Gambit only has himself to blame for making ridiculous arguments. I caught him and now he's embarrassed.
1. In post #1587, he raised the "threshold" argument. When I challenged him by mentioning that X-band has a wavelength of 2.5 (one inch) to 4cm, he quietly withdrew his goofy "threshold" argument.
Did I really? Do not presume your simplemindedness onto my arguments.
When Denys Overholser said this: "shape, shape, shape and materials", what he mean is very much threshold and this...
Shaping includes treatments of structures of various sizes, of curvatures, and of planes. For the above illustration, what Overholser meant is to focus on the largest EM structure/radiator/contributor (singular) that your modeling/predicting hinted at and measurement revealed
BEFORE you work on the lesser structures/radiators/contributors (plural). If you cannot reduce that single contributor to below a threshold, any work done on the lesser contributors would be a waste of time, effort, and money because that single dominant radiator would give the aircraft away anyway. Then once that dominant radiator is no longer the dominant contributor you can move on to the lesser contributors, find out which among them became the next dominant radiator, and the process of treatment starts all over again on this new dominant contributor.
With supercomputers, things can accelerate considerably. If your modeling/prediction of the RCS contributorship of one or more dominant radiators hinted at successful reduction by the time of measurement, and if those reductions will reveal potential new dominant radiators, then you can safely perform parallel treatment of those potential dominant radiators. This is a push/pull relationship that must have 'milestones' or pauses to perform genuine measurements between work of modeling/predicting to verify if everyone and every computers have 'carried the two' in their figures.
Threshold -- Get it?
In shaping, what Overholser meant was that you should avoid the 'corner reflector' as much as possible, but if you cannot, then avoid having the 90 deg 'corner reflector' type. That was why the General Dynamics competitor design failed against Lockheed's and Northrop's. The GD design had a single vertical stabilator, creating the typical tail-end vertical-horizontal stabs 'corner reflector' while Lockheed's and Northrop's designs each had twin canted vertical stabs. The 'corner reflector' structures do exist but by canting them away from perpendicular to the fuselage, the Lockheed and Norhthrop designs avoided the 90 deg 'corner reflector'.
But there was the catch: If the (rejected) GD design was competing against pre F-117 aircrafts or 'pre-stealth' but newer designs, most likely it would have beaten them all in the low radar observability area. That was how good (or how low) it was. But against Lockheed's or Northrop's, the GD design could not descend to the lower threshold set by its competitors. In the end, Lockheed and Northrop had to battle it out in other 'non-stealth' or 'less stealth significant' areas such as avionics and aerodynamics to win the contract.
In RCS control, what Overholser meant was that you use the angled faceting technique when applicable, curvatures of various radii to control surface wave behaviors when applicable, material absorber when applicable, geometric absorber or 'saw tooth' devices when applicable, and combinations of these techniques whenever applicable to lower the overall body to meet a certain threshold. Northrop's was lower in RCS but Lockheed's scored higher in other areas and both were lower in the low radar observability threshold.
HAVE BLUE - Experimental Survivable Testbed (XST)
A study began of whether a manned stealth aircraft could be produced. Perko asked five U.S. aircraft companies to examine two questions. First, what were the signature thresholds that an air vehicle would have to achieve to be essentially undetectable at an operationally useful range?
McDonnell Douglas was the first to identify what appeared to be appropriate RCS thresholds (although it couldn't design an aircraft to meet those values). Hughes Aircraft confirmed these. DARPA defined these thresholds as program goals. It was clear that Lockheed and Northrop were far ahead of the others in terms of stealth aircraft design. Northrop had a more comprehensive RCS prediction capability than Lockheed, but, at the time, both capabilities were based on heuristics and empirical testing.
RCS threshold -- Get it?
Major global aviation masters get it. DARPA get it. People here get it. Why not you?
What is that 'operationally useful range'? About 150-200 km distance based upon the typical radar antenna size of the typical fighter, not the AWACS, but the fighter class. That 150-200 km distance is a threshold among many. It is a criteria that you mock and effectively call Overholser -- the man you often quote -- an 'idiot'. Congratulations, you are the first debater I know who calls his supporting source stupid.
Echo 1 was limited to calculations in only two dimensions; this led designers to a faceted design rather than a smooth, seamless one.
This totally shreds your arguments. The more dimensions we are able calculate reflection behaviors, both on surfaces and in free space, the better we are able to understand where and how to set those thresholds to minimize development time.
Threshold -- Get it?
That is why it is laughable for you to declare definitively that a certain structure is 'not stealthy'. Based upon what measurements have you
PERFORMED? Your crayola based ray tracing or full range and anechoic chamber testing? This is why it is laughable for you to say that those saw-toothed geometric absorber devices are 2D while the IRST device is 3D. May be it should be
YOU who should have his eyes checked. Just like the other Chinese boys here who have no relevant experience, you do not understand words in their proper technical contexts and proceed to make absurd pronouncements based upon your flawed understanding and nationalistic zeal.
Go back to CDF and sinodefence where other gullible Chinese will mindlessly swallow what you peddle.
2. In post #1589, he tried to use 2-D saw-toothed edges to illustrate the possibility of a stealthy IRST probe. This Jedi mind trick only works on clueless members. I called him on his b.s. and put up a citation that large round 3-D objects, like the T-50/Pak-Fa IRST probe, are excellent radar reflectors.
News for you, kid, your source -- howstuffworks -- give only the most general information of anything. Not wrong. Just not enough.
In RCS control, a concave structure is far far deadlier to RCS contributorship than a convex structure.
Moral of the story: Don't try to b.s. your way into arguing the T-50/Pak-Fa IRST probe is stealthy. It is not. Raising non-applicable analogies will only draw my withering fire and a citation to prove you wrong. You'll look like an idiot. You have only yourself to blame for trying to pull a cheap trick.
[Note: Quite frankly, I enjoy debating Gambit when he's at his best. However, when Gambit tries to pull a fast one, I will call him on it. That is not why I'm here.
Sooner or later, Gambit will demonstrate a deeper knowledge in some niche area that I find useful. I have a lot of respect for Gambit when he's objective. I find him annoying when he's playing politics and twisting arguments to achieve a political end. Unlike him, I always try to stick to the facts.]
The moral of the story here is that 'Chinese physics' are not applicable in this world. The difference between you and I is that I have nearly 20 yrs of aviation experience with most of that in avionics, in and out of the military. It has been
YOU and the Chinese boys here who have tried to pull many fast ones with your ridiculous claims. Not once have any of you explained things at the foundational level. You may claim to stick to the facts, but you consistently twist the interpretations of them to mislead people.