trolls cant do that, it goes against their motives

Exactly. When you post the article that the counter article addressed as evidence, serious questions come up about reading comprehension, etc….

When a baker is able to shoot down a F-117.
To what then an engineer is capable of?

I’d find your(and their claims) more credible if they’d managed to shootdown 2 or more F-117s. This would demonstrate a real capability rather than a lucky set of circumstances. You can’t argue from the specific to the general, and expected to be taken seriously.

Again invers invers SAR detect the hole of silence. Againts the Babinet’s principle is RAM and RAS useless and the Babinet’s principle is for interest at rocket guiding and AASR. 😉

RAM and RAS has a specific working frequency and deeper frequency need ticker RAM layers and there’s nothing invisible in the radar frequency range below 2 GHz.

Then show the F-22 that stealth not really usefull is against terrorists and the Taliban Airforce. No one F-22 has flown one mission in Afghanistan. 😉

Another problem for the F-35 is the booming Dollar, thanks to Patriotic US gamblers. :diablo:

You have to understand the difference between detection, and tracking(and there’s a huge difference). Detection alone doesn’t give you nearly enough information to guide a weapon.

No, the reason LM uses M1.5 is because the F-22 did it, & no other fighter had.

The transonic drag hump doesn’t peter out at a fixed Mach number, so if the argument is that an aircraft must be above the drag hump, using a fixed Mach number is invalid. It depends on the individual aerodynamics of the aircraft, & therefore a value appropriate to the aircraft should be used – and in most cases, it isn’t going to be M1.5, but somewhat lower. M1.5 is an artificial number, chosen for PR purposes.

It didn’t wait until the F-22 achieved that speed, to make that the definition though. That was a requirement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise 😉

You’ll notice I said earlier that LM/USAF use a different definition than the one that you’re using. A wikipedia page isn’t going to change that fact. Now you may disagree with them using that definition, and that’s fine. The point that I’m making, so that we can all understand one another, is that we have to understand which definitions we’re using. Before we can compare aircraft, whose manufacturers may be using different terminology, we have to know what their terms mean. The reason LM/USAF use M1.5 is that at M1, the aircraft is still in the transonic region, and all parts of the aircraft might not be supersonic yet, for one. Secondly to distinguish a unique capability that earlier generations of combat aircraft didn’t exhibit(since even F14, F-16, and F-18s have exceeded the sound barrier in dry thrust).

Good grief!

What’s so difficult here. ‘RCS of a metal marble’. Since when has that meant a flat plate with the diameter of a marble? What shape are marbles?

Take the words. Assume they mean what they mean. Do not elaborate, do not interpret. A marble = a round object, of variable diameter but mostly around 15mm, or a bit less.

Same with a golf ball. A sphere, of a given size. Not some other object, of a different shape.

You are the one trying to infer things that have not been said, the one claiming that words mean other than what they say.

I note that in November 2005 (when these reports emerged), Sferrin wrote, on this forum, that what was meant was a metal sphere of the stated size. That was the consensus, because nobody could see any other way to interpret what had been reported. Every reference I’ve seen since then has agreed. This is the first time I’ve seen it claimed that anything else was meant.

When they used the marble/golf ball analogy, they weren’t trying to give an absolute scientific figure. They were giving a ballpark figure that could be understood by non-engineers, in an unclassified format. It wasn’t so that everyone could start doing calculations on the surface area of those 2 objects to arrive at the classified figures. It’s similar to when pilots tell non-pilots how fast an aircraft is in MPH/KPH terms, rather than Mach, indicated airspeed, etc…

I had to correct it, try it again now.

You know how a AMRAAM and a old HAWK works?
The Sparrow and HAWK Radar is a bistatic arrangement and a AMRAAM can steered by RC in your BIG TARGET or use a bistatic mode. Or a IR-Mica, TV or similar.

Detected only once, the F-35 is dead.

Then is the time over for MTI newly Radars use MTD another headache for stealth.

The Sparrow and HAWK don’t use bistatic radar. There’s a big difference between semi-active homing methods, and bistatic radar.