Why didn’t you mention the TIN SHIELD at RAF Spadeadam?

Let me think…becuase it NOT a part of S-300 air-defense system???

No solid data? look at yourself
So where is your solid data to prove the Russian radar can perform as advertised?
where is your solid data to show that continues curve doesn’t contribute much to B-2 stealthy characteristics at low frequency?
Where is your solid data to prove that F-22, F-35 doesn’t have RCS as claimed by LM?
Where is your solid data to prove that the Ukraine group have access to US government top secret information ?
Where is your solid data to show that F-22, F-35 RAM is the same as B-2 with no improvement ?
There is even a pattern published by Lockheed Martin for RAM that can absorb radiowave between 0.1GHz and 60 Ghz, where is your evidence that US stealth aircraft dont use it or it isnot enough to deal with low frequency radar?

I’m glad that you admit that there is no solid data – only empty screams sort of “it’s insect! ZOMG!!!”BTW, you can find your answers right here.

RCS fluctuated between – 10 and – 20 dBsm frontal without take into account RAM and RAS, many RAM have absorbing capabilities more than 20 dBsm

And i can say that RCS is fluctuated between -20 and 10dBsm. Show me tables with average and median RCS, as it made in Sukharev’s group research.

Yeah because US always lie and earn money from their lie. the Russian always tell the truth

not always, but mostly…yeah. Nation of businessmen, nothing more or less.

So where is your evidence, solid data to show that they get accesed to B-2 RAM and RAS?

Only after you provide some solid data on RCS of all these planes – coz this is a starting point of all this discussion.

Even that is wrong, RCS fluctuated in Mie region would depend on the ratio between aircraft size and the wavelength, the 180 cm wavelength size may give B-2 higher RCS but it not necessarily increase F-22 or F-35 or NSM RCS

What is wrong – it’s your manner to place the words i nver said, to my mouth.

Where did i said US never lose their secret ?
but without any evidence you cant just assumed that all of their secret is exposed to whoever want them. Otherwise, i can also assume that USA know exactly how S-400 works, and what is its performance and optimized F-22, F-35’s RAM, RAS, Jamming to deal with it

Yeah, that’s what USAF was thinking of before Vietnam – we know what to do…Soviet SAMs cooled their temperament pretty fast. Remind me, how many thousands of airplanes they’ve lost in that little Asian country? 2 or 3 thousand?

They upset for same reason Russian gets upset everytime US put PAC-3 in countries near their border

It’s just your fantasy. Noone and never in Russia was upset by Patriot near our borders. And finally, we don’t have these wonder stealth fighters and bombers! But US do! Then why be so upset?! Send your invisible wonder-waffe and simply destroy these useless SAMs!

i said that because you said “talking for everyone is the first sight of troll”
my previous post #3596 was ” When everyone is disagreed with you, then you probably should stop for a second and think , that all i gonna say” so I thought you address me
Feel free to check, i didn’t edit that post

Yeah, you just answered to post that wasn’t addressed to you. And yes, speaking for “everyone” is the first sign of troll.

Obviously engineers , mission planner have done many secret experiments and case studies before they decided to follow the stealth roles .

LOL, i said – SHOW them. Not make excuses.

Preliminary Design Report
by Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo Design Team consisting of Kolby Keiser, Chris Droney (Team Leader) ,Nathan Schnaible ,Chris Atkinson ,Christopher Maglio, Dan Salluce
For Presentation at the 61st Annual Conference of Society of Allied Weight Engineers, Inc.
Virginia Beach, Virginia 20-22 May, 2002
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://aerosim.calpoly.edu/media/cms_page_media/14/Vendetta%2520-%2520Final%2520SAWE%2520Paper_1.pdf&ved=0CB4QFjAAahUKEwja-YqUnv7GAhWCEpQKHQn6DTI&usg=AFQjCNHtx3ZQxRCP19Fn_NJwaKpY426zDg&sig2=womcGFnsj2WDg7YKN4UL_g

I’ve asked for RCS diagrams of real planes, not paper-planes. And who is this Cal Poly???

Where is the laws that states defense contractors must published all the science and experiments related to top secret project ?

I don’t care. But without this info – i won’t get any screams about 0,00001sqm seriously.

why should they published the scattering graph of F-22 and F-35 ? why should they let the general public know about RAM and RAS composition and performance of their top secret weapons program ? ?

Because without all of it – their creams looks like TV-shop offers which turn out as frauds, in the most cases.

so where is the significant scientific data to show that Russian radar will achieve 300-400 km detection range again certain target ?

In contrast to US abstract screams – our sources give specific wave-length and RCS of target. While US sources don’t give anything specific – nor Lw, neither specific aspect angles. Even during Soviet times our scientists told that this is a “little US trick”.

Проблема обнаружения малозаметных ЛА связана с эффективной площадью
рассеяния, величина которой зависит от многих факторов: размеров, формы,
пространственного положения ЛА, материала, из которого он изготовлен, частоты,
поляризации и формы облучающего сигнала. Причем даже незначительное
изменение любого из названных факторов может привести к существенному (на
порядок и более) изменению величины ЭПР. Поэтому при указании величин ЭПР
конкретных ЛА должны быть точно определены условия, при которых они
получены. Однако в зарубежных публикациях, посвященных малозаметным
летательным аппаратам, этим правилом зачастую пренебрегают. Так, говоря о
величине ЭПР малозаметного ЛА, обычно приводят ее значение при облучении
аппарата в передней полусфере, хотя общепринятым показателем является
усредненная величина ЭПР самолета при облучении со всех направлений.
Благодаря подобным «маленьким хитростям» в западных изданиях, посвященных
малозаметным ЛА, появляется значение их ЭПР, равное 10
-2м2.

http://www.gsrc.ca/stealtrus.pdf

No, i never said plane are invisible , i only said that they have low RCS , and at a certain part of radio frequency when their body size is at Mie region in respect to the frequency , their RCS will increase , but not so much that they become useless

Then don’t say that i dsimissed LMs and Northrop’s work. And i DIDN’T say stealth is useless – i just said it’s not a wonder-waffe like some people think. You see? Another of your Strawmen appeared – i never said stealth is useless, as well i never dismissed LM’s and Northrop’s work. All these fantasies are just in your head.

yeah sure , in what context that ” RCS always increase as wavelength increase “ correct ?

You see? Another one Strawman! Why do you lie and place the words to my mouth that i didn’t say?

What i’ve actually said.

RCS is increasing with Lw increase, that’s all.

Now you’re liar – that’s a fact.

See who is trolling lol, yes Northrop just share their top secret RAM , RAS composition and performance to Sukharevsky’s group for fun

Yeah, coz LM transfered blueprints of their F-35 to Chinese as a sign of their good will! ROFL. As well as US government shared its nuclear bomb’s blueprints with USSR!

Espionage, ever heard of that? Somehow, i think these military scientists from the one of the most respected military radio-physics academy in the world – know “slightly” more than me and you about B-2, its design and construction.

Ok if you want to play it like that , so do you have the coating scheme and RAS of B-2 ? No ? , so now if i say the RAM and RAS on B-2 have absorbtion capabilities of 99.999999999% from 1 MHz to 100 Ghz , you cant say iam wrong or right in my assumption either

Sorry, but for me you’re not in the same league with Govorov’s academy and professor Sukharevsky.((

Everyone have been reading this thread from start know who is trolling

Talking for “everyone” isthe first sign of troll.

Come on dude ,everyone know that information about absorbing characteristics of RAM and RAS on B-2 are still classified

Just like Manhattan Project or F-35 blueprints? :rolleyes: But you’re right – what ex-Soviet military sceintists may know about US planes, rrrright???

Year 1991, operational manual for S-200D…

Now everyone may start to scream something like “I don’t believe!”

, there is no way Sukharevsky group have access to them, nor do they claim they did either. This is just very silly of you to claim otherwise IHMO.

Really?! Are you 100% sure??? I don’t think so. :rolleyes:

if they are too far

PLACE THEM AS YOU WISH! ****

I dont need to given that thounsands experiments have been done by experts , engineers and they concluded that stealth is the ways to go forward ( if it wasnt then we wouldnt see J-20 , J-31 , F-22 , F-35 , PAK-FA , ..etc , even the new B-21 still follow stealth role )

Then show these publications – with methodology, formulas and graphs. Just like Sukharevsky’s group did.

Actually you did when you said the RCS values they publish is just BS while at the same time having no problem believe detection range value for Russian radar

I didn’t see anything serious and scientific published by these companies. Only some advertising screams aboutr 0,0000001sqm of RCS, which is obvious BS, without real RCS diagrams and othe significant data.

did anyone here said stealth aircraft have the same RCS in the whole radio spectrum?

So, now you admit that denying that airplane can be invisible(or even low-observable) in the whole spectrum – i don’t dismiss LMs and Northrop’s work???

You are free to believe that if you want , no problem , nevertheless what you said still wrong

Only if you didn’t understand the context. And you didn’t.

was that the RAM used on B-2 ? No

YES, it WAS.

was there any RAS involed ? No

YES, it WAS.

was all the surface treated with RAM ? No
and so on

You have the actual coating scheme of B-2?! Then share it with us. Coz otherwise you can’t say if Sukharevsky’s group was wrong or right in their assumtions about RAM/RAS.

Accused people of trolling when you cant win an argument is just very childlish

Saying that someone “can’t win” just because you like to think so is even more childish. You’re obviously trolling and constantly bring Strawman arguments. That’s a fact.

No , if the radar are too close together then they will end up all stay within very small sector of stealth aircraft ‘s frontal aspects

Then don’t place them too close! I said, you may place them as you wish. What’s so hard to understand here?

Did i dismissed their work as useless ? no , but estimation is estimation not actual calculation, if you can measuare stealth aircraft RCS with just computer simulation and some basic theory then no one would need to built massive anechoic chambers, it is you who simply dismissed all the work done by Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin

Then make your own and share. And i DIDN’T dismiss Northrop’s or LM work. They made their planes to be low-observable primarily for X-band which is the main wave-band for FCRs. I don’t think their engineers are idiots who don’t realise that it’s impossible to make aircraft equally low-observable in the whole radio-wave spectrum.

You said “RCS is increasing with wavelength increase” that why i fixed it , because it is wrong

You fixed anything – only played a smart*** out of original conext of my words. Nothing more.

I did , and they said since they dont know actual composition of B-2 RAM , they just make up a simulated RAM in its place and applied to the leading edge of the B-2 , we dont even know the absorbing characteristic of their simulated RAM , and obviously no information about RAS was mentioned

There was RAM in this modelling. Period.

The purpose of low frequency radar was not to detect stealth aircrafts,

Tell this cool story to NNIIRT and LM.

on the other hand , if you think stealth aircraft are so easily defeated by going to lower frequency why dont you address that to stealth aircraft manufacturer all around the world ?

IF…and what you gonna do if I DON’T?!! I see Strawman argument is strong in this thread.

Enough of your trolling, guys. You may believe in any wonder-waffe you want.

No , but if the aircraft heading toward the radar then they would be generally at the frontal

Really?! One radar vs one aircraft? I always thought IADS is a system – not a sinlge radar.

As stated earlier, how can you simulate effect of continuos curves with mesh modeling ? and they even admitted that they have no idea about RAM and RAS composition of B-2

Approximation. Pretty popular method in science, mathematics and simulations, i’d say. :rolleyes:

Secondly RCS and detection range doesnt increase directly proportional with each others , 10 times increase in RCS only improve detection range by nearly 2 times ,and 20 times increased in detection range only increase range by around 2.12 times , so if the B-2 with RCS = 0.03 m2 can be detected from 30 km aways then the one with RCS = 0.62 m2 can only be detected from 63.6 km aways ( and we havent take into account loss , clutter)

I know that. And?… RCS is increasing with Lw increase, that’s all. And where did you get these numbers?! Where these 30km came from?

For example, even an export version of Protivnik-G L-band radar is capable to detect the target with RCS = 1.5sqm at range 340km. So, according to the “arithmetics of proportions” which is very popular on this forum, for the target with RCS = 0.13sqm detection range should be ~170km.

And when you go to lower frequency , RCS isnt the only thing that increase , your beam width will increase too ( aka your gain reduce )

And?… What is your point here?

given same aperture size , wavelength going from 3 cm at X band up to 180 cm at 166 Mhz mean your energy is 180*180/9*9= 3600 times less focused.

Again…AND???