The red cycled area is the strongest reflection of F-22 by your theory. What is worst, the reflection direction is straight forward, which should be avoid.
So let us look at this graphic again...
Are you telling this forum that the classic diverter plate intake design on the F-22 produced that great of a contrast of a voltage spike compared to the newer DSI 'bump"?
Are you telling us that?
If you are saying so, give us supporting data.
The flaw in your feeble understanding of post 11837 page 790 (mine) is evident.
Your rule has huge flaws. Here are the rules I copied from the paper below(page 138), which was published on Journal of Computations & Modelling, vol.4, no.1, 2014, 129-165
Very good. Let us look at them...Remember, the red comments are
YOURS...
In fact, the monostatic or backscatter RCS depends on the following
- Target geometry
- Target material composition, especially for the surface
- Position of radar antenna relative to target
- Angular orientation of target relative to radar antenna
- Frequency of the electromagnetic energy
- Radar antenna polarization.
The aim is always the same: reflect the radar energy to certain, irrelevant directions, and thus keeping the (monostatic) RCS low.
4.2 Radar absorbing materials
4.4 Active cancellation
Low Observable Principles, Stealth Aircraft and Anti-Stealth Technologies
http://www.scienpress.com/Upload/JCM/Vol 4_1_9.pdf
This is my theory...Which is not really mine to start, but only what I learned from being in the field and active duty...
- Control of
QUANTITY of radiators
- Control of
ARRAY of radiators
- Control of
MODES of radiation
Target geometry -- this falls under under rule 2.
Target material composition -- -- this falls under under rule 2.
Position of radar antenna relative to target -- this falls under under rule 2.
Angular orientation of target relative to radar antenna -- this falls under under rule 2.
Frequency of the electromagnetic energy -- this falls under under rule 2.
Radar antenna polarization -- this falls under under rule 2.
What you do not understand is that the radar cross section (RCS) value of any body is a
FICTITIOUS number. It is 'fictitious' not in the sense that we make it up but 'fictitious' in the sense that the value changes according to how the seeking radar and the body are in physical relation to each other.
Take rule one: Control of
QUANTITY of radiators.
If the F-22 is viewed from the rear aspect, Rule One is in effect to the seeking radar. In other words, the seeking radar cannot calculate what it cannot see. The F-22's intake did not physically disappeared from the jet. The seeking radar just simply cannot see the intakes and if it cannot see them, it cannot calculate the RCS value at that time. If we turn the F-22 around so that the seeking radar can 'see' the jet's intakes and calculate them, then we will have a new RCS value, hence the context of the word 'fictitious' and how Rule One is supported in principle and in actual math.
The contexts of the word 'control' are thus:
- What the target physically have
- What the seeking radar can actually 'see'
Each context affects the other.
This is why your dismissal of the the three rules indicates your ignorance of
ALL the relevant subjects, starting with basic radar detection principles all the way to understanding how low radar observable bodies are designed.
Do you see post 11866? Everything in that post support the three rules. You are just too arrogant to admit to your ignorance.
You have no clue what radar absorbing materials J-20 and F-22 used, you don't know what active cancellation technologies J-20 and F-22 used neither.
Neither jet have active cancellation.
Active cancellation is for another debate but for now -- am willing to bet your ignorance on that subject is even worse than what we have seen so far.
But just for curiosity sake, for either passive or active cancellation, which rule is it?
You don't know J-20 and F-22 radar design which is crucial for RCS deduction.
We can see that at least I know far better than you and your Chinese friends --
COMBINED.
To be stealthy, you need to control both RCS and thermal radiation.
Control? Very good. Now you are learning.
Flying at Mach 2.0 is much easier to be detected.
Nowadays, infrared detector array is much more advanced than the era when F-22 was born. To be stealthy, you can't fly too high at 20000 m, you can't fly too low at 3000 m. Most likely 6000-7000 m. The speed should be lower than 1 Mach, or a little bit higher than 1 Mach. Otherwise, it will be detected from a further distance.
Clue for you, buddy...
Being low radar observable does not give license to be careless. When I was active duty and on the F-111, we trained on how to 'read' the radar warning receiver (RWR) output to avoid detection and still penetrate defended airspace. We were good enough at it -- with 1960s tech -- that the Soviets had no effective defense against the UK based F-111s. That helplessness was confirmed by Adolf Tolkachev and you can look him up.
As I said above, it's an arbitrary statement, we knew little about how J-20 is designed, nor F-22. No one can claim which is more stealthy at all. J-20 was designed 20 years later after F-22, there are a lot of new technologies J-20 can use while F-22 may or may not used.
Hey...Your fellow Chinese on this forum made physics defying claims since the J-20 came out. I just debunked them.