Couldn’t help but be amused by those trying (maturely :rolleyes:) to discredit the previously posted plots as “completely” incorrect based on pyhsical optics methods being used, especially the guy taking a 2yo, unused account out of mothballs to post on it for the first time.
PO provides decent estimations of the specular RCS of objects, period. It’s more than acceptable for comparing the exposed surfaces of to-scale shapes and good enough for numerous military and civilian universities to use in their engineering courses.Cross sections are used in these samples rather than entire aircraft to help keep models simple and avoid too much inaccuracy.
The same material selection was used in sampling both shapes (PEC) so RAM is irrelevant. Applying RAM to both models would not change the angle of RCS spikes, nor would it benefit one shape and not the other.
Cylinders are not a stealthy object, they provide a decent, uniform return all the way around. Applying RAM to one makes it a slightly less detectable, non-stealthy object (hint, cylindrical poles are not used on RCS test stands)
You gotta be kidding me right?! The area you highlighted is THE MOST stealthy by DESIGN (it’s longitudinally faceted and laterally aligned!!), so now you’re moving the goal posts- quite literally.
In that case I owe people here an apology for giving you the benefit of the doubt, which was clearly undeserved as you’ve so effectively demonstrated that you don’t have the faintest idea of what you’re talking about.
Falcondude’s interjection was to correct the glaring blackholes of your ‘knowledge’, and he probably felt an utter compulsion by your misrepresentations & falsifications of scientific reality.
Obviously, you don’t have any self-respect either, as it would take all of 10 seconds to debunk the crap you babble:
http://www.jatm.com.br/papers/vol4_n1/JATMv4n1_p25-32_Indoor_Radar_Cross_Section_Measurements_of_Simple_Targets.pdf
http://www.jpier.org/PIER/pier68/15.06083102.H.Elsherbeni.A.pdf
Do you remember this guy? (a legend!)…
…and the infamous incident on September 13th 1987 with the Norwegian P-3C? Well after 25 years 😮 we can put a name and face to the guy who provided the first close up views of the Su-27 FLANKER B (and how!!)- I was aged 11! :p
Senior Lieutenant Vassily Tsimbal (старший лейтенант Василий Цимбал).
The damage to his Su-27 tail fin upon collision with the ‘Orion’s’ propeller (above right):
Here is the P-3’s ‘intercept’ marking (the aircraft was rebranded ’38’ after the incident):
Very sadly Vassily was killed in a flood in 2003, here’s to you Sir! A true icon.
Nice view. Maybe the purpose was to show the Russian public that the bigger Pak-Fa has a turn capability similar to the famous MiG-29, when in reality a modest 7°/sec sustained at low level was demonstrated.
Did I claim that?! What was the idea about that turning pair? I did just point to the impression the less informed public/fan-boys can get from such displays. 😎
Sens, you definitely need a holiday.
Sign In
