunately for me, I don't have to obey such request because Ben was kind enough to give us the detection range of HAWK radar .Let me guess, you gonna tell me that a live hawk has RCS of 1000 m2?


Secondly, when HAWK got upgraded, it get an entirely new radar with different name

There are many words, but they are not specific.
You promised data from the manufacturer. Incidentally, I am citing technical data, not memoirs, journalistic articles and other "husk".

And your so called technical data was created when the actual production F-22 haven't even flew yet
While another paper from the Ukraine basically give some arbitrary number for dozens aircraft which can't even be checked because god know how they made the model or the RAM

In order.
1. Memoirs are good. And I love this book. In my memoirs I will definitely write that I had 100 women a night.
Give RCS D-21. What could be compared with something.
Just do not rely on the SR-71. These are different objects and, as we already know, the RCS of the air intake without taking into account the airframe can give RCS of 10 ^ 2 m2.

2. I can cite the work of the US Naval Graduate School. There are also figures, but with reference to the globalsecurity site, which refers to an article by David Fulgrum.

3. David Folgrum's articles are different. Then he says that the EPR is only small from the nose, in 2009 he said that it is already from all sides. At the same time, he always said that the EPR of the F-22 is less than the F-35. But as we know, Generals Hostege and Bogdan denied this in 2014.

3. LM gives a reduction in range by 5 times. Okay, I'll only take your sources. In Fulgrum's first article, RCS F-15 is estimated as +20 dBsm.
100/5 ^ 4 = 100/625 = 0.16 m2

4. "Balls" and "peas" don't interest me either. The RCS of balls depends on the wavelength. Therefore, even different formulas are used. That is, I don’t even understand how to count these "balls".

1- The memoir is made by actual engineer involved in the development and manufacturing of the real F-117 aircraft, it is as accurate as it can possibly get. . If I argue using your logic, I can also say the Davidenko and Poghosyan were taking when they talking about stealth because of propaganda .
SR-71 has 100 times lower RCS than F-14 so even if RCS of F-14 is 100 m2, we left with about 1 m2 for SR-71. D-21 was said to be the stealthiest object they ever created before the F-117, which including the SR-71. The fact that Have Blue is 1000 times stealthier than D-21 say alot about what they could achieved.
Besides, it is quite funny when you were very against the idea of simulation when they appear to go against your narrative, yet when they seem to support your narrative you suddenly have no issue with them and they are suddenly very accurate? . Like I said before, not all inlet are equal, so you can't use the simulation of one engine/inlet and assume another one will have exact same result. The engine Cowl of SR-71 blocked the full view to the compressor blades with very narrow gap that get even narrower when the aircraft fly supersonic, D-21 is a ramjet drone so it doesn't even have a compressor blade.


2- Logically, a major would know what he talking about, but ok, I can accept your logic in this
3- The David Folgrum didn't create the number by himself, he reported what USAF claimed
4- I like how sneaky you are . The aircraft in Lockheed Martin slide clearly not an F-15, it is an F-18. And F-35 wasn't even intended to replace F-15 to start with, yet that doesn't stop you from using F-15 figure because it fit your narrative and if you do it quick enough, others might not notice. Also I thought you don't believe the journalist number? . The only reason I posted that slide in the first place is because you said the journalist number isn't accurate enough. If you choose to believe number given in Fulgrum's first article then there is no need to make any calculation because he stated the RCS value for F-35 already . Let me guess: you only believe journalist when it is convenient for your narrative?
5- RCS of everything depend on wavelength, not just balls. It is even harder to calculate RCS of complex object in different frequency range. Balls is used in RCS comparison because they are easily calculated and the same from any aspect

I am too lazy to comment on these nonsense invented by you. The graph speaks for itself. That when falling perpendicular to the RAM, the reflected energy will be 17 dB less. Less angle, less absorption.

With grazing incidence of the wave, the reflection coefficient of the material increases, reducing its absorbing properties (Fig. 8, b).

There is no nonsense or anything invented by me, but there is clearly a lack of fundamental physic understanding from you. This is the exact same situation when you confused between free space basic loss and atmospheric attenuation.

 

[QuadroFX]

From last KnAAZ corporate magazine:

"The entire cycle of stage-by-stage application of RAM takes little over a month. According to experts, technological capabilities and scientific developments make it possible to do it faster."

"Each layer of special coating has a specific functional purpose and its own unique thickness, which depends on the area of application. Compounds - compositions based on various polymers - eventually form kind of "layer cake", the properties of which enable Su-57 significantly reduce radar signature."

 

[tequilashooter]

I have seen a source interview with John Shupek stating that the YF-23 was more stealthy than the F-22 but with less agility than the f-22. Is he telling the truth or is it pierre sprey sore loser kind of talk?

He stated that the RCS was that of a spider web, had no luck finding what the RCS of a spider web is. But sources have told me that the diameter of a spider web is 100-200 nanometers in diameter, and that some spider webs can reach up to 1 meter in length max and usually spider webs have 7 lines so 7 meters times 100-200 nanometers? Sadly I cant take account for the lengths regarding the widths of the spider web. But let's just say I think the end results seem to account for a RCS way smaller than .0001m2 in terms of surface area unless anyone wants to chime in here on that because I like to know?

Although there is alot of mentions on RCS measurements of other well known stealth aircrafts I am wondering why none mention the YF-23 iother than f-22, B-2, f-117 or f-35 because a spider web like RCS is pretty damn stealthy . Or is it because choosing the f-22 contradicts the much stealth arguements seen on most pro-US aviation forums? Or that eyebrows are already raised about RCS of a steel marble and if other mentions like including a spider web RCS for another aircraft might hurt the credibility or reputation of what well known experts display to the public in regards to stealth as overexaggerated claims?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I took him to mean that the RCS looked like a spider web when plotted. Not was the same as the RCS of a spider web.

 

[tequilashooter]

I took him to mean that the RCS looked like a spider web when plotted. Not was the same as the RCS of a spider web.

Thank you, apologies misinterpreting shupek's statement. That would have been cool as well.

 

[GARGEAN]

So many smaller spikes against few bigger of F-22?

 

[tequilashooter]

So many smaller spikes against few bigger of F-22?

It's easy to misinterpret the statement of Shupek. Thank god overscan mentioned this because I was dead serious on doing some heavy research to find out what's the surface area of an average spiderweb. Currently on my phone(haven't figured out how to post a url on phone) but on the aviation geek website source it mainly talks about the aircraft having an overall better stealth on different aspects in comparison to the F-22,but it sure seems that way as in less spikes as you said.

Edit: Back on computer. EXCLUSIVE: YF-23A THERMAL DESIGNER PROVIDES SOME INTERESTING DETAILS ABOUT NORTHROP ATF - The Aviation Geek Club

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Other stealth aircraft RCS plots have been compared to a butterfly pattern. "Spider's web" might indicate better all-aspect RCS without the 4 large lobes of the butterfly wings.

 

[Dev]

In order not to completely litter the branch, I will hide messages to you under the spoiler.

Spoiler: For Ronny

Why do I need to provide scanning properties?
You calculated the scan time yourself
You made the statement that "no one needs a radar with good range parameters, but at the same time poor scanning property" pretty much imply there is no X-band radar with big aperture.
I only need to show a working X-band radar with huge aperture for your statement to be incorrect.

There is a Russian expression "It turns like a snake in a hot frying pan."
Now you are doing the same. I'll probably reveal a secret. But there are radars for different purposes. We are swami talking about surveillance radar . And I asked you to bring exactly the surveillance radars. What you brought is tracking radars. They build tracks of objects in a narrow known sector. They are not intended for scanning large sectors. If you want to prove the opposite, give their scanning characteristics.

So you can't actually prove that my scan time is physically impossible?. You are guessing that the value is wrong because you haven't seen another poster use it. Therefore it isn't possible?. I thought you aren't interested in guesswork? .
I respect stealthflanker but you should do better job of back up your point that "look at what this one poster does" .

Proving something to you is useless.
And by the way, I never saw the "dwell time for the beam" in your picture. I see the "coherent dwell time".
Which still needs to be multiplied by n. Then add more time to reduce false positives. Add filtering time, DSP processing time, etc.
Give a link to the document. I suspect you've got it all messed up.

Fortunately for me, I don't have to obey such request because Ben was kind enough to give us the detection range of HAWK radar .Let me guess, you gonna tell me that a live hawk has RCS of 1000 m2?

Oh my God. After the balls a

nd peas, do you suggest that I do arnitology and calculate the EPR of an eagle? No thanks for the offer.

Whisper. If only they didn't force the RCS of the web to calculate.

1- The memoir is made by actual engineer involved in the development and manufacturing of the real F-117 aircraft, it is as accurate as it can possibly get. . If I argue using your logic, I can also say the Davidenko and Poghosyan were taking when they talking about stealth because of propaganda .
SR-71 has 100 times lower RCS than F-14 so even if RCS of F-14 is 100 m2, we left with about 1 m2 for SR-71. D-21 was said to be the stealthiest object they ever created before the F-117, which including the SR-71. The fact that Have Blue is 1000 times stealthier than D-21 say alot about what they could achieved.

EPR SR-71 is known to us. About 10m2. This is confirmed by our sources and yours, in particular, the book SR-71 Revealed: The Inside Story by Richard H. Graham.
I don't know anything about the D-21.
Skunks, by the way, even deceived their generals. This is written in their own memoirs. And God himself commanded to exaggerate a little in writing memoirs.
I am not belittling their book in any way. This book is great! From the standpoint of history, it is simply gold for the reader. But I would not treat it as technical literature.

Besides, it is quite funny when you were very against the idea of simulation when they appear to go against your narrative, yet when they seem to support your narrative you suddenly have no issue with them and they are suddenly very accurate? . Like I said before, not all inlet are equal, so you can't use the simulation of one engine/inlet and assume another one will have exact same result. The engine Cowl of SR-71 blocked the full view to the compressor blades with very narrow gap that get even narrower when the aircraft fly supersonic, D-21 is a ramjet drone so it doesn't even have a compressor blade.

No. I am always consistent in my statements. Yes, I have come across documents for checking the RCS of individual parts of the aircraft. Which gave much more RCS than all the assembled ones.
I think you can find similar studies in your literature.
As for the D-21, I repeat, I don’t know its RCS . And I'm not sure if it is somehow just consistent with the RCS SR-71. Maybe more, maybe less. I don't know.

2- Logically, a major would know what he talking about, but ok, I can accept your logic in this
3- The David Folgrum didn't create the number by himself, he reported what USAF claimed
4- I like how sneaky you are . The aircraft in Lockheed Martin slide clearly not an F-15, it is an F-18. And F-35 wasn't even intended to replace F-15 to start with, yet that doesn't stop you from using F-15 figure because it fit your narrative and if you do it quick enough, others might not notice. Also I thought you don't believe the journalist number? . The only reason I posted that slide in the first place is because you said the journalist number isn't accurate enough. If you choose to believe number given in Fulgrum's first article then there is no need to make any calculation because he stated the RCS value for F-35 already . Let me guess: you only believe journalist when it is convenient for your narrative?

I'm not mean. I'm just showing you how you can use ambiguous data. If you don't like the F-15, and you want the F-18, then I will take the famous drawing by the respected David C. Jenn. No less deserved than Knott. In which "fighter aircraft" have a RCS of 100 m2. And why is the F-18 not a "fighter aircraft"? Also fighter aircraft.
I'll try it again. I'm just showing how data can be manipulated when there are no clear numbers.
Of course, I don't trust Fulgrum. And of course the RCS F-15 and F-18 are not so big.
As a rule, such presentations are cut not by technical specialists, but, as they say here in Russia, by long-legged girls-designers. What did they draw there? What were they guided by? What was compared to what? What was taken as a basis? And did they do it all? Remains a big question.

5- RCS of everything depend on wavelength, not just balls. It is even harder to calculate RCS of complex object in different frequency range. Balls is used in RCS comparison because they are easily calculated and the same from any aspect

Of course. I'm glad you understand that. And as the respected colleague said above, without wavelength and angle, all this is uninformative!

There is no nonsense or anything invented by me, but there is clearly a lack of fundamental physic understanding from you. This is the exact same situation when you confused between free space basic loss and atmospheric attenuation.

Wonderful. People have used RAM in their studies that does not absorb. Conducted studies of RAM that does not absorb, received a decrease in the reflected signal by 17 dB at a right angle incidence.
It remains a mystery, where did all this energy go if the RAM was not absorbed? Anigelized? The "law of conservation of energy" is still in effect in my universe.

 

[quellish]

If we look at the basic radar equation, we see the fourth root. That is, if we want to reduce the range by 5 times, then we must reduce the RCS by 5 ^ 4 times or 625.

Oh, ok. Fundamental physics did not interest you a few days ago, but now it does. Are we on some kind of schedule? The laws of physics are in effect Monday and Tuesdays only, during business hours? Or is this just more "whenever I feel like it"?

But I do not mind what you estimated from the presentation of the LM RCS F-35 in 20 m2.

No, I was using the +20dbsm you quoted, citing Fulghum. I know the RCS of the F-35 with a fair amount of accuracy by predicting it - do you?

Spoiler

It isn't +20dbsm, or even -20dbsm, in X-band in the frontal aspect.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

So many smaller spikes against few bigger of F-22?

Here's an RCS plot of the X-45 - note the 4 large spikes for the leading edges. Looks quite like a spider web...

 

[Scar]

US refusing to sell F-35 to any country that purchased S-400 because Americans don't want us to confirm experimentally the fact that F-35 cannot be seen by S-400(which would render it as useless and destroyed its sales) or any other LORAD at more or less significant range, due to F-35 super-tiny RCS, just as Americans told to the whole World all these years. I think we should be grateful to Americans - they don't want to ruin S-400 market success.

That's not the main reason- the reason is the IFF that would have to be programmed in and it's sensitivity/secrecy.

IFF protocols are cross-platform and not dependant on the particular platform(i.e. F-35), you know. So nope, it's not because of some concerns about IFF secrecy.

Yes -Apparently the russians were able to built the IFF to nato specification for turkey (STANAG 4193) but this raises questions about how closely the turkish and russians worked together and there could be other implications of this such as the ability to feed back radar signal intelligence on the F35 to russia etc.

FYI, Turkey isn't the first NATO country that operates our Russian SAM's. And S-400 has an open architecture designed in accordance with MIL-STD standards.

 

[Ronny]

There is a Russian expression "It turns like a snake in a hot frying pan."
Now you are doing the same. I'll probably reveal a secret. But there are radars for different purposes. We are swami talking about surveillance radar . And I asked you to bring exactly the surveillance radars. What you brought is tracking radars. They build tracks of objects in a narrow known sector. They are not intended for scanning large sectors. If you want to prove the opposite, give their scanning characteristics.

Can you cite me the part where I said I was specifically talking about surveillance radar?. I only showed you that: if RCS value was exactly like you stated then X-band radar will have much better detection range against stealth target compared to VHF radar
Your earlier claim wasn't specifically about surveillance radar either, your exact words were "no one needs a radar with good range parameters, but at the same time poor scanning property"

Proving something to you is useless.
And by the way, I never saw the "dwell time for the beam" in your picture. I see the "coherent dwell time".
Which still needs to be multiplied by n. Then add more time to reduce false positives. Add filtering time, DSP processing time, etc.
Give a link to the document. I suspect you've got it all messed up.

As I said before, dwell time can easily be reduced when you reduce peak power

Oh my God. After the balls a
nd peas, do you suggest that I do arnitology and calculate the EPR of an eagle? No thanks for the offer.
Whisper. If only they didn't force the RCS of the web to calculate.

you certainly don't need to calculate the exact RCS of a Hawk, anyone with common sense would know it isn't some insane value like 10 m2 or 100 m2, but of course you pretend like that is unreasonable because it doesn't fit your narrative
Secondly, the comment about spiderweb was very specifically about the look of it, with spikes toward several direction, therefore it look like a web .I'm sure you understand that too but intentionally make a strawman argument

EPR SR-71 is known to us. About 10m2. This is confirmed by our sources and yours, in particular, the book SR-71 Revealed: The Inside Story by Richard H. Graham.

Slow down there buddy . RCS of SR-71 isn't 10 m2, I guess you took that from Wikipedia?, in the book SR-71 Revealed: The Inside Story by Richard H. Graham they didn't say the RCS value of SR-71 was 10 m2, they said SR-71 represented a target about the size of a j-3 Piper Cub.
But I know you don't like comparison, so I have something better for you.
SR-71 RCS is 1 m2 according to the pilot who flew it (around 11:00 in this interview)

SR-71 RCS is 2 m2 according to SR-71 interceptor proposal by USAF so roughly the same as value above

I don't know anything about the D-21. As for the D-21, I repeat, I don’t know its RCS . And I'm not sure if it is somehow just consistent with the RCS SR-71. Maybe more, maybe less. I don't know.

Don't try adding ambiguity when there isn't any
SR-71 and D-21 were both made by Skunk' works
D-21 was made after SR-71
Ben and his colleague all said D-21 has the lowest RCS of anything ever made in Skunk's work before Have Blue
So there is no "maybe more" here, D-21 has lower RCS than SR-71, the end.

Skunks, by the way, even deceived their generals. This is written in their own memoirs.

You forgot the part where they didn't intentionally do that at the start, but rather an error due to atmospheric layer.
Later on, they were able to prove their result by glue actual ball on the model anyway

And God himself commanded to exaggerate a little in writing memoirs.
I am not belittling their book in any way. This book is great! From the standpoint of history, it is simply gold for the reader. But I would not treat it as technical literature.

By that logic, clearly Davidenko and Poghosyan and lied when they talked about stealth
And the S-200 manual that given F-22 RCS before it even have its first flight isn't even worth mentioning

As a rule, such presentations are cut not by technical specialists, but, as they say here in Russia, by long-legged girls-designers. What did they draw there? What were they guided by? What was compared to what? What was taken as a basis? And did they do it all? Remains a big question.

All these question can be applied on the Ukraine study too, since they haven't give any data on what type of model they used for the simulation, did they made model for each and every aircraft?. How did they model the inlet?, how did they model the wing and inlet leading edge ? what type of RAM they used?

Of course. I'm glad you understand that. And as the respected colleague said above, without wavelength and angle, all this is uninformative!

If you interested in Physics, then you would have known that RCS of a ball/sphere in optical region is pretty much constant and also, another unique characteristic of a sphere/ball is that they have the same shape from all direction, how cool is that?

Wonderful. People have used RAM in their studies that does not absorb. Conducted studies of RAM that does not absorb, received a decrease in the reflected signal by 17 dB at a right angle incidence.
It remains a mystery, where did all this energy go if the RAM was not absorbed? Anigelized? The "law of conservation of energy" is still in effect in my universe.

Like I explained to you before,
Getting the radar wave to entered the RAM: shown by the reflection coefficient
Absorb the energy of the radar wave while it traveling inside the RAM: shown by loss
Are two separate mechanisms . For example: There are materials that can allow radar wave to pass into and through them but absorb nothing such as glass. There are also materials which can absorb a significant amount of radar wave energy that pass through them but have very high front face reflection coefficient.
Seem like fundamental physics is quite important to understand stealth

 

[Ronny]

US refusing to sell F-35 to any country that purchased S-400 because Americans don't want us to confirm experimentally the fact that F-35 cannot be seen by S-400(which would render it as useless and destroyed its sales) or any other LORAD at more or less significant range, due to F-35 super-tiny RCS, just as Americans told to the whole World all these years. I think we should be grateful to Americans - they don't want to ruin S-400 market success.

S-400 is a good system, but it doesn't operate by magic, if F-35 RCS is truly 0.1 m2 then you don't need S-400 batteries to disclose it. Plenty of countries which US sell F-35 to has long range anti air radar. Japan has SPY-1 along with APS-145 (E-2C) and APY-9 ( E-2D ) and APY-2 (E-767) , UK has SMART-L and S1850M, Australia has MESA (E-737)

That's why i wrote "S-400...or any other LORAD". But what makes S-400 different is the fact it operated by countries that are not so much dependant from US and may disclose some things unpleasant for F-35 market image, and "US Stealth" brand in general. That's why such countries as India or Turkey will never get F-35, as well as any other S-400 user, more or less unbiased and independent from US.

I don't think the deal is with F-35 market image since any countries that has F-35 and any radar will be able to test to see if its RCS is as advertised.
The deal with S-400 is different in the sense that country with both S-400 and F-35 can improve the S-400 by adding the exact signature characteristic (like exact scattering pattern) into S-400 library, which mean it easier to distingush F-35 from decoys, reduce false alarm, also they can test to see at exactly how far they can detect the aircraft, which is vital information as well. Then there is also aspect of its EW and radar system that can be exploited. A country like Turkey wouldn't mind selling all these information to Russia in exchange for additional technology transfer. Buying S-400 can be seem as a step toward Russia side.

 

[Dev]

Spoiler: For Ronny

Can you cite me the part where I said I was specifically talking about surveillance radar?

Excuse me. They would have said they would have freed up a lot of time before. I am not interested in radio telescopes. They are not suitable for the tasks mentioned.

As I said before, dwell time can easily be reduced when you reduce peak power

You have confused cause and effect. Come on, for a minute, I'll come to your fantasy world of pink ponnies. After all, only there, perhaps, the metomorphoses you are talking about. I will specifically make a reservation that I will obey the rules of the fairy world. Well, so that my colleagues do not laugh at me.
You, in a fabulous country, have reduced your total dwell time by 10 times. Which caused a decrease in the range 1.78 times. The question is, how will we compensate? Increase the gain by 10 dB again?
And now our antenna is already 9.3 meters in diameter. That is, we have almost lost the mass and dimensional advantage. And our beam width is already 0.04 square degrees. (120 * 20 / 0.04) * 0.002 = 120 seconds. I told you that antenna theory is all about compromises. You can again reduce the time, again compensate for gain. And so in a circle.
Let's come to an agreement, I'm going to get out of your fantasy world, and in my real world, I no longer want to listen to this "antenna nonsense".

you certainly don't need to calculate the exact RCS of a Hawk, anyone with common sense would know it isn't some insane value like 10 m2 or 100 m2, but of course you pretend like that is unreasonable because it doesn't fit your narrative
Secondly, the comment about spiderweb was very specifically about the look of it, with spikes toward several direction, therefore it look like a web .I'm sure you understand that too but intentionally make a strawman argument

No, no, no. I am not engaged in applied electrodynamics in arnitology. I had enough balls and peas. Then hares, elephants, bees and other representatives of the fauna will go.

Slow down there buddy . RCS of SR-71 isn't 10 m2, I guess you took that from Wikipedia?, in the book SR-71 Revealed: The Inside Story by Richard H. Graham they didn't say the RCS value of SR-71 was 10 m2, they said SR-71 represented a target about the size of a j-3 Piper Cub.

I do not have this book at hand. If you have one, take a picture of page 75 and post it here. I will be grateful.

But I know you don't like comparison, so I have something better for you.
SR-71 RCS is 1 m2 according to the pilot who flew it (around 11:00 in this interview)

It's just great. This proves once again my thesis that data on EPR abroad differ from statement to statement. They could not even agree and name one number. Who to believe now?

You forgot the part where they didn't intentionally do that at the start, but rather an error due to atmospheric layer.
Later on, they were able to prove their result by glue actual ball on the model anyway

Reread it again. Yes, their result turned out to be 4 dB better due to the heated air. And they knew the reason. But this did not prevent them from taking these data to the generals.

By that logic, clearly Davidenko and Poghosyan and lied when they talked about stealth
And the S-200 manual that given F-22 RCS before it even have its first flight isn't even worth mentioning

It's one thing to lie in the service, another thing to retire in your memoirs. But I don't insist.
It was not me who posted the document on the S-200. And not F-22 in it, but ATF. I will assume that in Russia they knew about the RCS requirements for this program in 1991. But I do not insist. This is just a guess.

All these question can be applied on the Ukraine study too, since they haven't give any data on what type of model they used for the simulation, did they made model for each and every aircraft?. How did they model the inlet?, how did they model the wing and inlet leading edge ? what type of RAM they used?

The Ukrainian article is of little interest to me either. I brought her to show the variety of numbers.

If you interested in Physics, then you would have known that RCS of a ball/sphere in optical region is pretty much constant and also, another unique characteristic of a sphere/ball is that they have the same shape from all direction, how cool is that?

Please be kind. Take a golf ball and calculate its RCS at a wavelength such as 14.1 cm. No need for long conversations, screenshots of books. Just a number.

Like I explained to you before,
Getting the radar wave to entered the RAM: shown by the reflection coefficient
Absorb the energy of the radar wave while it traveling inside the RAM: shown by loss
Are two separate mechanisms . For example: There are materials that can allow radar wave to pass into and through them but absorb nothing such as glass. There are also materials which can absorb a significant amount of radar wave energy that pass through them but have very high front face reflection coefficient.
Seem like fundamental physics is quite important to understand stealth

Let me now invite you to my real world. So, the RAM, as indicated above, was also used in other studies. For example, in the RCS study of an airplane wing. People first examined this part and got peak values of about 2 m2. And with RAM, almost two orders of magnitude less.
I have the same question. Where did the energy go if the RAM does not absorb. Let me remind you that you are in the real world, and the law of conservation of energy is valid here.

 

[Scar]

I don't think the deal is with F-35 market image since any countries that has F-35 and any radar will be able to test to see if its RCS is as advertised.

But you can't have F-35 if you're not completely loyal to US. That's why Turkey or India will never get F-35, they didn't obey to US taboo on S-400. At the same time those who loyal and got F-35 will never tell something that contradicts to US advertising...because they don't want to make US sad and become another one Turkey.

This is a classic conspiracy of silence.