MigLHaven’t you guys learned yet, the only valid proof to Kiwi is whatever proof he gives to back up HIS points, no matter how misguided. Everyone else’s proof, no matter how valid or pertinent, is inadequate to him. He lives on his own separate world.
MigLYes, I work for Cytec, not the engineered materials division mind you, but we are the biggest supplier of composites for the F-22 and the Boeing Dreamliner.
MigLEMR is the ‘carrier’ for the electric field. An accelerating (vibrating) charge such as an electron (since protons are much harder to move) produces an elecromagnetic field, viewed as photons in some situations, or a wave with orthogonal electric and magnetic components in others. When this field encounters another charge , said charge is forced to accelerate (vibrate) sympathetically to the initiator carge.
These EM waves transmit (through an object), reflect , get absorbed, scatter diffract and add or deduct (up to including nullification) depending on the phase difference.
EM waves don’t technically creep or run along the exterior surface. What they do is impart an acceleration to “loose’ or conduction electrons ( or ‘holes’, but thats more advanced) therby generating a current, which travels along the surface of a conductor, and when the next discontinuity is reached, the deceleration of the electrons re-generates the EM wave.
This is the basic theory behind an antenna and it’s worked pretty well since the mid 1800s when James Clerk Maxwell brought together the previous work of Coulomb, Ampere and Faraday.
MigLSorry, djcross, I have a lot of respect for your opinion, but in this case I’m not wrong. The way EMR creeps along the surface is by ‘exciting’ free (conducting) electrons, just as an antenna’s electrons are excited and forced to move by incident EMR. Free electrons are nor available in an insulator, like wood for example.
Are F-35 access doors composite in structure or metallic? And CFC are made with carbon, a high resistance conductor, although the fact that its also a microave absorber mitigates this factor. Other types of composite materials , kevlar, glass,etc. are definitely non conducting and have no way to travel along the surface.
MigLThat’s funny, Kiwinopal, I don’t recall my 3rd year course on Advanced Electromagnetic Theory mentioning anything about screening EM radiation, since it also acts like a wave and ‘flows’ around the wing, to say nothing of re-radiation and other effects. Your statement:
” Seen from front view the F-22 and T-50 hide their tailplanes with the wing and seen by a lateral view have perfect planforming”
is totally without merit (or knowledge) since a reflector does NOT block EMR.
If your statement was true, why would a panel like the weapon’s bay door need edge alignment (sawtooth). Wouldn’t the panel in front of it ‘block’ any radar ????
Again I ask to compare apples to apples, why bring in the T-50/F-35 and any other plane when we have two very similar planes, EXCEPT FOR THEIR WING PLANFORM, in the F-16 and F-16XL.
So, ANSWER THE QUESTION, which is better, and why ???
MigLWould this fibre mat thing L-M is talking about be a Carbon ‘fibre mat’ embedded in resin? IE. Regular carbon fibre composite?
CFC don’t usually need RAM coatings such as ferrite bead coating to scatter radar as they are already a radar absorber !!
One way to check for radar reflection/transparancy/absorption is to put a piece of material in your microwave, OK the frequency is not exact but both are in the microwave wavelength range, so at best an educated guess.
If the material heats up it is obviously absorbing energy and is an absorber.
If the material is not affected, it is transparent to microwaves.
If the material ‘sparks’, it is re-generating EMR and is a reflector.
MigLI really don’t know why Dassault and Thales spent so much money integrating SPECTRA with the Rafale RCS spectrum when all they had to do was hire Bluewings to do the job, as apparently he can judge frontal RCS reduction by looking at the aircraft. HAHAHA !!
As for the angled panel alignment which everybody is calling saw-tooth, it is only needed on metallic panels since the edge, or gap, reflects. It is not needed at the edge, or gap, between two composite panels since they will not reflect. Maybe that is the reason that Rafale’s panels are not all edge aligned (saw-tooth). The ‘checkerboard panels under the right side of canopy are probably composite or dielectric panels covering antennae/emitters.
MigLTher is a difference between edge alignment and saw-tooth edging.
Edge alignment aligns the edges of body panels to other major structures such as wing edges and intake edges so that the weapon bay doors or landing gear doors, for example have the same aligned angles since discontinuities reflect.
The best example of a saw-tooth edge that I’ve seen, was on the original A-12, and I’m not sure if it was retained on the SR-71. The wing edges were actually saw-tooth and the edge was made straight by filling in the gaps with resinous RAM, possibly carbon fibre absorber.
The edge alignment reduces the foreward reflections from equipment bays and the like by redirecting it in non-critical directions. This is what we see on the underbellies of the Rafale and F-22.. The saw-tooth edge greatly reduces the edge-on wing reflection from both sides (since the rear edge reflects foreward as well as the front edge , both are discontinuities),greatly lessening the need for edge alignment of the wing or other equipment it is used on.
MigLKiwinopal, I like arguing with you, but trying to have a discussion is like banging your head against the wall.
All sorts of forum members have brought up valid points but you keep disregarding them and repeating your same points over and over hoping that eventually we’ll believe them also. ..They weren’t true the first time you said them, and never will be…
As to the superiority of the LERX/wing/tailplane as exemplified by the F-16 over a canard/delta design, actually never mind the canard, a simple unstable delta very comparable to the F-16, the F-16XL. In this case we are comparing similar aircraft with same engines, not to the Mirage2000, which while a fine aircraft is underpowered. So, you tell me which is superior. Which supercruises? Which has longer range? Which has lower RCS? Which has a more efficient design?
If you answered the F-16XL them maybe you are finally seeing the light. If you answered the standard F-16, you are wrong again and always will be !!!
MigLSawtooth, in conjunction WITH RAM, act as a radar absorber by trapping radar waves using internal reflection, and absorption by the RAM, Much like the pyramid structures in anechioc chambers (soundproof rooms) trap and absorb sound in their foam structures.
The Rafale uses them on the trailing edges because all edges (discontinuities ) reflect, but leading edges are about 45degrees and reflect perpendicular to incoming ie. non detectable. Trailing edges on the other hand are at almost 90degrees to incoming and so reflect almost directily back towards incoming radiation. It makes sense to mitigate reflections from the trailing edges for frontal aspect stealth while leading edges are only aproblem for oblique (45 degree) angle stealth.
MigLCome-on Kiwi, don’t make me re-write the same post AGAIN. You don’t seem to be reading it, or maybe you don’t understand it.
When did I say Rafale/Typhoon don’t have or need high T/W ratio? The reason they DO need it is precisely to sustain the turn rate they do have, otherwise their large wing area would bleed off energy very quickly.
They place more value in ITR to get the first shot, and as other posters have agreed with me, it may be the more important factor. If you do have ITR data, can you please post it like you did with STR data, please.
MigLAre the Air Staffs of foreign nations so easily duped by manufacturer’s propaganda when they choose new fighter aircraft? Or do they actually test their capabilities to make sure they meet operational requirements and can defeat foreseeable threats?
Quote : ” Everyone’s debating F-22 vs Rafale… and the Typhoon’s utterly forgotten. I take it as proof that everyone agrees with the notion that Rafale vs Typhoon is a foregone conclusion. “
Now I can understand the lack of F-22 orders, expense and unwillingness to export, but what explains the lack of Rafale orders????
Maybe the fact that DACT is only used to validate existing tactics and for training against unfamiliat tactics ( what do the D and T stand for in DACT ??), NOT determining the ultimate combat ability of an aircraft.
MigLNo decent fighter pilot will let himself get dragged into a turning fight by his opponent as it ends badly for both; most fights are decided by the first pass after visual confirmation. Sometimes as many as two passes before diengagement. That is why a HMD is so useful in getting the ‘first shot’ and also why ITR, or nose pointability, is also more useful than STR ( which would be more useful in chasing down an enemy or missile evasion ).
I’ll repeat, Kiwinopal:
A plane with large wing area like a Mirage 2000 has comparatively lower STR because, since the wing is at an angle to its direction of motion during aturn, it acts like a large airbrake and scrubs off speed , unless compensated for by a large specific excess power. ie.The maneuver is thrust limited.
In the 80s, when most of the latest generation of planes were designed, the US and USSR were of the opinion that their aircraft should be able to follow the enemy aircraft using their high STR and acheive a kill.
Europeans, on the other hand (Germany in particular), thought that high instantaneous TR would be enough, to point the nose of their aircraft at the enemy and acheive a firing solution (gun, IR missile). They wanted the TKF-90 which became Typhoon.
In this case a large wing area is very desirable because it brings large control surfaces to bear in changing the aircraft’s attitude. If you then add canards with a large moment arm, like Typhoon, nose pointability is enhanced even further. Thrust vectoring for the Typhoon has been available for a number of years (trials in Spain were several yrs ago) but is mostly deemed unnecessary because its ITR is already outstanding.
So again it comes down to operational demands and doctrine. Do you need high STR, which demands high SEP, large engines, a heavy aircraft and large cost. Or do you go with high ITR, which is not thrust limited and can be acheived with a smaller (read cheaper) aircraft? This is all for WVR combat of course, and most studies have shown that close combat only involves one or two passes, and prolonged high STR is not necessary if higher ITR allows you to point your nose at the enemy and you can fire first.
I posted this two pages ago, but I guess you are ignoring me since your claims are unproveable. Why don’t you post the ITR of M2000, F-16, F-18, and Eurocanards (if you have them, please) to see how they compare.
MigLYou didn’t do any reading like I asked you to, Kiwinopal, did you? I know I promised I was done with this topic, BUT…
A plane with large wing area like a delta has comparatively lower STR because, since the wing is at an angle to its direction of motion, it acts like a large airbrake and scrubs off speed , unless compensated for by a large specific excess power. ie.The maneuver is thrust limited.
In the 80s, when most of the latest generation of planes were designed, the US and USSR were of the opinion that their aircraft should be able to follow the enemy aircraft using their high STR and acheive a kill.
Europeans, on the other hand (Germany in particular), thought that high instantaneous TR would be enough, to point the nose of their aircraft at the enemy and acheive a firing solution (gun, IR missile).
In this case a large wing area is very desirable because it brings large control surfaces to bear in changing the aircraft’s attitude. If you then add canards with a large moment arm, like Typhoon, nose pointability is enhanced even further. Thrust vectoring for the Typhoon has been available for a number of years (trials in Spain were several yrs ago) but is mostly deemed unnecessary because its ITR is already outstanding.
So again it comes down to operational demands and doctrine. Do you need high STR, which demands high SEP, large engines, a heavy aircraft and large cost. Or do you go with high ITR, which is not thrust limited and can be acheived with a smaller (read cheaper) aircraft? This is all for WVR combat of course, and most studies have shown that close combat only involves one or two passes, and prolonged high STR is not necessary if higher ITR allows you to point your nose at the enemy and you can fire first.
MigLBluewings, do you think only French are capable of designing ‘omni’ role aircraft and everybody else should build different airframes for different requirements? Tell me how the Mirage IIIV worked out.
The fact is the F-35 will combine capabilities that no other aircraft will have (finally supersonic V/STOL), and do all of them rather well. It may not be the best in any one particular aspect, but the total package will be!
That is assuming the cost can be kept under control and not lead to cancellation like the A-12 Avenger.
Sign In
