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

Su-57 RCS and general Stealth discussion

tequilashooter

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
73
Reaction score
37
china f-22 translate.PNG
china F-22 translate 2.PNG
china f-22 translate 4.PNG
china f-22 translate 3.PNG
china f-22 translate 5.PNG

JY-27A - Radartutorial They seem to give a F-22 500km claim for that radar. Although I used yandex image translate the best I can I still have absolutely no idea what they are exactly talking about. I google Miboda, Liupoda and mipoleda radars and I cant find anything, is there any better source? If that meeting is in 2018 I guess there is a reason why they are asking a certain country for help in 2019. Chinese Missile Early Warning System-with Russian Help-May be Nearing Completion (defenseworld.net)
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
367
Reaction score
145
The obvious problem is beamwidth of the OTH radar. We are talking about cell with 40-50 km diameter, inside that cell there are many targets. Let say you marked target A as aircraft because you saw it take off from an airport and target B as cruise missile because it appear from the middle of no where. What happen when that two targets get within 40-50 km from each other and stay inside your cell?. Even if they separate after that, how can you determine which is which?.

I got something very good for you. file (nato.int)

View attachment 647852

There was a lot of photonic radar related wanking going on(probably still going on today) about aerial, ship and land versions over at other forums(mostly on Russian military related matters) and since I hear that some of these antennas are still in construction it might not come to a surprise that it might be a PE-MIMO related radar or not it could have worse or could have better performance, but such details are not being shown to the public. An F-35 can launch missiles and decoys but it might have to be several kilometers close, but several kilometers will be good enough for SAMs or air to air missiles host radar beams to catch a lock on to.

But this is just the latest and newest OTH radar being talked about since 2019. Technology Offering - Ranger (ranger-project.eu)
You mistaken between the two type of OTH radar.
The first type is OTH-B, over horizon sky wave radar, this type of radar look over the radar horizon by scattered their wave off the ionosphere. This type of radar can look very far, often 2000-3000 km away. But they also have very massive blind area of 1000-1500 km radius.



The second type of OTH radar is OTH-SW, over horizon surface wave radar, this is what inside your link, this type of radar can only be placed next to the coastal line, and the range also significantly shorter than OTH-B type, at most you can see about 200 nm out. The advantage over the OTH-B is that it doesn't have the blind sector.

2.PNG


Secondly, the PE-MIMO radar in that link, it only have range of several kilometers, any stealth aircraft can be detected at that point. I can't think of any scenario where an aircraft want to wondered that close, unless it is an A-10 using its cannon
 
Last edited:

tequilashooter

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
73
Reaction score
37
But they also have very massive blind area of 1000-1500 km radius.
Yeah I know re-read my quote from yesterday, " The only solution they can achieve with OTH radars is to move the antennas at a farther distance so those antennas can use HF waves to cover the blind spot of the OTH radar."

The second type of OTH radar is OTH-SW, over horizon surface wave radar, this is what inside your link, this type of radar can only be placed next to the coastal line, and the range also significantly shorter than OTH-B type, at most you can see about 200 nm out. The advantage over the OTH-B is that it doesn't have the blind secto
my concern is about the HF waves.

Secondly, the PE-MIMO radar in that link, it only have range of several kilometers, any stealth aircraft can be detected at that point. I can't think of any scenario where an aircraft want to wondered that close, unless it is an A-10 using its cannon

nope not range spatial resolution range of target separation.

Winners card (ranger-project.eu)

RANGER capabilities.PNG
There are like a bunch of pdf files where it even demonstrates the footprint capabilities, but I have go some place for now where I can provide that later for you if your interested?
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
367
Reaction score
145
Yeah I know re-read my quote from yesterday, " The only solution they can achieve with OTH radars is to move the antennas at a farther distance so those antennas can use HF waves to cover the blind spot of the OTH radar."

my concern is about the HF waves.
Both OTH-B and OTH-SW use HF wave, just not at the same frequency. OTH-SW needed to be next to the coast line because the frequency from 5-15 MHz travel along the conducting sea surface



nope not range spatial resolution range of target separation.

Winners card (ranger-project.eu)

View attachment 647904
There are like a bunch of pdf files where it even demonstrates the footprint capabilities, but I have go some place for now where I can provide that later for you if your interested?
PE-MIMO has better spatial resolution but also has much shorter range.
ưssss.PNG
 

Dev

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
56
Reaction score
31
If RCS of stealth aircraft is really that high, there wouldn't be such hype around "anti stealth" low frequency radar since even fighter radar will track these supposed stealth aircraft from decent range, ground base radar will always track them at very long range
So there is no hype. Everyone knows that stealth technologies do not work well in the VHF-Band. And this is nothing new. And "anti-stealth" is just an advertising / marketing slogan.
What radars the Chinese friends compared, I don't know what they got, such a difference in range.
But it is known that the EPR of the F-117 in the VHS-band(Nebo-U) is five times higher than in the L-band (Protivnik-GE) or X-band (SNR-125). (source: Dialektika tekhnologij vozdushno-kosmicheskoj oborony , ZENITNYJ RAKETNYJ KOMPLEKS «PECHORA-2» (Preliminary design)).
That is, with the same equal, the difference is one and a half times the range.
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
367
Reaction score
145
If RCS of stealth aircraft is really that high, there wouldn't be such hype around "anti stealth" low frequency radar since even fighter radar will track these supposed stealth aircraft from decent range, ground base radar will always track them at very long range.
But it is known that the EPR of the F-117 in the VHF-band(Nebo-U) is five times higher than in the L-band (Protivnik-GE) or X-band (SNR-125). (source: Dialektika tekhnologij vozdushno-kosmicheskoj oborony , ZENITNYJ RAKETNYJ KOMPLEKS «PECHORA-2» (Preliminary design)).
That is, with the same equal, the difference is one and a half times the range.
Then that number is obviously wrong. We have actual anechoic chamber measurement value of F-117 metal model, the different of RCS between VHF band and L-band isn't 5 times. And if the different in RCS between VHF and X-band RCS is only 5 times, then you better off making high power X-band than you would making VHF radar. Since a VHF with equal size with a X-band radar will have much less Gain (can't see as far for a given RCS value)
AC42D5DA-7A2A-4786-8FFA-E2A5A82718CA.png
 

Scar

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Apr 25, 2019
Messages
26
Reaction score
14
I was taking about element spacing to avoid grating lobes, this spacing must be less than 1/2 wavelength
Anyways, I can't remember exactly where the report of 1 sqm came from because it has been too long ago. But there are several simulation of F-16 mean frontal RCS, which is even less than 1 m2. For example in this one: radome nose cone is assumed to be transparent. There is strong narrow lobe directly at the front due to the radar directly perpendicular to threat, but otherwise the scattering remain below 0 dBsm until it reach 30 degree on each side.
I still don't see anything with exact numbers for each measurement in every 5x1 degree 'cell', in this +-30x15 degree sector. And what i see in the circle graph tells me F-16, according to you source, has an RCS 25-0 dBsm in azimuthal sector of +/-0-20 degree.
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
367
Reaction score
145
I was taking about element spacing to avoid grating lobes, this spacing must be less than 1/2 wavelength
Anyways, I can't remember exactly where the report of 1 sqm came from because it has been too long ago. But there are several simulation of F-16 mean frontal RCS, which is even less than 1 m2. For example in this one: radome nose cone is assumed to be transparent. There is strong narrow lobe directly at the front due to the radar directly perpendicular to threat, but otherwise the scattering remain below 0 dBsm until it reach 30 degree on each side.
I still don't see anything with exact numbers for each measurement in every 5x1 degree 'cell', in this +-30x15 degree sector. And what i see in the circle graph tells me F-16, according to you source, has an RCS between 25 to 0 dBsm in azimuth sector of +/-20 degree.
Look at the green chart at the top and their calculated mean RCS
 

Dev

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
56
Reaction score
31
Then that number is obviously wrong. We have actual anechoic chamber measurement value of F-117 metal model, the different of RCS between VHF band and L-band isn't 5 times.
Even on your metal model, I don't see any significant color differences in the zero parameter. Approximately yellow, which on average corresponds to 8 dB or 6.3 times.

then you better off making high power X-band than you would making VHF radar.
A fivefold increase in power is not always possible. Also add to this the natural absorption of short waves in the atmosphere. Therefore, not 5 times, but more.
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
367
Reaction score
145
Then that number is obviously wrong. We have actual anechoic chamber measurement value of F-117 metal model, the different of RCS between VHF band and L-band isn't 5 times.
Even on your metal model, I don't see any significant color differences in the zero parameter. Approximately yellow, which on average corresponds to 8 dB or 6.3 times.
At 2 GHz, the outer most part of the circle, the dominant color for frontal aspect is dark blue, that indicate RCS around -18 dB
At 0.1 GHz, the inner most part of the circle, the dominant color for frontal aspect is yellow and some time light blue, that indicate RCS between 0 dB and 6 dB.


then you better off making high power X-band than you would making VHF radar.
A fivefold increase in power is not always possible. Also add to this the natural absorption of short waves in the atmosphere. Therefore, not 5 times, but more.

Power density is proportional to gain
Gain is inversely proportional to wavelength square
What do you think will happen to power density when you increase the wavelength by 40-400 times?
6CB2FFBC-F7E1-4557-AD2C-8BC5F80C30C3.jpeg
 

Dev

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
56
Reaction score
31
At 2 GHz, the outer most part of the circle, the dominant color for frontal aspect is dark blue, that indicate RCS around -18 dB
At 0.1 GHz, the inner most part of the circle, the dominant color for frontal aspect is yellow and some time light blue, that indicate RCS between 0 dB and 6 dB.
I'm not very good at colors. Let's move on to numbers.
I also do not know all the parameters of this experiment. Was it a full size model? How accurate was it?
Let me remind you that the data that I cited was obtained from the VVKO Research Institute (Ministry of Defence), which had access to the F-117 after the events in Yugoslavia.
1609866980317.png

Power density is proportional to gain
Gain is inversely proportional to wavelength square
What do you think will happen to power density when you increase the wavelength by 40-400 times?
Of course, the gain will decrease with increasing wavelength (for the same antenna dimensions).
If I understand you correctly, then you want to keep the antenna dimensions the same as those of the VHF, but reduce the wavelength, thereby increasing the transmitted power due to amplification.
Not a very good option. The radar has a required beam width for scanning, which also depends on the wavelength and size of the antenna. By increasing the gain, you narrow the beam width. A very narrow beam is not suitable for scaning space. A lot of passes/steps have to be done, taking time. The required beam size is 1-4 degrees.
Therefore, simply decreasing the wavelength will get you nowhere. It is necessary to increase the power.
 
Last edited:

Ronny

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
367
Reaction score
145
Let me remind you that the data that I cited was obtained from the VVKO Research Institute (Ministry of Defence), which had access to the F-117 after the events in Yugoslavia.
View attachment 647919
They certainly doesn't have access to the F-22 or the F-35 while Lockheed Martin not only have access to all three aircraft but also developing them, so why should I trust VVKO number more?
btw, can you cite the document pdf?
Of course, the gain will decrease with increasing wavelength (for the same antenna dimensions).If I understand you correctly, then you want to keep the antenna dimensions the same as those of the VHF, but reduce the wavelength, thereby increasing the transmitted power due to amplification.Not a very good option. The radar has a required beam width for scanning, which also depends on the wavelength and size of the antenna. By increasing the gain, you narrow the beam width. A very narrow beam is not suitable for scaning space. A lot of passes/steps have to be done, taking time. The required beam size is 1-4 degrees.Therefore, simply decreasing the wavelength will get you nowhere. It is necessary to increase the power.
I don't think you understand my point.
my point is that, if the RCS of F-22, F-117 in X band is really as high as you claimed, and the RCS in VHF band is only 5 times higher than X band. Then there is absolutely no reason VHF radar should be considered better against stealth aircraft. Firstly, because even a small fighter radar would track stealth from decent range. Secondly, because an X band radar with equal size with the VHF will always detect and track the stealth aircraft from much longer range thanks to the gain advantage.
 

Dev

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
56
Reaction score
31
They certainly doesn't have access to the F-22 or the F-35 while Lockheed Martin not only have access to all three aircraft but also developing them, so why should I trust VVKO number more?
When did LM officially announce these numbers (F-22 or F-35)?
And I do not force you to believe.
my point is that, if the RCS of F-22, F-117 in X band is really as high as you claimed, and the RCS in VHF band is only 5 times higher than X band. Then there is absolutely no reason VHF radar should be considered better against stealth aircraft.
There is efficiency. At least because of poorly working in the long-wavelength range of radio-absorbing coatings on the aircraft. But they are not a panacea.

Firstly, because even a small fighter radar would track stealth from decent range.
And what should hinder this? Beliefs? Stealth has its effect, even in a fivefold decrease / increase in power. And reducing the distance by 1.5 times.

Secondly, because an X band radar with equal size with the VHF will always detect and track the stealth aircraft from much longer range thanks to the gain advantage.
I described to you above why it won't work! Radars are a compromise. It is impossible to increase all the characteristics without reducing others. This is life and the laws of nature.
 
Last edited:

tequilashooter

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
73
Reaction score
37
PE-MIMO has better spatial resolution but also has much shorter range.
Sarlio_Siintola_Tammilehto.pdf (theseus.fi)

ELM 2770.PNG
Documents download module (europa.eu)

Ranger spatial resolution.PNG
Ranger aircraft comparison..PNG

The spatial resolution isn't that bad, if not better than before. I am definitely going to lookout for this particular radar Радиолокационная станция "Яхрома" в Крыму будет работать в четырех диапазонах - Армия и ОПК - ТАСС (tass.ru)

"The newest radar station "Yakhroma", the construction of which in Crimea was announced by the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Sergei Shoigu at the annual board of the Ministry of Defense, will operate in four ranges with a view of 270 degrees. A source in the military-industrial complex told TASS about it.

"This station has no analogues, it will operate in four bands: meter, centimeter, decimeter and millimeter," the agency's interlocutor said, specifying that the station's view would be 270 degrees.

In December 2020, during the final collegium of the military department, Russian Defense Minister General of the Army Sergei Shoigu announced that the construction of the newest Yakhroma radar station in Sevastopol would begin in 2021."


Do not want to declare it as a photonic radar just yet because of wide usage of bands, but something to look out for later.
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
367
Reaction score
145
When did LM officially announce these numbers (F-22 or F-35)?
They repeated these number several times
F-22.PNG
F-35.png


And I do not force you to believe.
I just point out how laughable these value are.


There is efficiency. At least because of poorly working in the long-wavelength range of radio-absorbing coatings on the aircraft. But they are not a panacea.
Firstly, there is no efficiency because the power density of VHF is much lower so a 5 fold increase in RCS is simply not enough for its to have detection range advantage over X band.
Secondly, magnetic RAM has decent absorbing capability in low frequency while still relative thin
ferrite RAM.PNG
cobat ram.PNG






And what should hinder this? Beliefs? Stealth has its effect, even in a fivefold decrease / increase in power. And reducing the distance by 1.5 times. I described to you above why it won't work! Radars are a compromise. It is impossible to increase all the characteristics without reducing others. This is life and the laws of nature
And your explanation is so obviously wrong
Firstly, what do you think the attenuation rate of X-band in the atmosphere is?. At 10Ghz, it is less than 0.01 dB/km, so for 400 km, it is only about 4 dB
atmospheric absorption.jpg

Compare that to the different between the power density of X-band and VHF band radar of the same size. Gain is inversely proportional to wavelength, so by increase wavelength by 400 times, you will lose a lot more from the reduction in power density than you would gain from the tiny 5 fold increase in RCS and the 4 dB from reduction of atmosphere absorption. In other words, there would be no reason to use VHF radar against stealth aircraft if the RCS increase is only 5 times like you said. Normally, VHF radar have much worse accuracy, power density than X-band but it has advantage in the much higher RCS of target in that band. That the trade off. But if the value is just like you claimed, then VHF radar is worse in all ways
6CB2FFBC-F7E1-4557-AD2C-8BC5F80C30C3.jpeg
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
367
Reaction score
145
Data taken from tutorial. Not a journalistic article.
Is it possible to say where does this come from or how "official" it is?
Here is a sheet from the S-200D manual.
That sheet is even before F-22 made its first flight, so they can't even know F-22 correct shape, let alone the type of RAM it use. Unless they have some sort of time machine to go back in time that sheet is even worse than amateur's analysis
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
367
Reaction score
145
PE-MIMO has better spatial resolution but also has much shorter range.
Sarlio_Siintola_Tammilehto.pdf (theseus.fi)
Documents download module (europa.eu)
The spatial resolution isn't that bad, if not better than before. I am definitely going to lookout for this particular radar
Do not want to declare it as a photonic radar just yet because of wide usage of bands, but something to look out for later.
I don't think you should be too hang up on the PEMIMO radar, it just a small complement short range system
oth radar.PNG photonic radar.PNG
 

tequilashooter

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
73
Reaction score
37
I don't think you should be too hang up on the PEMIMO radar, it just a small complement short range system
Oh no worries here, anything that beats a 40-50 km spatial resolution diameter is fine with me and gives me something to look forward to.
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
367
Reaction score
145
Oh no worries here, anything that beats a 40-50 km spatial resolution diameter is fine with me and gives me something to look forward to.
the spatial resolution is range dependent, for Ranger project, 800 meter resolution is for 125 nm for 600*30 meter receiving array
OTH radar 2.PNG
 

Dev

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
56
Reaction score
31
Они повторили это число несколько раз
This number is repeated several times by the journalist David Fulghum. LM officials have never given these numbers.

Compare that to the different between the power density of X-band and VHF band radar of the same size.
There is a radar station measuring 12 m and a wavelength of 1.1 m.
65 * 1.1 / 12 = 6 degrees.
For example, the scaning of the sector is 60 * 60 degrees, the radar does it in 10 s.
(60 * 60) / (6 * 6) = 100 steps.
Let's reduce the wavelength to 3 cm.
65 * 0.03 / 12 = 0.1625 degrees.
(60 * 60) / (0.1625 * 0.1625) = 136 331 steps.
That is, your invented radar station will indeed have a large Gain! But, just to scan the standard sector 60 * 60, it will be within (136 331/100) * 10 = 13 633 seconds or 3.7 hours.
:D

I just point out how laughable these value are.
As I see it, we moved to the "area of faith", from the "area of facts and documents." But I'm not interested in that. If you want to believe the journalists, I don't mind.
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
367
Reaction score
145
This number is repeated several times by the journalist David Fulghum. LM officials have never given these numbers.

Did you follow the program at all?
F-35 RCS.PNG
F63F0EDA-1A04-4FBA-8D74-81FAC7D6AFB5.jpeg

There is a radar station measuring 12 m and a wavelength of 1.1 m.
65 * 1.1 / 12 = 6 degrees.
For example, the scaning of the sector is 60 * 60 degrees, the radar does it in 10 s.
(60 * 60) / (6 * 6) = 100 steps.
Let's reduce the wavelength to 3 cm.
65 * 0.03 / 12 = 0.1625 degrees.
(60 * 60) / (0.1625 * 0.1625) = 136 331 steps.
That is, your invented radar station will indeed have a large Gain! But, just to scan the standard sector 60 * 60, it will be within (136 331/100) * 10 = 13 633 seconds or 3.7 hours.
:D
Funny that you talk about scan time, but the advertised quantity of VHF radar over X-band against stealth aircraft has always been much better detection range. But if what you claimed about the RCS was true then literally, VHF radar will be much worse than X-band radar against stealth aircraft
And, if you use X-band radar, you also don't even need a 12*12 meters radar, the only reason for the huge aperture of VHF is their terrible gain
146BDC8F-B36F-4806-9ECB-053079026EAA.jpeg



As I see it, we moved to the "area of faith", from the "area of facts and documents."
Believing that Russian can somehow magically know the exact future RCS of the F-22 before its shape even finished and 6 years before it flew the first flight clearly will require a lot of faith. Neverminded the huge contradictory with anechoic chamber measurement
 
Last edited:

Dev

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
56
Reaction score
31
Did you even followed the program at all?
I am not interested in journalistic articles about "balls" and "peas". Please provide official figures from LM, Department of Defense or related organizations. That's exactly what you promised. :D

And frankly, if you use X-band radar, you also don't even need a 12*12 meters radar
You have set this condition. I just showed you how obscene your statements look from the side of scan time.

the only reason for the huge aperture of VHF is their terrible gain
A large dimension is needed to make the beam reasonably narrow for scanning a space with a given resolution for a specified time. Naturally, the longer the wavelength, the larger the antenna size will be required. And naturally, this also affects the gain. Therefore, as the gain increases, the scan time will decrease.

Believing that Russian can somehow magically know the exact future RCS of the F-22 before its shape even finished and 6 years before it flew the first flight clearly will require a lot of faith. Neverminded the huge contradictory with anechoic chamber measurement
You were provided with documents from different years (1991 - ATF to 2001 - F-22)
You were given a quote from Davidenko (on the first page) of the general designer of the UAC - 2010.
I can also quote Poghosyan (Head of the UAC) from an article on stealth technologies - 2003
In all of them the figure is 0.1 - 0.5 m2.

You, besides "balls", "peas" and articles of journalists, cannot cite anything.

Indeed, these are questions of faith. So I shut up. :D
 
Last edited:

Ronny

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
367
Reaction score
145
Did you even followed the program at all?
I am not interested in journalistic articles about "balls" and "peas". Please provide official figures from LM, Department of Defense or related organizations. That's exactly what you promised. :D
Nice try but that isn't a comment from the journalist. Quite a stealthy attempt (pun intended) of you trying to paint the comment from Robert Wallace the senior manager for F-35 flight operation and the ATF requirements as journalistic.


You have set this condition. I just showed you how obscene your statements look from the side of scan time
Except you forget that VHF radar must be big because they must have enough gain for their radar beam to have at least some utility otherwise with small aperture then their beam is quite omidirectional but X-band radar doesn't need that, you can get quite focused beam even with relatively small aperture. But the thing is, if the X band RCS value of stealth aircraft is actually as high as you claimed, and the VHF RCS is only 5 times bigger than the X band value. There would be no use for anything like Nebo , JY-27 whatsoever, because they can easily build small X-band radar 1*1 m or 2*2 m that is not only have extremely long range against stealth aircraft, but also have very quick scan time.
Secondly, you seem to very conventionally forget the common stealth detection range advantage of VHF radar over X-band. I'm not asking you about scan rate, I'm asking you: " if RCS in VHF band is only 5 times better than in X-band, then what the point of VHF radar against stealth aircraft? How can VHF radar detect stealth aircraft from greater range?.




You were provided with documents from different years (1991 - ATF to 2001 - F-22)
You were given a quote from Davidenko (on the first page) of the general designer of the UAC - 2010.
I can also quote Poghosyan (Head of the UAC) from an article on stealth technologies - 2003
In all of them the figure is 0.1 - 0.5 m2.

You, besides "balls", "peas" and articles of journalists, cannot cite anything.

Indeed, these are questions of faith. So I shut up. :D
I love the double standard you are pulling here
When I gave you quote from Robert Wallace, you very quickly try to pass it off as journalistic articles, but you have no problem quote Davidenko and Poghosyan eventhough, their quote are also on articles of some sort ;)
When I gave actual anechoic chamber measurement of F-117 metal model, you comment that it isn't accurate but yet you have no issue believe the Soviet guesstimate of F-22 RCS even though that guesstimate was done before F-22 finalize its shape and 6 years before it made the first flight.;)
In addition, you also lied. I didn't just gave you citation of article, I also gave data from varius radar scattering simulation and even one actual chamber measurement as well as one detection range graph given by Wu Jian Qi, the chief engineer of the CETC group
 

Dev

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
56
Reaction score
31
Когда я приводил вам цитату Роберта Уоллеса, вы очень быстро пытаетесь выдать ее за журналистские статьи, но у вас нет проблем, цитируя Давиденко и Погосяна, хотя их цитата тоже есть в каких-то статьях. ;)
Роберт Уоллес привел какие-то цифры ? RCS измеряется в м2, дБсм и т. Д. Я дал вам цифры , вы - шары, горошины и камешки. Абстракции, которые можно трактовать как угодно, мне не интересны.

Когда я дал фактическое измерение в безэховой камере металлической модели F-117, вы отметили, что это неточно, но все же у вас нет проблем верить советской оценке F-22 RCS, хотя эта оценка была сделана до того, как F-22 завершил свою форму. и за 6 лет до своего первого полета.;)
В документе на С-200 от 1991 г. фигурирует ATF, что соответствует времени первого полета YF-22 (программа ATF - 29 сентября 1990 г.).
Остальные документы и заявления относятся к 2000, 2003, 2010 гг., Когда F-22 уже совершил свой первый полет (7 сентября 1997 г.).
Не вводите читателей в заблуждение.;)
 
Last edited:

LMFS

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
110
Reaction score
129
@Ronny:

this is the kind of backlash sadly to be expected when Western narrative is applied by which Russians are automatically suspect of being backwards and liars. It would be much better if we just express our opinions from the position of admitting that we do not have facts, that is, real RCS measurements needed to settle the dispute. We just have shown some examples of questionable statements by US MIC which some people still take great efforts to defend, despite a long history of those guys being anything but saints.

> The claimed RCS for F-22 is on the level of any of the hundreds of weak scattering sources any fuselage has, so it is unreasonably low.
> F-117 downed, VLO RQ-170 detected and landed on Iran, B-2 modified for low level penetration, trend towards stand-off weapons, autonomous jamming and unmanned aircraft, claims about counter-stealth US radars etc. do not reinforce the impression that US VLO works as claimed. Recently instead of using Turkey's S-400 to show the world their superiority, they reacted in hiysteria at the prospect of those radars getting in close contact with the F-35... why not demonstrate they can dance circles around the system and ruin Russian reputation and their best military export item?
> Russian position regarding expected RCS of Western fighter sized models has remained relatively stable through time in the order of magnitude of -10 dBsm. I don't know if it is right or what does it comprise exactly, but it has not changed too much over time actually, and it includes them operating in the same theater in Syria.

I respect your opinion so don't take this as yet another attempt to convince you, just as a final remark from my side for you to hopefully understand a bit better my (our?) position.
 

stealthflanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
626
Reaction score
298
Well, it's very hard, considering nobody settle on what standard to use in the first place like, what RCS value to use (Average vs "1 side") Or even Frequency.

Measure of "average" is also very vague. Centimetric wave band correspond to old IEEE System which covers S-band down to K band, so if there is figure of "0.1-0.5" sqm in "centimetric wave band" Does that mean the RCS is 0.1 in S-band and 0.5 sqm in K band ?.
 

Scar

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Apr 25, 2019
Messages
26
Reaction score
14
their quote are also on articles of some sort
The science review "FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED PROBLEMS OF STEALTH TECHNOLOGIES" Pogosyan wrote in collaboration with the Director of the Institute of Theoretical and Applied Electrodynamics of the Joint Institute for High Temperatures of the Russian Academy of Sciences Andrey Lagarkov and presented at a meeting to the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences is hardly may be called a journalistic article.

 

Dev

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
56
Reaction score
31
Based on these data, an assessment and further ways of modernizing the S-125 Pechera were carried out.
Some more.
Data for assessment, heading parameter 0 (target flies to the radar).
Why are there two band in the table?
СНР-125 operates in the centimeter band (8.9-9.46 GHz).
Also, for early detection, the P-15 of the decimeter band (810-950 MHz) is attached.

So, the RCS data (0.1m2 for F-22) in the table can be viewed for these bands and from the front side of the aircraft.
 
Last edited:

tequilashooter

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
73
Reaction score
37
@Ronny


HF target class.PNG
HF aircraft RCS.PNG
At most they can classify aircrafts and helicopters Countries integrating Over-The-Horizon (OTH) radars into air defence networks to detect and track stealth Aircrafts, Aircraft carriers and hypersonic missiles | International Defense Security & Technology Inc. (idstch.com)

I cant copy and past so had to image upload.

sapphire crystal.PNG
Their current target spatial resolution at most was 7.5km JORN: a world leading OTHR capability - Australian Defence Magazine

I wonder if that magical crystal in their photonics research team has anything to do with Russia's magical crystal doing these that I have recently found.

photonic radar.PNG

КРЭТ - Концерн Радиоэлектронные Технологии news 3768

“for example, take ground-based radar. Today, this radar is the size of a multi-story home, but using microwave photonics, the station can be installed on a standard KAMAZ truck. The effectiveness and range of the radar would be exactly the same, namely thousands of kilometers. Several of these mobile and small radar systems can be networked, which will only increase their characteristics.”

俄罗斯苏57失败板上钉钉?仍有最后一丝希望反败为胜|俄罗斯|战斗机|雷达_新浪军事_新浪网 (sina.com.cn)

"The detection distance is very far, the energy conversion efficiency is up to 60%, the traditional radar is only 30%, and the noise is more than 100 times lower than the traditional radar, greatly improving the signal-to-noise ratio, for stealth target theory detection distance of more than 500 kilometers!"

Фотонные радары, радиофотоника и стелс-технологии (naukatehnika.com)

"Unlike traditional radars, it will not be physically possible to silence ROFAR by traditional means of EW. The dynamic range of the photon crystal is about 200 DB. Modern electronic receiver, for comparison, has a range of 40 - 60 DB, and we modern EW complexes provide a signal to the entrance of the radio receiver - in 70-80 DB relative to its threshold sensitivity. Thus, the device that needs to receive the signal is displayed from a healthy state. Even after the interference in his inside there are still processes that do not allow him to work. But on Earth there is simply no energy source for a signal with a capacity greater than 200 DB, so this logic in the case of ROFAR simply does not work. It can be confused by so-called intellectual opposition, but this is a different story."

They also claimed like 1hz to 100ghz with the photonic radar in which their 4 band radar is unheard of until now, Than RTI states in 2020 that in 5 years a sub-millimeter radar detection for drones which basically tells me 300ghz+. Only credibility of those very high HF detection capabilities is that somewhere in this year they will use a 10 meter corridor monitoring civilians in a airport to see if they have any items like weapons. I think its could to at least know where the future is heading. This is officially my last post on OTH radars RCS classification, you seem to be having a handful here already.
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
367
Reaction score
145
Роберт Уоллес привел какие-то цифры ? RCS измеряется в м2, дБсм и т. Д. Я дал вам цифры , вы - шары, горошины и камешки. Абстракции, которые можно трактовать как угодно, мне не интересны.
Firstly, there isn't many way to interpret the golf ball, marble. The reason they often used that analogy is because a ball have same RCS from all direction, and therefore easy to grasp
Secondly, Lockheed Martin give the exact amount of detection range reduction due to stealth many times, so it is quite clear and easy to work out the RCS
F-35 detection range reduction 2.PNG


В документе на С-200 от 1991 г. фигурирует ATF, что соответствует времени первого полета YF-22 (программа ATF - 29 сентября 1990 г.).
Остальные документы и заявления относятся к 2000, 2003, 2010 гг., Когда F-22 уже совершил свой первый полет (7 сентября 1997 г.).
Не вводите читателей в заблуждение.;)
You know there was the YF-23 competing with the YF-22 for the ATF program right?. And the YF-22 also changed a lot when it become F-22.
So not only that data is purely speculation, it also made at the time the actual F-22 didn't even take shape yet.
ac8a220c520248f5adb7cf14155aee95.jpg
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
367
Reaction score
145
The science review "FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED PROBLEMS OF STEALTH TECHNOLOGIES" Pogosyan wrote in collaboration with the Director of the Institute of Theoretical and Applied Electrodynamics of the Joint Institute for High Temperatures of the Russian Academy of Sciences Andrey Lagarkov and presented at a meeting to the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences is hardly may be called a journalistic article.

Catchy however, the slide shown by Wu Jian Qi, the chief engineer of China Electronics Technology Group Corporation is not a journalistic article, the F-16 radar scattering simulation from department of aeronautical science of Hellenic Airforce academy isn't a journalistic article, the actual F-117 metal model measurement in Bremen anechoic chamber isn't a journalistic article. The slide about radar detection range reduction from Lockheed Martin also not a journalist article.
There are plenty of official sources that reference much lower RCS value for stealth aircraft.
For example:
important.PNG
rcs.PNG
 

tequilashooter

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
73
Reaction score
37
Radar cross section: The measure of stealth - Military Embedded Systems

"We didn’t discuss long range bomber aircraft in the previous article, but it’s worth throwing those values in here for your reading enjoyment. The B-52 has an RCS of about 100m2. The B-1 bomber is 10m2. The B-2 bomber has an RCS of 0.0001m2, the same as the F-22, the size of a bumble bee. The new B-21 bomber, now being built by Northrop Grumman, is virtually invisible to UHF/VHF radar. It shows up about the size of a mosquito. I am forced to use one formula and do the calculations here, since the return signal is -70db for the B-21, and the RCS in square meters was not on the web anywhere: RCSsm=10db/10 = 10-70/10 = 10-7, or about 0.000001m2. If you ever wondered about it, that’s the size of a mosquito on radar."
 

Dev

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
56
Reaction score
31
Firstly, there isn't many way to interpret the golf ball, marble. The reason they often used that analogy is because a ball have same RCS from all direction, and therefore easy to grasp
I am not interested in the interpretation of abstract objects. That is why they are abstract, that everyone can interpret them in their own way.
I did not see the numbers in your next screenshot.

So not only that data is purely speculation, it also made at the time the actual F-22 didn't even take shape yet.
In 2000-2003, the shape has not yet been determined?
 
Last edited:

tequilashooter

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
73
Reaction score
37
Man I saw the view count after Ronny's response rise to like 14 viewers after 3-5 minutes than after my post 3-5 minutes the viewers dropped to like 5. I am sorry but are there people taking this thread seriously? It reminds me of that 2016 presidential debate where there were like some old women taking the debate seriously writing notes and stuff outside while I was drunk laughing outside watching one of debates with my friends mocking both candidates, than I looked over back at them and they gave me these scolding looks.

FLASHBACK: Back to the Future: The Resurgence of the Flying Wing in the 21st Century > Robins Air Force Base > Article Display (af.mil)

"Northrop constructed the B-2 with materials such as carbon-fiber composite plastics and covered the aircraft with an anti-thermal coating to absorb acoustic, infrared, visual and radar signatures, which greatly reduced the possibility of being identified by various types of detection systems. According to the Air Force in 1990, the RCS of the B-2 is the size of an insect"

We got supposed sources "from experts" saying .01 and .0001m2 all over the place for the B-2. If this is suppose to be a serious thread on stealth RCS than carry on you guys. ;)
 
Top