I hope you guys are aware that the luneberg lense is also coated in radar reflecting paint for it to be most effective.
Cause that is the whole purpose of it.. reflecting radar waves back.

In my line of work at sea we see this every day. Most Navigation markers are quite small, but they bounce back on my radar scope like a motherfu**er. Due to some special reflective paint.

One luneberg lenses don’t have to be, second what does this have to do with the point several of us were making about size and RCS?. Three, your right up there with KGB on making claims you can’t back up on the Pak-fa.

Wow, just wow. KGB, this is a sad display. Your dead simple example was dead wrong.
Here’s why in a nutshell:
The vertical stabilizers on the Mig-29 are considerably smaller than the F-22, by your (twisted) logic, the Mig-29’s very vertical and not treated stabs are less of an RCS target than the F-22’s.

It is very much a strawman, as multiple people have explained to you. The Pak-fa’s vertical stabilizers are not, in themselves, an example of how the Pak-fa could have a lower RCS. Shape, Shape, shape, materials- read the rest of your Wikipedia page:
“If the RCS was directly related to the target’s cross-sectional area, the only way to reduce it would be to make the physical profile smaller. Rather, by reflecting much of the radiation away or by absorbing it, the target achieves a smaller radar cross section.”

Again you keep trying to change the discussion in a vain attempt to “prove” your premise wasn’t horribly misguided. When presented with the flaws you then throw in the whole “if the F-22 and Pak-fa were the same shape” argument. They aren’t and the physical size of the Pak-fa’s do not, I repeat do not impact the RCS vis a vis the F-22’s. They are different, if the shaping and materials are on par that changes the discussion. As it is, you have zero evidence the Pak-fa’s stabs have a lower RCS.

That is what many of us were saying from the start. You seem to have no compunction about flat out lying about what you said. Unfortunately, your posts are still there to disprove that ( should anyone actually care to read them).

You have just to remember it is the PAK-FA T-50 thread.

Yes, i know I keep getting pulled back in. I did try twice to get things back on track last page…apologies.

I would say that which one is (better-worse) is a matter of opinion shaped by national sentiments (I would say F-16.net at least has some experienced service members as contributors through all the noise).

Think we can agree that there are a plethora of chest pounding, nationalistic, obnoxious posters on every forum. I prefer this forum to others, as it’s a bit more cosmopolitan in makeup.

I do provide provide technical evidence anyway, to counter their claims (intake comparison with the YF 23. Inward engine canting. Way smaller vertical stabilizers. Lower side and frontal profile) because if the tender process is what is says it is, some of these points have to be right.

Please. Stop. You don’t know what you are talking about, and can’t even explain it in a coherent manner. Physical size of the vertical stabs has literally ZERO IMPACT on RCS. It is the shape, angle, materials, how both the vertical and horizontal stabs align (without a gap). Look at the F-22’s control surfaces from below and to the sides, notice how the vertical stabilizers are covered by the horizontal ones, notice the planform alignment.
(Edit-obviously a tailless configuration is best for broadband RCS reduction, but not applicable to a supersonic fighter as of yet)

Having an (arguably) lower side profile does not appreciably reduce RCS compared to careful shaping. Your obsession with physical size and radar cross section is wrong, articles about RCS reduction say it is wrong, scholarly papers say it is wrong, every site describing stealth shaping will say that is wrong, the armchair RCS experts on here even know it is wrong. In other words, please stop repeating thing that are obviously dead wrong. Obviously, given two objects of the same shape but different sizes, the smaller one will have a lower RCS. But that is about the extent of it, why do you think that air launched decoys like MALD simulate different aircraft?

I actually had a question above for people who know what they are talking about that is buried in this mess you created over your insecurities on the Pak-fa shaping,

Does anyone have insight or answers on this:

Lost in the shuffle of “Radar cross section- a fools game”, was a post by Austin on the N036-1-01. I clicked on the link which was “Topwar.Ru” or something of the such and decided not to translate it (no offense Austin).

I’m wondering if TR-1, Berkut could answer if there has been any confirmation on the N036 being GaA, or GaN. I had thought when the radar was first shown that it was said to use Gallium arsenide T/R modules.

What do you mean? what is M. O? I don’t think any one react when you said F-22, PAK-FA were designed for different missions. Only when you said F-22 can’t do what it was intended to do that they react

Exactly

So, how it come that when I say the same things you say pointing , as an example, on the design difference between the F-22 and models actually in production, pointing out the different M.O. of all of them i’m being assaulted ?
So, what you say is certainly true, just let’s apply it to both sites as no one part in this whole forum is bias-free.

Marcellogo, no one is assaulting you, people are refuting your opinions that are contrary to factual information. You stated that the F-22 is kept at bases in the U.S. is due to some percieved problem with the F-22. I sent you a P.M. with the bed down plan that had been in place before the F-22 even declared IOC. You claimed that the F-22 is only used for “homeland defense”, I explained to you that the F-22 is regularly deployed (in both regular rotations through expeditionary air wings, and theater security packages).

If you stated “In my opinion” rather than presenting your opinion as factual (which your above stated opinions were not), there would be no issue. Just because you believe something does not make it correct when there is an abundance of information to the contrary.

Indeed. But that is what is continually being implied throughout the thread by stealth absolutists.

Here is a sampling of that just in the last few pages..

First off, my comment about the use of a blocker or integrating RCS reduction on the IGV stage was not a criticism of the Pak-fa. Second, this whole flame debate started because of your obsession to prove that an exposed compressor face would not impact RCS. As many pointed out to you, there is no concrete evidence that the controversial picture shows the first stage, or that Sukhoi didn’t have a solution (and it is clear from the released details that they do). And yes, having a direct view into the compressor stage would be disastrous (Hence the whole premise of your argument from the start was absurd), but obviously Sukhoi knows this.

Instead, you wasted several pages with comparisons with two prototype aircraft. Even worse, BOTH had planned modifications between the prototype and planned production versions that would have mitigated potential RCS hotspots in the intake/first stage.

As far as “stealth absolutists”. Your grasp of RCS reduction is indicative of the flaws in what your arguing. The F-22 vertical stabs Vs. the Pak-fa is a perfect example of this misunderstanding. Simple size has little to do with it. The F-22 stabs are covered by the horizontal stabs from below and set at an angle to reflect RF away from source from the side. This is simple LO shaping 101. I have a disdain for “Eyeball RCS” reading on these forums. But worse is someone using flawed arguments to “defend” the Pak-fa in areas where no defense is needed. The last 5 pages of junk are a direct result of your ill-informed posts.

Not that there aren’t some incongruities with LO shaping on the Pak-fa, but it is clear that the design goals were very different from the F-22 to begin with.