• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Radar 101 and DSI intakes discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Fluff

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
119
Reaction score
33
No disrespect but some contributors comments are still coming across as Russian-fan-boy ideas but now dressed up with extensive and somewhat pseudoscientific trappings. This may not be any intended or recognised by these contributors.
Why does everything seem to come back to the allegedly weakness of “stealth” versus “more powerful” radars, and the alleged superiority of variable inlets over DSI (and an alleged major flaws of DSIs)?
All of which nicely and conveniently tallies back to and with current Russian approaches versus everyone else’s (US, China etc.)
No offence is intended; I‘d be equally questioning of such conveniences if a contributor was doing the same re: US, UK etc.
(Other contributors can attest I have done do.)
Rezonans-NE
Stealth air target early warning radar
Mission
The Rezonans-NE very high frequency counter-stealth early warning phased-array radar is designed to effectively detect a wide range of current and future air targets, including low-observable cruise and ballistic missiles, hypersonic aerial vehicles, as well as stealthy ones, in severe electronic countermeasures (ECM) and clutter environment.
Tasks
  • detect and track a wide range of air targets at long ranges, including small and stealthy ones;
  • automatically determine the location and motion parameters of air targets as well as classify them;
  • automatically provide designations to weapon systems;
  • generate and send information about the tracked targets for taking operational decisions;
  • analyze the ECM situation and automatically adjust to the actual ECM conditions.
http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/air-defence-systems/radar-and-electro-optical-equipment-for-air-target-detection/rezonans-ne/
Fixed site, 100m square. Unique visible layout. Gone in first 24 hours, simply because it has to be gone, so i’ll Send 20 tomahawks in, one will make it.

Next.
 

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
97
Reaction score
30
Ronny you did not read well the nasa document? see what it says
CREEPING-WAVE DIFFRACTION CONCEPT When a wave is incident upon an opaque object which is large compared to the wavelength, a shadow is formed.
The light as well radar frequencies and wavelength do fill those requirements
Yes I read it well and carefully.
If you actually paying attention, you will see that many time when I talked about creeping wave return and Mie region, I always said the wavelength size approach the size of object. Rather than the wave being bigger than the object. This was illustrated very clearly in the diagram I posted previously, specular return interfered with creeping wave return in Mie region, that what cause the RCS fluctuation
RCS2.PNG

On the otherhand if the wavelength size is bigger than the object, then the object will be in Rayleigh region, in that region there is little phase variation of the incident wave over the spatial extent of the scattering body, so each part of the target encounter the same incident field at each moment of time.You don't have a shadow region in that case. The situation is similar to a static field problem, with the exception that the incident field is changing in time. This quasi-static field builds up opposite charges at the ends of the body of the target.When the wavelength is much greater than the object circumference, in Rayleighregion, its cross section is proportional to 1.PNG where 2.PNG is the wavenumber. Consequently, although the radar cross section is small, it increases as the fourth power of frequency and sixth power of radius. The most notable characteristic of Rayleigh scattering is that cross section is proportional to the fourth power of the frequency

No, they will not. You can't change the laws of physics.
Double the power output and you get a less than 20% increase in detection range under ideal conditions.
RCS is the most important variable in the radar range equation. The aircraft always has the advantage.
The equation does not say that exactly because as any equation everything depends in the values you input on it
it says
Radar range equation for search (S/N = signal to noise ratio) • S/N of target can be enhanced by – Higher transmitted power Pav – Lower system losses L – Minimize system temperature T The design of radar transmitter/receiver affects these three parameters directly Pav = average power Αe = antenna area ts = scan time for Ω Pav = average power σ = radar cross section Ω = solid angle searched R = target range Ts = system temperature L = system loss
Actually, the equation say exactly what quellish said
1572082746337.png
From the equation we can see that detection range is proportional to fourth root of transmitting power.
if we double the power value, the fourth root of it is only 1.18 still, so with all other factors remain the same, double the power will give you 18% longer detection range.


see what the Chinese document says about DSI intake like the one of J-10 but also applies to J-20:
Basically the DSI intake loses pressure recovery, becoming less capable as the intake goes supersonic
I honestly don't see how all that are relevant to my comment about J-10 DSI vs F-4 variable inlet.
 
Last edited:

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
97
Reaction score
30
Fighter-type target detection range (RCS=2,5 km²), at the flight altitude of, not less than, km:
500 m 60
10000 m 270
20000 m 360
Detection range of only 60 km versus target at flight altitude of 500 meters is quite short. It will be very vulnerable to cruise missile such as Tomahawk,KEPD350, LRASM, JSM
 

GARGEAN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
173
Reaction score
27
Detection range of only 60 km versus target at flight altitude of 500 meters is quite short. It will be very vulnerable to cruise missile such as Tomahawk,KEPD350, LRASM, JSM
There are different radars for work against low flying targets, including 96L6-1 and 9S36. There is no win-all radar, different systems are meant for different work.
 

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
270
Reaction score
136
Ronny you did not read well the nasa document? see what it says
CREEPING-WAVE DIFFRACTION CONCEPT When a wave is incident upon an opaque object which is large compared to the wavelength, a shadow is formed.
The light as well radar frequencies and wavelength do fill those requirements
Yes I read it well and carefully.
If you actually paying attention, you will see that many time when I talked about creeping wave return and Mie region, I always said the wavelength size approach the size of object. Rather than the wave being bigger than the object. This was illustrated very clearly in the diagram I posted previously, specular return interfered with creeping wave return in Mie region, that what cause the RCS fluctuation
View attachment 620731

On the otherhand if the wavelength size is bigger than the object, then the object will be in Rayleigh region, in that region there is little phase variation of the incident wave over the spatial extent of the scattering body, so each part of the target encounter the same incident field at each moment of time.You don't have a shadow region in that case. The situation is similar to a static field problem, with the exception that the incident field is changing in time. This quasi-static field builds up opposite charges at the ends of the body of the target.When the wavelength is much greater than the object circumference, in Rayleighregion, its cross section is proportional to View attachment 620729 where View attachment 620730 is the wavenumber. Consequently, although the radar cross section is small, it increases as the fourth power of frequency and sixth power of radius. The most notable characteristic of Rayleigh scattering is that cross section is proportional to the fourth power of the frequency


Actually, the equation say exactly what quellish said
View attachment 620732
From the equation we can see that detection range is proportional to fourth root of transmitting power.
if we double the power value, the fourth root of it is only 1.18 still, so with all other factors remain the same, double the power will give you 18% longer detection range.



I honestly don't see how all that are relevant to my comment about J-10 DSI vs F-4 variable inlet.
Do you see that Pt can be any number? the equation does not say Stealth aircraft can not be detected, it simply says Pt is any number, give it any number the results change, you said light can not have creeping wave, the document says bigger object than the wavelength, F-16 is much much bigger than the wavelength of light or radar both are okay for creeping wave.


You can not see it is relevant simply because it says pressure recovery goes down and Mass flow goes up, do you see the trend? in order to stabilize the flow you need mechanic devices, when you lose pressure recovery you lose thrust, you lose thrust you lose acceleration, you lose more fuel simple like that, so it means a caret variable intake is better if you are going to fly faster than Mach 2
 
Last edited:

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
270
Reaction score
136
Detection range of only 60 km versus target at flight altitude of 500 meters is quite short. It will be very vulnerable to cruise missile such as Tomahawk,KEPD350, LRASM, JSM
1572121593117.png



1572121665036.png




it seems they work well especially since there are multiple sensors and types of radar
 
Last edited:

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
270
Reaction score
136
Fixed site, 100m square. Unique visible layout. Gone in first 24 hours, simply because it has to be gone, so i’ll Send 20 tomahawks in, one will make it.

Next.
1572122269112.png
1572123711109.png


the system is not fixed it works with other radars they are called radar netwoks it is like an onion multi layered

1572122728881.png


basically you will spend 100 missiles if you are lucky, because there are things called submarines and aircraft interceptors so a multilayered defence system will stop most of your attacks and mobile system will make even for stealth aircraft hard to enter.


You system only works if you attack a single radar without a network

1572122865146.png
 
Last edited:

Fluff

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
119
Reaction score
33
Fixed site, 100m square. Unique visible layout. Gone in first 24 hours, simply because it has to be gone, so i’ll Send 20 tomahawks in, one will make it.

Next.
View attachment 620736
View attachment 620739


the system is not fixed it works with other radars they are called radar netwoks it is like an onion multi layered

View attachment 620737


basically you will spend 100 missiles if you are lucky, because there are things called submarines and aircraft interceptors so a multilayered defence system will stop most of your attacks and mobile system will make even for stealth aircraft hard to enter.


You system only works if you attack a single radar without a network

View attachment 620738
The radar consisting of the four modules controls the 360-degree sector and occupies a 100 x 100 m area.

Clearly states it’s fixed site, the picture on their site shows a fixed radar system, not the truck mounted one you have pictured.
Your onion will be peeled, seriously these claims may work with the chief buyer for Syrian Air Force, not so much for me.

100 missiles, I don’t think, west didnt spend this many on Iraq.
 

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
270
Reaction score
136
The radar consisting of the four modules controls the 360-degree sector and occupies a 100 x 100 m area.

Clearly states it’s fixed site, the picture on their site shows a fixed radar system, not the truck mounted one you have pictured.
Your onion will be peeled, seriously these claims may work with the chief buyer for Syrian Air Force, not so much for me.

100 missiles, I don’t think, west didnt spend this many on Iraq.
First you are avoiding the question can stealth aircraft be detected? answer yes; it is not who played better its assets like in Serbia, Irak or Yugoslavia.


It says you can detect stealth aircraft, in fact i will put it better, like Israel did in 1967, you can destroy aircraft in their bases just to render stealth aircraft useless.

Remember each new type recently are built in lower numbers.



Now the topic is not who is going to beat who, but rather if stealth is good enough to detect Stealth Intakes such as Caret or DSI types.

All the formulas i have given do not say stealth aircraft can not be detected.

Furthermore we are discussing if DSI is worthed at high speeds, the aerodynamic answer is no, the design number of an intake after 600 km/h requires some type of boundary layer bleed or diverter. design number of an intake limits the range of speeds it will be used, design speed of an intake means you can not have an intake type good for all speeds but rather just to some speed ranges.

Therefore there are intake types with variable geometry to control mass flow to the engine


The equations say given the right numbers you will detect any aircraft.

The limitation is how much electricity can generate an aircraft and the radar constraigns of temperature and loses.


So yes, some aircraft have weak radars, Stealth aircraft can fly far from aircraft with radars with low power density and are not going to be detected.

However today we have smarter aircraft that share information, so does not matter, F-35 will detect J-20 or Su-57 simply because the interconnectivity of the sensors, the plane that will survive will be the one that can avoid being hit, to do that you need stealth, speed and good avionics.

remember DSI intakes have stealth and performance constraigns too.
 
Last edited:

Fluff

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
119
Reaction score
33
The radar consisting of the four modules controls the 360-degree sector and occupies a 100 x 100 m area.

Clearly states it’s fixed site, the picture on their site shows a fixed radar system, not the truck mounted one you have pictured.
Your onion will be peeled, seriously these claims may work with the chief buyer for Syrian Air Force, not so much for me.

100 missiles, I don’t think, west didnt spend this many on Iraq.
First you are avoiding the question can stealth aircraft be detected? answer yes; it is not who played better its assets like in Serbia, Irak or Yugoslavia.


It says you can detect stealth aircraft, in fact i will put it better, like Israel did in 1967, you can destroy aircraft in their bases just to render stealth aircraft useless.

Remember each new type recently are built in lower numbers.



Now the topic is not who is going to beat who, but rather if stealth is good enough to detect Stealth Intakes such as Caret or DSI types.

All the formulas i have given do not say stealth aircraft can not be detected.

Furthermore we are discussing if DSI is worthed at high speeds, the aerodynamic answer is no, the design number of an intake after 600 km requires some type of boundary layer bleed or diverter. design number of an intake limits the range of speeds it will be used, design speed of an intake means you can not have an intake type good for all speeds but rather just to some ranges.


The equations say given the right numbers you will detect any aircraft.

The limitation is how much electricity can generate an aircraft and the radar constraigns of temperature and loses.


So yes, some aircraft have weak radars, Stealth aircraft can fly far from aircraft with radars with low power density.

However today we have smarter aircraft that share information, so does not matter, F-35 will detect J-20 or Su-57 simply because the interconnectivity of the sensors, the plane that will survive will be the one that can avoid being hit, to do that you need stealth, speed and good avionics.

remember DSI have stealth an performance constraigns too.
I think putin is a great leader, would make a great world president.
 

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
270
Reaction score
136
I think putin is a great leader, would make a great world president.
it is not politics, we are discussing technical details, if you can not give technical details do not hide in politics, you are basically saying i have not counter argument to reply and enrich the topic in technical terms
 

GARGEAN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
173
Reaction score
27
Your onion will be peeled, seriously these claims may work with the chief buyer for Syrian Air Force, not so much for me.

100 missiles, I don’t think, west didnt spend this many on Iraq.
"And T-90SM is bad because Abrahams stomped T-72M in Iraq"
 

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
97
Reaction score
30
Do you see that Pt can be any number? the equation does not say Stealth aircraft can not be detected, it simply says Pt is any number, give it any number the results change
Of course, if you have an equation you can put any number on one side to calculate the result on the other side. But I am talking about the trend which quellish mentioned. Double the transmitting power only increases range by 18%. So actually increase range by increasing the power is highly inefficient.

you said light can not have creeping wave, the document says bigger object than the wavelength, F-16 is much much bigger than the wavelength of light or radar both are okay for creeping wave.
Please read very carefully what I said and stop generalizing.
I said: " "Visible light doesn't curve a full circle around human size object (creeping return) because the wavelength isn't big enough" .
2.PNG
While wave can diffract, the amount of diffraction (how much it can curve around an object) depend on the size of the wavelength versus the object dimension. To have creeping wave return (not the same as surface traveling return and edge diffraction), the wavelength must full fill 2 conditions: the first is that the object is bigger than the wave, the second is that it approaches the object in size (Mie region). Basically, prerequisites are not the same as sufficient conditions. So light doesn't curve a whole cycle around human size object.

A.PNG

As I have repeated many times, the amount of diffraction is very size dependence, that why
_ They have to divide RCS of an object into 3 separate regions to calculate: Optical/Mie/Rayleigh.
_ The double-slit experiment is done with slits instead of a large gap.
_ Very low-frequency radar is considered better against stealth aircraft than high frequency radar.
_ RCS of a sphere only fluctuated significantly when the wavelength approaches its radius.
I have given you many charts and practical example, you can't just ignore them and insist wave can fully bend around a sphere/object regardless of size.

You can not see it is relevant simply because it says pressure recovery goes down and Mass flow goes up, do you see the trend?
I do not see the relevant because we actually have the pressure recovery value for F-4 inlet and J-10 DSI inlet, and J-10 is in fact better. So a general explanation of DSI operation doesn't add much to that specific case.
 
Last edited:

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
97
Reaction score
30
View attachment 620733View attachment 620735
it seems they work well especially since there are multiple sensors and types of radar
If I recall correctly those are images from Syria, to date, there are still debates about the number of cruise missiles actually shot down, but didn't they full fill their intended goals?


First you are avoiding the question can stealth aircraft be detected? answer yes; it is not who played better its assets like in Serbia, Irak or Yugoslavia.
Now the topic is not who is going to beat who, but rather if stealth is good enough to detect Stealth Intakes such as Caret or DSI types.
All the formulas i have given do not say stealth aircraft can not be detected.
The equations say given the right numbers you will detect any aircraft.
The limitation is how much electricity can generate an aircraft and the radar constraigns of temperature and loses.
So yes, some aircraft have weak radars, Stealth aircraft can fly far from aircraft with radars with low power density and are not going to be detected.
The question isn't if stealth aircraft can be detected, of course, they can be detected, everything can be if they are close enough. The goal of stealth is concealing yourself enough that you can attack the enemy before they can attack you. The original question is whether a DSI offers better stealth than a variable inlet, and yes it does because DSI has fewer gaps and discontinuities. On the other hand, a variable inlet is better for high speed.
 
Last edited:

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
270
Reaction score
136
Of course, if you have an equation you can put any number on one side to calculate the result on the other side. But I am talking about the trend which quellish mentioned. Double the transmitting power only increases range by 18%. So actually increase range by increasing the power is highly inefficient.



As I have repeated many times, the amount of diffraction is very size dependence, that why
_ They have to divide RCS of an object into 3 separate regions to calculate: Optical/Mie/Rayleigh.
_ The double-slit experiment is done with slits instead of a large gap.
_ Very low-frequency radar is considered better against stealth aircraft than high frequency radar.
_ RCS of a sphere only fluctuated significantly when the wavelength approaches its radius.
I have given you many charts and practical example, you can't just ignore them and insist wave can fully bend around a sphere/object regardless of size.



I do not see the relevant because we actually have the pressure recovery value for F-4 inlet and J-10 DSI inlet, and J-10 is in fact better. So a general explanation of DSI operation doesn't add much to this case
1572239025415.png

Displacement y = (Order m x Wavelength x Distance D)/(slit width a)
1572239088427.png

If you see that you can see what is a shadow, you can see intensity changes as the Order m increases


However the nasa document talks about a cylinder, and mentions every tangent it difracts the wavelength until it creeps back to the radar

1572239504254.png

You are saying creeping waves do not exist in light which is incorrect, it is true red light has a greater diffraction angle than violet, however

Displacement y = (Order m x Wavelength x Distance D)/(slit width a) it considers order, but also remember it says each tangent of the circular perimeter of the cylinder does diffract the wavelength and the intensity weakens by the order, but some will go back to the radar

The formulas do not say the stealth aircraft are undetectable, if you want to be realistic it only limits the stealth aircraft detectability by range and by power density as i told you before, F-4 has earlier technology, it might have design flaws.

The main real constraign aircraft have is how much electricity they can generate and how much loses in temperature and scan the radar suffers, the formulas do not say stealth aircraft are undetectable, the real constraign is how much electricity can generate the aircraft
 
Last edited:

quellish

I am not actually here.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
22
The formulas do not say the stealth aircraft are undetectable, if you want to be realistic it only limits the stealth aircraft detectability by range and by power density as i told you before, F-4 has earlier technology, it might have design flaws.
I suggest you actually solve the equation and try different values for each variable and see the result.
The radar range equation tells you at what range an object with the given cross section can be detected by the radar with the given characteristics. Change the radar characteristics and see what happens to the detection range.
 

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
97
Reaction score
30
If you see that you can see what is a shadow, you can see intensity changes as the Order m increases
However the nasa document talks about a cylinder, and mentions every tangent it difracts the wavelength until it creeps back to the radar
Displacement y = (Order m x Wavelength x Distance D)/(slit width a) it considers order, but also remember it says each tangent of the circular perimeter of the cylinder does diffract the wavelength and the intensity weakens by the order, but some will go back to the radar
If that highlighted part always true regardless of wavelength -object size relationship then can you explain this measurement result: why RCS only fluctuates once wavelength approaches the sphere radius? what do you think the cause of that fluctuation is?
rcs.PNG

You are saying creeping waves do not exist in light which is incorrect, it is true red light has a greater diffraction angle than violet, however
No, I said, creeping wave return characteristic is depending on the relative size of the object vs wavelength, so for human size object, light can't bend/diffract/curve a whole circle around them => no creeping wave return.
By the way, guess what has longer wavelength between red and violet light? Hint: the one with a greater diffraction angle. Can you guess why?

The formulas do not say the stealth aircraft are undetectable, if you want to be realistic it only limits the stealth aircraft detectability by range and by power density as i told you before, F-4 has earlier technology, it might have design flaws.
The main real constraign aircraft have is how much electricity they can generate and how much loses in temperature and scan the radar suffers, the formulas do not say stealth aircraft are undetectable, the real constraign is how much electricity can generate the aircraft
You are literally only one here keep arguing against "stealth aircraft are invisible", which is an argument no one made. We have said many times that stealth is not invisible and it is only to reduce detection range so that you can attack the enemy first. I mean it literally feels like we are saying "the pattern on a cheetah fur make it harder to detect him" but you keep yelling "a cheetah is not invisible". What the point of arguing against the point that no one ever made?
 

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
270
Reaction score
136
I suggest you actually solve the equation and try different values for each variable and see the result.
The radar range equation tells you at what range an object with the given cross section can be detected by the radar with the given characteristics. Change the radar characteristics and see what happens to the detection range.
RCS of the target is variable upon the wave length, and radar location, the numbers do not say stealth aircraft are undetectable, it simply says constants and variables give different results
 

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
270
Reaction score
136
If that highlighted part always true regardless of wavelength -object size relationship then can you explain this measurement result: why RCS only fluctuates once wavelength approaches the sphere radius? what do you think the cause of that fluctuation is?


No, I said, creeping wave return characteristic is depending on the relative size of the object vs wavelength, so for human size object, light can't bend/diffract/curve a whole circle around them => no creeping wave return.
By the way, guess what has longer wavelength between red and violet light? Hint: the one with a greater diffraction angle. Can you guess why?
Ronny

Be realistic, the only constraign radars have is electricity, how much wattage can they generate, some radar stations have enough power, plus radars work in networks, data link allows different assets share information.


the whole point is there are some radars that will detect stealth aircraft, if they fly low, the speeds limits the stealth aircraft you fly lower, you fly slower, you fly higher the radars pick you up from higher distances.


The formulas do not limit detectability, what limits detectability is the electricity an aircraft generates, the engines and batteries, how much heat the radar generates, the speed the aircraft flies; faster it flies the window to intercept it is shorter.

DSI intakes are not as people think, radars will see the bump, only is a fantasy it is invisible it is not, with little power density it is not visible, with lots of power density is visible
 

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
97
Reaction score
30
1572239025415.png1572239088427.png

Displacement y = (Order m x Wavelength x Distance D)/(slit width a)
If you see that you can see what is a shadow, you can see intensity changes as the Order m increases
ok, let put some number in and see what happened when the wavelength doesn't approach the size of the slit. Let put the slit width at 1 meter
See something strange?
11.PNG

Now let put the slit size closer to the wavelength, do you want to guess why there is such a big difference in displacement distance and diffraction angle of the first case and second case?

12.PNG
 
Last edited:

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
270
Reaction score
136
the results are correct however you have not used common sense, if you have those angles how can we see things? basically light is behaving like particles, thus you would not have shadows, however that only is true if you think in macroviews not micro views

1572259060060.png






1572259230015.png

plus you do not need slits to get diffraction

1572259313295.png
1572260227793.png

1572259394825.png


Obviously, in the reality objects are full of grates, so light can basically diffract and creep easily, you are not considering DSI intakes are not really smooth,

1572259546836.png

the microworld has plenty of diffraction Ronny, the aircraft look smooth in the macro world, but for light they are not for that reason you can use short wavelength for radar

plus you have to consider power density
1572260784018.png


Once you use that you can see why spot lights let us see and why radars can detect aircraft
 
Last edited:

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
748
Reaction score
83
This argument has long since becoming absurd.
“Curved” aircraft can clearly have low radar cross sections (B-2, F-22 etc.)
So why on earth why can’t “curved” aircraft with “curved” DSI as part of their integrated designs not also have low radar cross sections?
One contributors fake-science bluster to peddle a bizarre prejudice around DSI (?) and warmed- up 90’s Russian-fan-boy fantasy are getting far more respect than the merit of their arguments deserves.
 

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
270
Reaction score
136
This argument has long since becoming absurd.
“Curved” aircraft can clearly have low radar cross sections (B-2, F-22 etc.)
So why on earth why can’t “curved” aircraft with “curved” DSI as part of their integrated designs not also have low radar cross sections?
One contributors fake-science bluster to peddle a bizarre prejudice around DSI (?) and warmed- up 90’s Russian-fan-boy fantasy are getting far more respect than the merit of their arguments deserves.
3.1 LIDAR - LIGHT DETECTION AND RANGING LIDAR is a Multi-Band and Multi-Static anti-stealth technology. Laser radar can detect stealth targets efficiently because it has short wavelength, high beam quality, high directionality and high measuring accuracy, which helps functions of target identifying, posture displaying and orbit recording. Apart from these, LIDAR holds higher resolution and counter -jamming ability due to its coherence property and ultimately high frequency. The Fig.1 illustrates the difference in image generated using LIDAR and RADAR

1572271827508.png
http://www.researchinventy.com/papers/v3i12/D0312015019.pdf
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
748
Reaction score
83
This argument has long since becoming absurd.
“Curved” aircraft can clearly have low radar cross sections (B-2, F-22 etc.)
So why on earth why can’t “curved” aircraft with “curved” DSI as part of their integrated designs not also have low radar cross sections?
One contributors fake-science bluster to peddle a bizarre prejudice around DSI (?) and warmed- up 90’s Russian-fan-boy fantasy are getting far more respect than the merit of their arguments deserves.
3.1 LIDAR - LIGHT DETECTION AND RANGING LIDAR is a Multi-Band and Multi-Static anti-stealth technology. Laser radar can detect stealth targets efficiently because it has short wavelength, high beam quality, high directionality and high measuring accuracy, which helps functions of target identifying, posture displaying and orbit recording. Apart from these, LIDAR holds higher resolution and counter -jamming ability due to its coherence property and ultimately high frequency. The Fig.1 illustrates the difference in image generated using LIDAR and RADAR

View attachment 620833
http://www.researchinventy.com/papers/v3i12/D0312015019.pdf
How is that in any way relevant?
Trying to be charitable here but looks more and more like irrelevant pseudoscientific “noise” being thrown in to distract from the increasingly bare counter-factual argument you are continuing to make.
 

Fluff

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
119
Reaction score
33
This argument has long since becoming absurd.
“Curved” aircraft can clearly have low radar cross sections (B-2, F-22 etc.)
So why on earth why can’t “curved” aircraft with “curved” DSI as part of their integrated designs not also have low radar cross sections?
One contributors fake-science bluster to peddle a bizarre prejudice around DSI (?) and warmed- up 90’s Russian-fan-boy fantasy are getting far more respect than the merit of their arguments deserves.
3.1 LIDAR - LIGHT DETECTION AND RANGING LIDAR is a Multi-Band and Multi-Static anti-stealth technology. Laser radar can detect stealth targets efficiently because it has short wavelength, high beam quality, high directionality and high measuring accuracy, which helps functions of target identifying, posture displaying and orbit recording. Apart from these, LIDAR holds higher resolution and counter -jamming ability due to its coherence property and ultimately high frequency. The Fig.1 illustrates the difference in image generated using LIDAR and RADAR

View attachment 620833
http://www.researchinventy.com/papers/v3i12/D0312015019.pdf
How is that in any way relevant?
Trying to be charitable here but looks more and more like irrelevant pseudoscientific “noise” being thrown in to distract from the increasingly bare counter-factual argument you are continuing to make.
I have already given up, been accused of not answering a question, I actually answered in my first post. Etc.
 

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
97
Reaction score
30
the results are correct however you have not used common sense, if you have those angles how can we see things? basically light is behaving like particles, thus you would not have shadows
What ???
What can possibly make you think small diffraction angle mean you can't see??. You have shadow literally because light behave more like like particles against big objects. If they always have the same amount of diffraction regardless of object size (aka, always curve a full revolution around the object) then you will be able to see around corner.


however that only is true if you think in macroviews not micro views

View attachment 620818

View attachment 620820
Have you already forget about the prerequisite that we talked about earlier?. To be in Mie region, the wavelength must approaches the object size but not bigger than it. With the size shows in the photos , they will be in Rayleigh region with completely different characteristic.
By the way, those photos you posted are taken by an electron microscope, visible light microcrope can't even be used to observe these structures.

plus you do not need slits to get diffraction
When have I or anyone else here ever said you need a slit to get diffraction?


plus you have to consider power density
View attachment 620825


Once you use that you can see why spot lights let us see and why radars can detect aircraft
Power density reduction due to range is completely irrelevant to what we are discussing, so I don't understand why would you post that photo
 

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
270
Reaction score
136
What ???
What can possibly make you think small diffraction angle mean you can't see??. You have shadow literally because light behave more like like particles against big objects. If they always have the same amount of diffraction regardless of object size (aka, always curve a full revolution around the object) then you will be able to see around corner.



Have you already forget about the prerequisite that we talked about earlier?. To be in Mie region, the wavelength must approaches the object size but not bigger than it. With the size shows in the photos , they will be in Rayleigh region with completely different characteristic.
By the way, those photos you posted are taken by an electron microscope, visible light microcrope can't even be used to observe these structures.


When have I or anyone else here ever said you need a slit to get diffraction?





Power density reduction due to range is completely irrelevant to what we are discussing, so I don't understand why would you post that photo
the problem Ronny is you are not using common sense, your eyes are radars, passive radars, following your explanation you will not explain why we see.

First issue is we see in color, it means the white light once it impacts the surface of an object is diffracted, so if you are in a room where everything is blue, you should not be able to see the white beam of a lamp, why? because light is going straight and no backwards and the diffraction angle is zero nada, got it?if you are outside the room, and the door is open with a door frame of one meter, you first will not see the white beam of light since it means light is going backwards towards your eyes, second, since the diffraction angle is almost nada nothing zero nil light is going straight, thus if a person is inside the room in a corner where you are not illuminating directly first she or he will not see the light. because the diffraction angle is to small.

Second, If the entire room is blue, it means light impacts the walls, roof or floor, while white light difracts becomes blue and that blue light goes to your eyes and you detect the objects as blue, you will not be able to see the white light of your flashlight nor anything that is not straight from the frame of the door or even more the white light of your lamp, will be like a laser.


Is that what happens? no that it does not happen, does your calculations are wrong or your explanation is wrong.

There are two properties of light you are not considering, one lights try to be all the time isotropic and omnidirectional, this is a wave property and product of diffraction, second the room is full of air, there are particles of dust that diffract light, in the microworld light is diffracted in longer angles thus light can illuminate if you have enough power density your room and that is what we do every day when we turn lights in our houses.
1572299956763.png

1572301219172.png
1572302408403.png
1572300195687.png


1572300324272.png

1572300637119.png

Therefore your explanation is wrong, there are several frequencies radars can use each one has advantages to detect stealth longer wavelengths will require less power density, shorter wavelengths will be more precise like LIDAR


Thus with enough power density, DSI or Caret intakes are pretty visible, you still do not want to admit what the formulas tell you, give enough power density and you will detect stealth aircraft in fact radars do detect them.
 
Last edited:

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
748
Reaction score
83
There is an element of the potential troll-farm going on here; who has so much irrelevant pseudo science bullshit immediately on tap?
While pushing a very Russian-specific perspective way past what would really make much sense if actually engaged in debate.
Hope that’s not the case.
 
Last edited:

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
270
Reaction score
136
There is an element of the potential troll-farm going on here; who has so much irrelevant pseudo science bullshit immediately on tap?
While pushing a very Russian-specific perspective way past what would really make much sense if actually engaged in debate.
Hope that’s not the case.
An incident plane wave is diffracted at a point of tangency (designated A) on the target. A portion of the diffracted energy is trapped at this point, resulting in a wave which propagates on the surface of the target, shedding energy by radiation as it progresses. Finally, this wave reradiates at B in the scattering direction of interest. This "creeping wave" can thus be described by diffraction coefficients at the points of diffraction and reradiation, by an attenuation factor to account for radiation losses, and by a description of the ray path geometry on the target traversed by the creeping wave.


https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/669372.pdf


Light can therefore bend around the corner of an object by riding the curved surface of the object. For a smooth surface, the light can travel along the surface for a relatively long distance. However, roughness, irregularities, cracks, bumps, and seams on the object's surface interrupt the coupling between light and the electric currents in the surface, so that the surface waves tends to scatter off into space at such obstacles instead of continuing to ride the surface. In optics, light waves riding the surface of a conductive object are called "surface plasmons". In radar, such waves are called "creeping waves" or simply "surface waves". In radar images, this creeping wave effect can lead to physically important ghost images or echo images of the object, because it takes longer for the creeping wave to return to the receiver than the main reflected wave.

https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/02/07/can-light-bend-around-corners/
 
Last edited:

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
97
Reaction score
30
the problem Ronny is you are not using common sense, your eyes are radars, passive radars, following your explanation you will not explain why we see.
First issue is we see in color, it means the white light once it impacts the surface of an object is diffracted, so if you are in a room where everything is blue, you should not be able to see the white beam of a lamp, why? because light is going straight and no backwards and the diffraction angle is zero nada, got it?if you are outside the room, and the door is open with a door frame of one meter, you first will not see the white beam of light since it means light is going backwards towards your eyes, second, since the diffraction angle is almost nada nothing zero nil light is going straight, thus if a person is inside the room in a corner where you are not illuminating directly first she or he will not see the light. because the diffraction angle is to small.

Second, If the entire room is blue, it means light impacts the walls, roof or floor, while white light difracts becomes blue and that blue light goes to your eyes and you detect the objects as blue, you will not be able to see the white light of your flashlight nor anything that is not straight from the frame of the door or even more the white light of your lamp, will be like a laser.
Is that what happens? no that it does not happen, does your calculations are wrong or your explanation is wrong.
Neither my explanation or calculation is wrong
Firstly, you can see the beam of light, because there are the dust particles in the air, which can reflect the light in all direction when the beam hit them.
1.jpg

Secondly, same as the first, you can see the while beam of light because there are dust particles in the air, you will not see the beam with the air was 100% clean. Besides, the while light from your lamp will not be like a laser. Laser is monochromatic and coherent while your lamp is often omi directional.

Thirdly, the person inside the room in a corner will still see the light when you not illuminating him directly because when you shine a light at the wall there will be specular backscatter.

You want to prove that light can always creeping a whole revolution around object regardless of frequency-object size relation? ok take a soccer ball, put it 1 cm in front of your camera lens, then point them toward the sun. If you can still take the photo of the sun, then you have prove your point. If the diffraction is actually enough for creeping wave, then the light would have curve about the ball and come to your camera, giving you the full image of the sun.




There are two properties of light you are not considering, one lights try to be all the time isotropic and omnidirectional, this is a wave property and product of diffraction, second the room is full of air, there are particles of dust that diffract light, in the microworld light is diffracted in longer angles thus light can illuminate if you have enough power density your room and that is what we do every day when we turn lights in our houses.
View attachment 620839

View attachment 620843
View attachment 620844
View attachment 620840


View attachment 620841



Therefore your explanation is wrong, there are several frequencies radars can use each one has advantages to detect stealth longer wavelengths will require less power density, shorter wavelengths will be more precise like LIDAR
First of all, the first two photos you posted are not light, they are the radiation pattern of radiowave. The first photo is the radiation pattern of half wave diopole, it is not even isotropic since we can clearly see the horizontal component is 100 times higher in magnitude. The second photo is the radiation pattern of various antenna, which again not related to light at all. The rest of your photos are just light bulb which are omnidirectional due to their design and has nothing to do with the property of light itself. You can easily make a light source that is not omnidirectional, such as the flashlight or concert stage light
Second of all, you do not need reflection and diffraction from dust particles in your room to be able to see. The light from your lamp and tube light will be reflected back from your wall and various furniture and their surface aren't even smooth so light can be reflected in many dirrections.




Thus with enough power density, DSI or Caret intakes are pretty visible, you still do not want to admit what the formulas tell you, give enough power density and you will detect stealth aircraft in fact radars do detect them.
Given enough light and close enough distance, an ant and an elephant are both visible, that doesn't mean they are equally visible at all range. The same goes for DSI vs variable inlet. Besides, I have never said stealth aircraft are invisible so stop trying to strawman my argument, that not going to work. And why do you keep ignoring my questions? Please answer them first.
If wave can always curve a full circle around any particular object regardless of the wavelength size versus the object size then
_ Why do they have to divide RCS of an object into 3 separate regions to calculate: Optical/Mie/Rayleigh?
_ Why the double-slit experiment is done with slits instead of a large gap ?
_ Why very low-frequency radar is considered better against stealth aircraft than high frequency radar?
_ Why RCS of a sphere only fluctuated significantly when the wavelength approaches its radius.?
_ Why covering your camera with a soccer ball stopping you from taking a photo of the sun?
 
Last edited:

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
97
Reaction score
30
Light can therefore bend around the corner of an object by riding the curved surface of the object. For a smooth surface, the light can travel along the surface for a relatively long distance. However, roughness, irregularities, cracks, bumps, and seams on the object's surface interrupt the coupling between light and the electric currents in the surface, so that the surface waves tends to scatter off into space at such obstacles instead of continuing to ride the surface. In optics, light waves riding the surface of a conductive object are called "surface plasmons". In radar, such waves are called "creeping waves" or simply "surface waves". In radar images, this creeping wave effect can lead to physically important ghost images or echo images of the object, because it takes longer for the creeping wave to return to the receiver than the main reflected wave.
https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/02/07/can-light-bend-around-corners/
Do you actually read your own source? I feel like you don't because there are many things in there disagree with your opinion and support mine
From the source above:
In general, a light beam spreads out more (turns the corner more) if the beam has a narrow beam width compared to its wavelength. Light can therefore be made to spread out more by reducing the beam width or by increasing the wavelength of the light. The wavelength of visible light is so small that you have to use very narrow beams of visible light in order to notice its diffraction. Such narrow beams are typically obtained by running light through a very narrow slit. For large-wavelength light such as radio waves, the bending of the wave around human-scale objects is much stronger. Note that the light from a flashlight spreads out not because of diffraction. It spreads out because the mirror in a flashlight is specifically designed to bounce light in different directions. Also, note that the fuzziness of shadows in everyday life is not caused by diffraction, but is instead caused by the fact that an extended light source creates many, slightly-offset, shadows of the object which blur together.
https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/02/07/can-light-bend-around-corners/
 

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
270
Reaction score
136
Neither my explanation or calculation is wrong
Firstly, you can see the beam of light, because there are the dust particles in the air, which can reflect the light in all direction when the beam hit them.


Secondly, same as the first, you can see the while beam of light because there are dust particles in the air, you will not see the beam with the air was 100% clean. Besides, the while light from your lamp will not be like a laser. Laser is monochromatic and coherent while your lamp is often omi directional.

Thirdly, the person inside the room in a corner will still see the light when you not illuminating him directly because when you shine a light at the wall there will be specular backscatter.

You want to prove that light can always creeping a whole revolution around object regardless of frequency-object size relation? ok take a soccer ball, put it 1 cm in front of your camera lens, then point them toward the sun. If you can still take the photo of the sun, then you have prove your point. If the diffraction is actually enough for creeping wave, then the light would have curve about the ball and come to your camera, giving you the full image of the sun.
you are wrong because you are mixing concepts, the persons see the light because the light is a wave, in fact it is not a particle, thus the light follows a tendency to go isotropic

Isotropic Radiation
Some radiation sources radiate energy equally in all directions. Radiation of this type is known as isotropic radiation. We all know the Sun radiates energy in all directions.

https://www.radartutorial.eu/06.antennas/Isotropic Radiation.en.html


radars like light bulbs can be directional or omnidirectional


DIRECTIONALITY
Due to their small form factor, LEDs present the best of both worlds for lighting design. They can be used to mimic the directionality of PAR, BR and MR lamps or be combined to duplicate the omnidirectional nature of fluorescent and incandescent sources.

https://greencreative.com/led-101/about-led/

You other mistake is to claim is light bends just by a single tangent diffraction, which is not the case, a circle or a cylinder does not have a single tangent


These rays are produced by incident rays which are tangent to the surface of the body. Each tangent ray splits at the point of tangency with one part continuing along the path of the incident ray and the other traveling along a geodesic on the surface of the body. At each following point, it splits again with one part traveling along the geodesic and the other reradiating along a tangent to the geodesic. rays are produced, one of which is reradiated at each point of the geodesic.


https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700009872.pdf


1572324500401.png


If creeping waves are not posible in light therefore should not be possible to have them in radar either, since the ones mostly used to for stealth masking are pretty small, and you are requiring according to your interpretation, that only a single diffraction of a single tangent radar of waves should we use.

The article mention, not a single diffraction, but many many diffraction of tiny tangents, since circles can have so many that the wave will creep.

Longer wavelengths generate a bigger RCS because of resonance


1572325139772.png

But aircraft RCS does not necessarily grow linearly. As surface-wave effects grow, their phases can interfere constructively or destructively with specular reflections. This phenomenon is illustrated in simple form with a sphere (see figure below). As wavelength grows relative to the circumference, the creeping wave circling the sphere grows continuously, but its phase interference with the specular return varies. This causes the sphere’s RCS to undulate, with successively higher peaks corresponding to phase matches between the specular return and the strengthening creeping wave. This phenomenon is known as “Mie scattering” and this regime —where the wavelength is between one and 1/10th the size of the structure—is known as the “resonance region.” Maximum RCS is often reached when the wavelength reaches the approximate size of the structure
 
Last edited:

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
97
Reaction score
30
you are wrong because you are mixing concepts
I am sure that I am not wrong at all given that not only I can give not just one but 7 examples to support my point, even the diffraction angle equation you cited earlier also support my claim. On the other hand, you still haven't made any attempt to answer any of the questions I asked many times:
If wave can always curve a full circle around any particular object regardless of the wavelength size versus the object size then
_ Why do they have to divide RCS of an object into 3 separate regions to calculate: Optical/Mie/Rayleigh?
_ Why the double-slit experiment is done with slits instead of a large gap ?
_ Why very low-frequency radar is considered better against stealth aircraft than high frequency radar?
_ Why RCS of a sphere only fluctuated significantly when the wavelength approaches its radius.?
_ Why covering your camera with a soccer ball stopping you from taking a photo of the sun?

Please answer these questions instead of going randomly all over the place

the persons see the light because the light is a wave, in fact it is not a particle, thus the light follows a tendency to go isotropic
Isotropic Radiation
Some radiation sources radiate energy equally in all directions. Radiation of this type is known as isotropic radiation. We all know the Sun radiates energy in all directions.
https://www.radartutorial.eu/06.antennas/Isotropic Radiation.en.html
DIRECTIONALITY

Due to their small form factor, LEDs present the best of both worlds for lighting design. They can be used to mimic the directionality of PAR, BR and MR lamps or be combined to duplicate the omnidirectional nature of fluorescent and incandescent sources.

radars like light bulbs can be directional or omnidirectional
I don't see how the Sun or LED light is in any way related to "wave diffraction versus object size" topic. Like @kaiserd said, it start to feel like you adding random noise to distract from the increasingly bare counter-factual argument. Nevermind that, what makes you think light have the tendency to go isotropic?? and how does that even related to creeping wave return?







You other mistake is to claim is light bends just by a single tangent diffraction, which is not the case, a circle or a cylinder does not have a single tangent
These rays are produced by incident rays which are tangent to the surface of the body. Each tangent ray splits at the point of tangency with one part continuing along the path of the incident ray and the other traveling along a geodesic on the surface of the body. At each following point, it splits again with one part traveling along the geodesic and the other reradiating along a tangent to the geodesic. rays are produced, one of which is reradiated at each point of the geodesic.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700009872.pdf
If creeping waves are not posible in light therefore should not be possible to have them in radar either, since the ones mostly used to for stealth masking are pretty small, and you are requiring according to your interpretation, that only a single diffraction of a single tangent radar of waves should we use.
The article mention, not a single diffraction, but many many diffraction of tiny tangents, since circles can have so many that the wave will creep.
Where did I say "light bends by a single tangent diffraction"?. Do not strawman my argument.
My claim is very simple: How much wave bend/diffraction/curve around any particular object, depend on the wavelength size verus the size of the object. To have creeping wave return, the wave must approach the size of object.







Longer wavelengths generate a bigger RCS because of resonance
View attachment 620849

But aircraft RCS does not necessarily grow linearly. As surface-wave effects grow, their phases can interfere constructively or destructively with specular reflections. This phenomenon is illustrated in simple form with a sphere (see figure below). As wavelength grows relative to the circumference, the creeping wave circling the sphere grows continuously, but its phase interference with the specular return varies. This causes the sphere’s RCS to undulate, with successively higher peaks corresponding to phase matches between the specular return and the strengthening creeping wave. This phenomenon is known as “Mie scattering” and this regime —where the wavelength is between one and 1/10th the size of the structure—is known as the “resonance region.” Maximum RCS is often reached when the wavelength reaches the approximate size of the structure
Ok, so you finally understand what I have been explaining in the last 5-6 posts. Let me post the same photo against since they illustrate my point very clearly.
You said longer wavelength can generate bigger RCS because of resonance. This resonance like I have explained before is the interference between creeping wave return and specular return. In shorts,once part of the wave curve a whole revolution around the object will interfere with the specular reflection from the object. If the interference is constructive, the RCS is higher. If the interference is destructive the RCS is lower. So, if we consider your theory correct: "wave can always curve a full cycle around the object (creeping return) regardless of the object size" then does why this resonance only happen in the Mie region?
RCS2.PNG5.PNG
 

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
270
Reaction score
136
Where did I say "light bends by a single tangent diffraction"?. Do not strawman my argument.
My claim is very simple: How much wave bend/diffraction/curve around any particular object, depend on the wavelength size versus the size of the object. To have creeping wave return, the wave must approach the size of object.
CREEPING-WAVE DIFFRACTION CONCEPT When a wave is incident upon an opaque object which is large compared to the wavelength, a shadow is formed. However, some radiation penetrates into the shadow region due to diffracted rays as shown in figure

1572349546868.png





https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700009872.pdf

are not those J-20 DSI intake bumps more similar to the oval fuselage figure?

1572349802837.png

the article says large, not almost the same size of the wavelength as you are saying


while this an example from sound waves explains what you are trying to say
1572350063123.png

1572350321863.png
 

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
97
Reaction score
30
CREEPING-WAVE DIFFRACTION CONCEPT When a wave is incident upon an opaque object which is large compared to the wavelength, a shadow is formed. However, some radiation penetrates into the shadow region due to diffracted rays as shown in figure

View attachment 620858

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700009872.pdf
are not those J-20 DSI intake bumps more similar to the oval fuselage figure?
the article says large, not almost the same size of the wavelength as you are saying, while this an example from sound waves explains what you are trying to say
There isn't any point to continue this discussion if you keep avoiding my questions despite me asking them repeatedly. To be frank, if you truly believe that you are correct then you won't have to ignore them while posting various unrelated things. At this point, this topic changed from an interesting discussion into a waste of time
 

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
270
Reaction score
136
There isn't any point to continue this discussion if you keep avoiding my questions despite me asking them repeatedly. To be frank, if you truly believe that you are correct then you won't have to ignore them while posting various unrelated things. At this point, this topic changed from an interesting discussion into a waste of time
I understand what you are trying to say however you are using a generalization without proves.

The article does not say the creeping wave needs to be the same size of the object, that is a conjecture you do, you first need to prove light or microwaves do not create creeping waves when bouncing from objects like humans, i know they do there are studies focused in microwaves creeping from humans because such waves are used for telecommunications and electronic equipment like i phones, thus studies have been done to see creeping waves from cell phones.

I am not dodging your questions, simply you are not listening what the article says basically it says the creeping waves turns 180 degrees because of tangents, and cylinders have a lot of tangents plus it says the object should be larger than the wavelength, you are not considering that aspect.

Further more resonance is result of two waves one creeping, one specular, that are interacting in a very small space thus the chances of resonance is higher, there are light creeping waves, the surfaces of objects are not smooth.

see the metal has fatigue from an aircraft it is not smooth, they will act as grates

1572500165568.png



1572500287703.png

1572500481613.png

https://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/how-things-work-self-healing-airplanes-35558146/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213290216300074

Diffraction occurs in radar frequencies thus creeping waves such occur too in all frequencies, but longer wavelength have a tendency to resonate more, you have to prove that is not the case, however the article only says larger than the object and tangents splitting the wave into one diffracting and another going straight
 

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
97
Reaction score
30
I understand what you are trying to say however you are using a generalization without proves.
I am sorry what again?
I am the only one who has done the calculations, I am the only one actually put number into the equation you gave, I am the one who can give multiple real life example that you are unable to prove with your theory. How is that generalization?. What calculations have you done to make your point?. You just put up some convoluted equation without actually trying them out.

1.PNG2.PNG
1572082746337.png


The article does not say the creeping wave needs to be the same size of the object, that is a conjecture you do, you first need to prove light or microwaves do not create creeping waves when bouncing from objects like humans, i know they do there are studies focused in microwaves creeping from humans because such waves are used for telecommunications and electronic equipment like i phones, thus studies have been done to see creeping waves from cell phones.
First of all, it is not a conjecture I created. I have shown it to you many times both with practical example in case of a sphere RCS measurement and in the theoretical example in case of official separation of RCS region: Optical/Mie/Rayleigh. Second of all, cell phone use 900 Mhz-1900 Mhz frequency, so its wavelength is between 33-17 cm which make them 825000 times longer than the optical light wavelength at 400- 800 nanometers.
3.PNG4.PNG




I am not dodging your questions, simply you are not listening what the article says basically it says the creeping waves turns 180 degrees because of tangents, and cylinders have a lot of tangents plus it says the object should be larger than the wavelength, you are not considering that aspect.
see the metal has fatigue from an aircraft it is not smooth, they will act as grates
I do consider that aspect, I was the one explain to you what happens if the object is bigger than the wave aka Rayleigh region.
You are saying wave can always creeping a full revolution around a sphere regardless of the wavelength versus that sphere size, then explain my question. Why RCS of a sphere only fluctuated significantly when the wavelength approaches its radius.? if your theory is correct = wave can always creep around the same regardless of frequency => the fluctuation should be the same regardless of the exact frequency. Since that does not happen, we know easily that your theory is wrong.

rcs.PNG




Further more resonance is result of two waves one creeping, one specular, that are interacting in a very small space thus the chances of resonance is higher, there are light creeping waves, the surfaces of objects are not smooth.
Diffraction occurs in radar frequencies thus creeping waves such occur too in all frequencies, but longer wavelength have a tendency to resonate more, you have to prove that is not the case, however the article only says larger than the object and tangents splitting the wave into one diffracting and another going straight
Yes we all know resonance is the result of creeping and specular wave interfered, I literally brought that up right at my second post of this thread. And do not even try to strawman my argument. I did not say diffraction can't occur in all frequencies or even that creeping wave can only occur in some frequencies. I made my point very specific, the amount of diffraction is depending on the object size versus the wavelength size. You get creeping wave return when the wavelength size approaches the object size => the angle of diffraction is very high. That why RCS of a sphere fluctuated when wavelength approaches its diameter and also why very low-frequency radar is better against stealth aircraft than high-frequency one.

but longer wavelength have a tendency to resonate more, you have to prove that is not the case
No, I don't have to prove a negative and don't try to put a trap. You have to prove that longer wavelength has a tendency to resonate more but not due to the wavelength-object size relationship that I have been laid out in the last 2 pages. I have been saying all along that the amount of diffraction/bend/curve is higher if the wavelength approaches the object dimension, more diffraction = more chance for creeping wave return. More creeping wave return = more interference with specular return => more resonance.
If my argument isn't correct then what is the cause of high resonance at low frequency?
 

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
270
Reaction score
136
I understand what you are trying to say however you are using a generalization without proves.
I am sorry what again?
I am the only one who has done the calculations, I am the only one actually put number into the equation you gave, I am the one who can give multiple real life example that you are unable to prove with your theory. How is that generalization?. What calculations have you done to make your point?. You just put up some convoluted equation without actually trying them out.





First of all, it is not a conjecture I created. I have shown it to you many times both with practical example in case of a sphere RCS measurement and in the theoretical example in case of official separation of RCS region: Optical/Mie/Rayleigh. Second of all, cell phone use 900 Mhz-1900 Mhz frequency, so its wavelength is between 33-17 cm which make them 825000 times longer than the optical light wavelength at 400- 800 nanometers.
First let us cool down, we are in no need to convince each other by force.


Let me say your calculations do not prove what is a creeping wave, in no way you have done that. the equation you used only proves an angle and at short distance (1 meter) and few orders, in fact you only calculated one order, the formula it is basically to calculate the distance of any order from the middle order 0, it does not prove what is a creeping wave so you have not proved your conjecture.


you did not prove what is a creeping wave by no means, the NASA documents i gave you, gives a basic definition, but if you open the link is full of differential equations, i only quoted the basic non mathematical definition they gave:

If you look at this laser diffraction it has more than one order


1572512889009.png
The basic definition of the NASA document is tangents are the equivalents to slits, so the wave is diffracting in each and every tangent that a 180 deg a half circumference has, basically there are plenty of slits, not only one like you are trying to portrait.

1572513264204.png


Now regardless who is right, it is pretty obvious the chines of F-22 do not work for long wavelength thus they are designed for microwaves, which can go from cm to less than millimetres, so an F-22 is pretty big since each chine is pretty large, 1,5 to 2 meters, so the chines do work for creeping waves in short wavelengths.


1572514614447.png


Now your statement was DSI intakes are smooth i told you it does not matter, with lidars or powerful radars they become visible and closer to the radar they will be pretty visible.


You can not prove the radar range formula say stealth means invisibility, the only thing i said, is the only real limitation is the electricity an aircraft can provide to its radar, but ground radars do not have such limitations and aircraft work with networks, to exemplify it, imaging you have a hall with many lamps, each light is helping you to see, passive radars basically use that, any frequency they are using to see.
 
Last edited:

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
748
Reaction score
83
To anyone who is still listening is the point peagsus trying to make that all “stealth” planes are supposedly more easily tracked than everyone who isn’t wearing a Su-57 t-shirt thinks they are (which appears misguided at best), or is it still all specifically tied up with -anti-DSI-obsession (which makes it concerning from mental well-being perspective, at best)?
 

GARGEAN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
173
Reaction score
27
What Su-57 has to do with it? Reading diagonally trough those walls of text showed me nothing about it. Or is it something personal of yours?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top