lead designer mentioned it to be in the ball-park of the F-22, between 0.2 and 0.5 m2. Band was not indicated as far as I know. Everybody implies X band

F-16 RCS is 1m2, If stealth aircraft can only reduce their radar returns down to 0.5m2, that is only 50% reduction. By radar equation, we know 50% reduction in RCS will reduce detection range by 6.5%. For example: reduce from 100 km to 94 km. I don’t know about you but for me, that sounds illogical. No one will spend billions on stealth technology, they will buy slightly more powerful radar instead.

In regards of manoeuvring into the dead spots of you rival, maybe it is not stated publicly but it is completely logical, do you see it differently

It is not logical at all when you draw it out, how can stealth aircraft maneuver into the tail/blind spot of enemy with only 6.5% advantages in detection range?.

Afganit detection range of 100km sound very optimistic at most. May be for a ship size target. Portable ground radars like Credo-E has 40km detection range: http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/air-defenc…ars/kredo-1e-/ I think, afganit is comparable to it (less size but more power).

Afganit will not have 100 km detection range, even against ship size targets, radar horizon won’t allow it, ground clutter will make it even harder.
Credo-E aperture looks 10 times bigger than Afganit, trust me you can’t imagine how much power you need to compete with that.

afganit sensor is comparable to Fara-1

The issue of the diverging RCS estimations has been already explained many times. The lowest value corresponds (if we are to believe that a plane maintained in field can keep such value) to a very concrete an optimized aspect of interest, while the bigger one corresponds to average RCS value. This has also been stated by officials and the chief designer of the Su-57, who are we to believe? Why are statements coming from US MIC to be taken at face value, when they have such an obvious interest in overstating the capacity of their armament?

Neither the lowest RCS value nor the the average RCS will be very useful to estimate detection range.
Average number of the whole azimuth RCS will be totally useless, all stealth aircraft alike have spikes where their radar cross section can reach thounsand square meters, these spikes are often locate at the side aspect and have little effect on usual operation, however they will drive up the average number significantly. Therefore the need for scattering diagrams,
furthermore, if we don’t take US rcs claims at face value then we shouldn’t take Russian radar detection range claims at face value either, same standard
[ATTACH=CONFIG]262128[/ATTACH]

It is known that manoeuvring into that aspect while beyond the adversary’s radar range is one of the main tactics of stealth fighters to take advantage of their low radar detectability

I have never heard of such tactic mentioned any where, in any official manual or documents

I called it a theory, because its not proven to work yet, its based off an idea of researchers. Yes or no?

No

Oh how badly I would like to see you get in a debate with him even when you have not proven yet what he said is wrong.
This is the kettle calling the pot black. 100km impossible? A 28km range lock on can refer to a 1m2 target, do you think it will have a bigger range if its a 100m2 target? Do you think a tank will have more modules than a missile radar to engage targets more far away? I still have not heard an answer from any of these people. dropping a plasma project and than picking up another one. Why do you think they would still pursue this project. Nuclear powered cruise missile projects dropped but yet picked up again to pursue. Its biased idiots that quickly pull the impossible card and thinking it wont work. Things are done for a reason.

As if i should care what some nobody say on quora, and i see you try to find prey on quora:? Paul Krupa? :eagerness:
https://www.quora.com/Whats-better-the-Russian-T-14-or-the-US-Abrams
Have you conveniently forget the obvious size difference between T-50 side array and T-14 sensor ? or their obvious different frequency?

how by asking questions.

No, by the way you react to new information. Random website say T-14 with APS with 100 km detection range, you dont care about the credibility, the plausibility or even common sense. But you immediately question the actual anechoic chamber measurement of F-117 and SNR-125 chart because they shows F-117 with low RCS.

I suggest comprehension. I called it a theory because the system is not proven to work yet. That is all hence I called it a theory.

Ask anyone speak English and see if they interpret the sentence the way you do.

Yeah it seems you know more than someone with a background in physics.

I certainly know more than people who pretend like they have background in Physics.

Yes and there are air to air missile with AESA like the J/APG-2 that can create a 28km autonomous lock onto targets using their own transmission power and your suggesting a bigger and newer radar on a tank than a missile cannot get a 100km range?.

J/APG-2 is F-2 fire control radar, it is far larger and more powerful than Armata’s APS radar, aircraft have higher cooling capacity too. APS sensor operate at high frequency and higher PRF
Btw: APG-2 range is longer than 29 km, stop cherry pick your information.

This went way over your head. china’s concept of hitting another needle is a theory hence theoretically speaking since they have to complete the system.

It isn’t a theory. Your English is bad, simple. They said:

The cutting-edge missile’s control systems need to be extremely efficient and accurate, said Wang Mengyi, deputy head of the Second Academy’s General Design Department and former leader of the laboratory.
“Metaphorically put, the mission of these control systems is to guide a needle to fly 1,000 kilometers to pierce the eye of another needle,” he said. “For researchers from Zhang Yiqun Laboratory, their mission is to turn this seemingly impossible task into reality.”

Wang said control systems are mainly tasked with working out a missile’s best trajectory and making sure it can hit its target.

“Let me guess, plasma shield cruise missiles and 100 km AESA on tank are product of your imagination?”
A 2nd F-16.net user. http://www.trud.ru/article/17-03-201…y_tsirkon.html ” The head of the rocket is heated, and a plasma cloud forms around it. Missiles moving at such speeds are almost impossible to intercept: control systems have too little time to make decisions, and interceptors can not catch up with Zirkon and can only be used on collision course. The vortex of the plasma, among other things, absorbs radio waves, and as a result, the rocket that went into hypersound is covered by an invisibility cloak: the radar stops seeing it”

A missile guided by radio wave allegedly coated by a layer of plasma that absorb all radiowave. Do you see the issue?.
Oh where is the tank AESA with 100 km detection range ?

have you considered, how to make stand-off jamming against a 400 km range SAM? That needs to be a hell of a jammer indeed…

How low is radar cross section

One of china’s mobile radars can both detect and track a target of .01m2 more than 300kms away and now their researchers are saying its theoretically possible for them to hit an eye of a needle with another needle from 1000kms away http://www.deagel.com/news/China-Dev…000017911.aspx

You wrote the same thing in Chinese thread and but were corrected by Blitzo, why repeat the same thing here? do you think no one will notice?.

The cutting-edge missile’s control systems need to be extremely efficient and accurate, said Wang Mengyi, deputy head of the Second Academy’s General Design Department and former leader of the laboratory.

“Metaphorically put, the mission of these control systems is to guide a needle to fly 1,000 kilometers to pierce the eye of another needle,” he said. “For researchers from Zhang Yiqun Laboratory, their mission is to turn this seemingly impossible task into reality.”

Wang said control systems are mainly tasked with working out a missile’s best trajectory and making sure it can hit its target.

strictly speaing, no. Attach specialized (non-air-breathing) rocket thrusters onto the aircraft, have them activate at 80k feet.
As to realistic action, we know quite well that the J-20 is slated to get TVC, so this maneuver won’t be strictly impossible.

It is strictly impossible and laughable even with TVC. At 60kft, F-110 (roughly similar to WS-10) produce a little more than 4000 lbs of thrust, at 80-90k feet, you will be lucky if you can produce 2000 lbs of thrust, TVC nozzle can turn for about 15-20 degrees, so your vertical component of your resultance force is only around 500 lbs or 250 kg (2 engines = 5000 Newton force) on a 20 tons aircraft. For comparison, at sea level ,at Mach 0.6, F-16 can produce 1,067,482 Newton of aerodynamic lift and still can’t reach half the ITR you proposed for J-20.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]261939[/ATTACH]

moon_light, is it impossible? If we assume the J-20 is capable of Mach 3 speeds or even prefers high Mach 2 speeds, we should also assume that it prefers a higher altitude than contemporary fighters. One big lacunae in estimations are projections is the J-20’s climb speed. If it has an excellent climb speed, it’s probable that the J-20 wants 70-80k ft combat for the kinematic advantage.

It is not impossible to climb to 80-90k feet, it is impossible for any aircraft to have ITR of 45-60 degree/sec at 80k feet.