That still doesn’t matter if it was made in early 70’S as it still derived of the same old technology. Or one would try to proclaim that all PESA radar is the same from Zaslon-AM to Irbis-E. It isn’t. Additional sensors, newer antennas and components, multichannel capabilities, etc.

I also am very skeptical of the proclaimed RCS, on any and every jet. So sorry if I don’t just take what is told to me by face value.

If that was the case, then how comes its performance stats changed?

True but is it that, or just that the Irbis-E detection claims are for the 100 square degrees that has proliferated everywhere around the net.

Shame you don’t apply the same skepticism to radar performance claims.

Have you noticed that all the current PAk-fa models flying have gold infused glass on their IRST balls, just as the cockpit is on the Pak-fa, F-22, F-35, if this small IRST ball at the front was so critical to stealth then the whole cockpit on all planes would be far more significant.
The IRST below on the F-35 is clear see through, allowing the reflection back on any metal surfaces, more then the Pak-fa.
Have look on the Pak-fa thread and see the latest photos of the gold infused IRST

What do you notice about the angle of the cockpit window. It also has a reflective inner medium and a RAM outer on top of the geometry. And no, show me where the IRST glass in the PAK-FA is gold infused. The angle of it and shape of it is all wrong.

How do you know the F-35 EOTS is ‘clear see through’? All these assumptions. This is what papers like the one linked are based on.

Claimed range for WHAT RCS?

Yeah, it’s not spherical – it’s curved surface with an area of 1000 IRST spheres. Now if you believe this huge thing has smaller RCS than metallized IRST optical sphere… Well, then you should believe in unicorns, as well, coz it’s a miracle!

Most likely, they’re laughing at your claim. Coz one of the main purpose of Protivnik-G development was to detect stealth fighters, like…F-22. :rolleyes:

Yeah, coz huge metallized canopy is protected from scattering with a…magic?! :rolleyes: It’s funny, how strong and blind your beliefs.

This is a bull**** of kindergarden’s arithmetics lessons level.

So, you admit that radar from 1960’s isn’t the same as radar from 2000’s?! Even if they’re working in the same wave-band and have equal power. Now, make the last step – admit that your primitive “proportional arithmetics” is a pure bull**** that has nothing to do with reality and real scientific calculations.

Well you tell us. Given that it only detected an alleged 12m^2 target in VHF at 50km, it would theoretically need to be for a 7500m^2 target, so Manhattan or something.:eagerness:

Why don’t you understand? One is an upright sphere, the other in inclined at circa 45+deg to the horizontal. An upright metallic sphere has a well known Pi*r^2 RCS, or in this case Pi*0.1^2. The F-22 actually uses an object roughly shaped like the PAK-FA IRST to increase RCS for peace time air traffic control purposes, it’s called a luneberg lens.

Nah, trust me, they’re either laughing at your claims or the PAK-FA IRST.

Its RCS is lowered by being at a significant incline to the horizontal and not being made of metal.

It’s only BS when you don’t like what the numbers say.

No, but radar waves still have the same physical properties, only the processing has changed, but so has stealth, RCS has been reduced and sophisticated jamming techniques have been added – X-Band AESA RF attack, DRFM jamming, active cancellation – and ESM geolocation has also improved, as have ARMs, now with terminal homing.

You do not need a B-2, F-22 or any of those in order to measure its capabilities. There is only so much material can be applied that will actually do the job for stealth and the rest is pure mathematics (shaping as an example). In this case, models have been and can be created in order to get a very reasonable calculation for comparison. The Russians never were shy to admit that at best the Irbis can detect a stealth object at 90km in perfect circumstances but that is the reason why they are working on various systems to be able to track it. These days, I imagine the IRST is going to be the one that will spot the F-22 and other jets first before the radar will simply because these stealth characteristics are all measured against X-Band radar. L-band on the other hand will have less trouble searching for it, but significantly hard time tracking it. The Russians are more than aware of this and of course have options to work with in order to test the radar. Subsystems like sensors benefit.

This method of stating it is 0.00001sqm I think is a total sham. There was nothing to ever actually prove it, was there? Since you like Aviation week, even the US admit that under VHF frequency stealth isn’t as useful: http://aviationweek.com/defense/ways-track-low-observable-aircraft

Essentially, Stealth is popular against X, C, Ku and some parts of S band radar. So the same mathematics cannot be used specifically for all the same bands of radar used against a single target.

Yes you do. Otherwise radar signatures wouldn’t be a top secret ‘go straight to jail for treason’ piece of information, because anybody could just piece it together. The affect of RAM is also not uniform for any shape, the greater the geometric stealth, the greater the proportional affect of the RAM. From the shape alone, you wouldn’t think an AGM-86 had as high an RCS as a B-2.

Except the Irbis-E can’t detect stealth at that range, unless it’s ‘stealth’ stealth with a spherically shaped IRST face the size of a small football up front, which alone must have an RCS of 0.02-0.03m^2, based on a diameter of 16-20cm.

People assume that L-Band will have a much easier task, but in truth, unless you know the exact RCS, you may pick the wrong frequency and end up attenuating the return, rather than improving it. The only advantage is does have is reduced atmospheric attenuation relative to shorter wave EM radiation.

It’s stated as 0.0001m^2 not 0.00001m^2.

Don’t be so sure that’s accurate information, why would they admit it? Think? By my calculations VHF was the right band for the F-117 but is the wrong band for the F-22. The modified SA-3 radar only picked up the F-117 at 50km (unmodified was 23km, rumour). That’s against a claimed 0.0005m^2 object with no EW. Doesn’t sound to useful to me. And VHF band would fall into the Rayleigh region for a smaller object like the F-22.

it cant be built infact this is the reason for its high cost due to managing too many suppliers. All these suppliers countries are getting poorer and jumping on Chinese trade. very undependable for long term projects.

I doubt anyone is using China to build F-35 parts. The ITAR Nazis would have a field day with that one.

Yeah, coz resolution, radio-horizon and many-many other parameters aren’t existing in this world. :rolleyes:

Sorry to say, but scientific data from one of the most respected group of military radio physicists says otherwise – you like it or not. For 30-180cm wavelength average RCS of B-2 in+/-45* is 5-12sqm. And their research is far more serious than all your(and guys from AW) basic arithmetics based on some public claims, which are light years away from the real science.

This is only your problem, not mine. Sukharevsky’s group is pretty well know in radio-physics community.
N
They do have some education and knowledge, in contrast to you and AW.

With this quality of images – it easily can be anything, from gaz-truck to mockup, just like TOR mockup.

I remember we had a good laugh about British “S-300” which turned out to be a poor-made mockup.

Show this S-300, first. Not some shaddy G-sat images. Show it operational, then talk about some people.

Real scientists disagree with you. :rolleyes:

Yes they all exist. Resolution means longer wavelengths are less useful for accuracy, hence the difference between detection and engagement. And obviously line-of-sight matters except for OTH radars.

Sorry to say, but at no time has he ever had a spare B-2 in his possession in order for him to have tested that. Meanwhile an S-300 lies at Nellis AFB. So what you class as science, I class as a guesstimate, making it no better than AW analysis, despite the complexity of its derivation. Science involves testing and observation. Without hypothesis, testing, observation, verification and conclusion, there is no science. Right now he is at the untested, unproven hypothesis stage, otherwise known as the flat Earth, everything revolves around the Earth stage.

Doesn’t matter. Matt Damon is also pretty well known but I’m not going to entertain his opinion on the matter either.

Sorry but I do have considerable education and certainly enough to know that an unproven, untested hypothesis in isolation is not science. Much less so than a back calculation based on manufacturers performance data and a real life shoot down in fact. At least with those you’re starting off with tested and proven facts as a basis for your calculations. With his essay, he starts with a guess and calculates from there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonopah_Test_Range#Russian_S-300PS_SAM_Testing
http://geimint.blogspot.co.uk/2007/08/us-restricted-and-classified-test-sites.html

Take your pick as to where this highly proliferated system was acquired from.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile)#Operators_and_other_versions

Multiple sites conform it.

Now you show me the B-2 in Russia being tested. A shoddy G-sat image is acceptable.;)

Real scientists use testing to prove hypotheses.:eagerness:

Unfairly? What is this, some sort of F.*nk sport competition? A tournament like in the middle age?
Ooooh, you Mig-29A are disqualified because of the use of R-73 and HMCS! Unfair, two years of ban from game!
(Take it as the pun it is ,Starfish, I’m joking: your was a great post).

Factually, it was exactly the existence of such a weapon type (and even before of all aspect IR seeker like on AIM-9L) that lead all the evolution of russian blended wing/engine pod planes and subsequently of the so called eurocanards.
And in due turn the introduction of Aim-120 and R-77 acted as a great equalizer of the whole game: with them WVC is not more the principal form of air combat as in the eighties.
And we all proceeded instead toward the 5 gen in order to reshuffle the deck again.

P.S. Let’s just note that in this thread the expression 4,5 is used in the significance given on this side of Atlantic and not in the one used in the american weapon producers leaflets i.e. An F-15 with AESA radar and RCS reduction features is NOT a 4,5 gen fighter at all: just a vanilla teen fighter with fifth generation avionics.

All true but the ‘who would win BVR’ is an even more complicated nightmare to try sort out for the aircraft mentioned in the title and I’m not touching that one, too many variables which are varying too much.;)