dark light

Otaku

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,096 through 1,110 (of 1,246 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Speculating about the B-3 #2503448
    Otaku
    Participant

    Why certainly, JJ: conventional radar operating frequencies are in the range of 10GHz, so a wavelength is in the order of 3cm, meaning that just about any surface on the aircraft represents many, many wavelengths, and so there is no resonance and the absorptive properties of the material come into play.

    Low frequency radars operate in the vicinity of say, 150MHz, so a wavelength is around 2 metres- roughly the diameter of the fuselage of a typical aircraft, and so even though the aircraft uses non-metallic materials on the surface, there are probably internal structural pieces that represent multiples of a half-wavelength, and so there’ll be an enhanced return.

    The LF radars themselves may not be able to identify the target but they can provide valuable data on detection/location, where other techniques such as Passive Coherent Location (PLC) can be employed.

    Boeing has played up such deficiencies in the F-22/35, for it’s 6th Gen fighter bid, claiming tentative solutions, but if the Czechs can come up with an anti-stealth radar, you can bet the Russians & Chinese will be leagues ahead.

    in reply to: Speculating about the B-3 #2503458
    Otaku
    Participant

    “…there’s nothing invisible in the frequency range below 2GHz”
    [ATTACH]160272[/ATTACH]

    in reply to: Non-U.S. stealthy stuff #2507041
    Otaku
    Participant

    Sorry to rain on your chest thumping party, but both Lockheed and Northrop had working computer simulations to predict RCS in 1974 and 1975 respectively. The output of those RCS models resulted in the Have Blue and Tacit Blue demonstrators that flew in 1977 and 1982 respectively. This was years before Dassault developed its RCS models in the 1980s.

    Oh, I’m sorry, the official French Government remonstrations must have been baseless- ’cause you said so. Not to mention no country has the right to develop stealth tech. (or superior software modelling techniques) unless allowed by the US.

    in reply to: Non-U.S. stealthy stuff #2507256
    Otaku
    Participant

    Yeah i guess i don’t have a clue about Rafale being more stealthy then Typhoon i will admit, and i realise RCS cannot be judged by the eyeball, but my reasoning always was it looked a smoother shape,with smoother contours etc and seemingly less protrusions, but i will concede i don’t know enough (f all actually) about stealth designs to be taken seriously.

    The French were pioneers in CFD & computerised RCS callibration throughout the 1980s. Dassault had access to far more sophisticated software modelling packages than was available to the ‘Eurofighter’ consortium at the time, so when they withdrew from the programme & (confidently) went their own way, they took these cutting-edge design techniques with them.

    Typhoon became an upgraded EAP, and Rafale (it’s contemprorary), an almost clean sheet design.
    At around the same time the US ‘acquired’ these software modelling packages & passed them on to ‘Skunk/Phantom’ works, who gleefully put them to good use on (among others) the B2 programme.

    So hence it is possible to deduce that the Rafale has a lower RCS than Typhoon. Savy?

    in reply to: Non-U.S. stealthy stuff #2507288
    Otaku
    Participant

    Cute, but not that interesting. Even an F-22 would most likely be shot down if it unwittingly flew directly over a SAM site. Only a great fool would believe that anything is invincible, and it would be equally foolish to believe that VLO-level stealth is useless just because it is not invincible. On the contrary, it has proven to be significantly more effective than expected.

    How dare you call sferrin “a great fool”!!! shame on you!!……and stop arguing with yourself, makes you look stupid.

    in reply to: Non-U.S. stealthy stuff #2507297
    Otaku
    Participant

    [ATTACH]160152[/ATTACH] “…my cabbages!! Ruined!!!”:)

    in reply to: Su-27 questions #2507778
    Otaku
    Participant

    UB or not UB?
    [ATTACH]160140[/ATTACH]

    in reply to: IRBIS and the detection of low RCS targets #2508950
    Otaku
    Participant

    Cracks me up when I see a picture of shoddy looking RAM on Blackjack intake edges and now people act like it’s invisible.

    Those darn shoddy Japanese robots!! Sack ’em!!
    Westinghouse TV anyone?

    in reply to: the PAK-FA saga, continued2…… #2509511
    Otaku
    Participant

    http://www.missiles.ru/foto_aviasvit-2006.htm

    Product 611 (Izdeliye 611) Ex R-30, made in Ukraina (Russia creates own missiles: KM-D “Małoj Dalnosti” Product 300)

    Apologies, Kusch is right KM-D will succeed R-73/M, my mistake.

    Any word on the ramjet R-77(PD), apparently Russia’s AGAT have been helping the Chinese develop theirs, according to Jane’s.

    in reply to: the PAK-FA saga, continued2…… #2509707
    Otaku
    Participant

    Probably have Putin sitting in the cockpit with his shirt off. :rolleyes:

    Hopefully in a sports bra…

    Izdeleniya 760, R-73 successor?
    [ATTACH]160042[/ATTACH]

    in reply to: IRBIS and the detection of low RCS targets #2509894
    Otaku
    Participant

    The PAK-FA is not expected to be cheap, the RuAF may end up buying some Su-35s in order to make up numbers for less critical missions.

    Your probably right, I’m sure RuAF Su-35s will have AESAs (retro-fitted to Irbis) & similar weapons suite to the PAK-FA- especially if they’re produced almost concurrently (which seems quite bizzare in itself).

    I just don’t sense the same priority the RuAF seem to be giving the Su-34 & MiG-31BM or even ‘Skat’, afterall the Su-35 has been around for 15 years now albeit in various guises.

    in reply to: IRBIS and the detection of low RCS targets #2509903
    Otaku
    Participant

    I think hexpop has hit on an important point regarding the obsolescence of the of the Su-35/Irbis combo. All this talk of imminent RuAF orders ‘to tide it over ’till PAK-FA’ is just marketing spin by Pogosyan, he hopes to sell them to the Chinese & Brazilians, it’s just to reassure their respective decision makers that he claims the RuAF are keen on it too.
    Regardless, the Russians are not going to waste time, effort & money on an aircraft that will be obselete on the day it enters service. The same goes for the MiG-35.

    Maybe he has inside knowledge that a Chinese FGA is proving quite troublesome to develop and it is for the PLAAF that the Su-35 will provide the ‘stop-gap’ in theatre (assuming the arms embargo remains in place for the next decade).
    Clever chap that Mr. Pogo.

    in reply to: the PAK-FA saga, continued2…… #2510225
    Otaku
    Participant

    The new rumors on russian forums include the “new”, most probable appearance of PAK-FA. The picture considered is well known. Some state that the inlets must be Raptor-like (me too). To me the wing scheme seems to be trustworthy, but i find the nozzles and especially armament to be untrustworthy.

    I think the ‘sanitised’ artist’s impression released by NPO Saturn last March is the most likely resemblance to the real thing. It would explain why it was so hurriedly removed & replaced by one of those crap J.Gatztiel impressions with red-faced denials, truely a comedy of errors.

    With regard to latest speculation of delta/ diamond wing planform- I suppose it’s shape is pretty delta- more inclined than F-22s, and I believe imho, that the intakes will be YF-23 style (also in-line with recent spec. that it has more in common with the YF-23 than Raptor).

    I’m pretty certain there’ll be an official roll-out with loads of Medvedev/Putin fanfare- they love it.

    in reply to: IRBIS and the detection of low RCS targets #2510556
    Otaku
    Participant

    KnAAPO switch on…

    in reply to: More Russian porn – Putin rattles his assets again #2512106
    Otaku
    Participant

    Wonder if the ‘Blacjacks’ deploying to the Bay of Biscay will have treated intakes…
    [ATTACH]159962[/ATTACH]

Viewing 15 posts - 1,096 through 1,110 (of 1,246 total)