Proof or bust.Good joke, 3 F-117 have been destroyed
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Proof or bust.Good joke, 3 F-117 have been destroyed
I'm surprise that Diplomat use Want China Times as it's resource. So, Want China Times has leveling up and become a credible source of China military news?
The joke is still on you, kid.Ohh yes bombing some banana republics that have no Air Defense and you think it is a proven technology to be completley stealth and unlockable? Good joke, 3 F-117 have been destroyed, 1 MiG-29 and another SAM kill and the US denied all three unfortunatley one crashed on Serbian soil otherwise today non of those crappy planes would be officially destroyed. Not to mention that those "Stealth" jets were escorted by F-15 and EW aircrafts that provided ECM area around "stealth" aircrafts that the old and unhandled SAMs in Iraq wouldn't even have a chance to lockon.
VHF is highly reliable to track LO/VLO aircrafts and will paint them and the funny thing is you call that russian propaganda while believing physically not possible nonsense like Lockheed Martins propaganda lies of 0.00001m² RCS which is impossible to achieve, both come just beneath 1m² and not lower than 0.005m² and that only under optimal conditions in best agnles in labors not in real life.
Here is my take on Ufimtsev and 'stealth'...Of course only mumbling of an ami fanboy who has no clue and tries to discredit Petr Ufimtsevs work, without this russian fellow US would not have a single stealth aircraft today, the US tried for years to achieve a stealth aircraft but was working on a dead end route untill Petr Ufimtsev came, his mathematical work was used on every existing stealth object be it F-117,F-22,B-2 or Zumwalt or any other stealth object. Russians were not interested because such shapes are not really aerodynamic and didn't believe that such an object would even fly, russians also could have developed ERA in WW2, but some of the generals said they will not equip their tanks with Dynamit and 2 decades later it was done.
No Petr Ufimtsev no Stealth technology, it was his work and you little ami fanboy hates to see russians being the technology holder of it.
If that is your line of argument, then we can say that the Chinese military, the one you are cheering for, is nowhere as combat ready and that mean this VHF radar cannot be certified as be able to track an F-117 class body. After all, what 'stealth' aircraft does the Chinese have to show the system does work ?Yes the F-35 when that crap thing starts to work call back, same as for Raptor when it starts to kill enemies and not own pilots then you can claim that something is the best, so far no 5th gen fighter has even anywhere near combat ready and operational status then any 4.5th Gen Fighter, they are without doubt till this date dominating untill the 5th Gen fighter become operational, but they all have to many disease and bugs that make them useless.
You are truelly limited in understanding of physics which is an irony since you are the parrott that can not stop to use this word.The joke is still on you, kid.
Even if we grant you the delusion that 3 F-117s were shot down, the statistics still have the last laugh: NATO flew over 30,000 sorties. If what Zoltan Dani did was so great against the F-117, that means it should be better against 'non-stealth' fighters, right ? Or are you saying that somehow what Dani did worked only against 'stealth' fighters ? If that is the case, then you are truly out of your league in this discussion. We have seen 'Chinese physics' and 'Iranian physics' on this forum. What kind of physics are you practicing ?
Here is my take on Ufimtsev and 'stealth'...
F-22 / F-35 5th Generation jets | News & Discussions. | Page 18
If that is your line of argument, then we can say that the Chinese military, the one you are cheering for, is nowhere as combat ready and that mean this VHF radar cannot be certified as be able to track an F-117 class body. After all, what 'stealth' aircraft does the Chinese have to show the system does work ?
I can tell that the technical aspects of this discussion is way over your head, kid.
No...It is YOU who do not understand basic physics, kid.You are truelly limited in understanding of physics which is an irony since you are the parrott that can not stop to use this word.
No...It is not impossible to achieve. And yes, RCS is dependent on many factors, of which frequency employed is one of them. But people on this forum already know that from me, loooooong before you got here. You brought on nothing new, kid. As far your absurd claim that such a low RCS is impossible to achieve, that mean it is YOU who have no understanding of physics. With the right combination of freq employed, distance involved, and certain environmental conditions, an aircraft, especially a 'stealthy' one, will not produce any RCS at all. You do not seems to understand that atmospheric losses works both ways, from the seeking radar and from the echoes off the target....0.00001m² RCS is just impossible to achieve and RCS is affected by use of different wave lengths.
No...Ufimtsev is NOT. Period.Petr Ofimtsev is the father of stealth, period.
No...It is YOU who do not understand basic physics, kid.
No...It is not impossible to achieve. And yes, RCS is dependent on many factors, of which frequency employed is one of them. But people on this forum already know that from me, loooooong before you got here. You brought on nothing new, kid. As far your absurd claim that such a low RCS is impossible to achieve, that mean it is YOU who have no understanding of physics. With the right combination of freq employed, distance involved, and certain environmental conditions, an aircraft, especially a 'stealthy' one, will not produce any RCS at all. You do not seems to understand that atmospheric losses works both ways, from the seeking radar and from the echoes off the target.
No...Ufimtsev is NOT. Period.
Because that is exactly what you are.A true fanboy is visible on how he gets butthurt and starts trying to discredit others by calling them "kids".
Then why not go to that thread and dispute what I said about the -229 in a TECHNICAL manner ?Everything you mumbled about Reimar Horten was such a fantastic story that completley contradicts with radar scattering and the to that time current radars and unterstanding of radar scattering.
It was hilarious that you claimed a zero RCS is impossible without providing a shred of technical evidence for it.But yes keep up your fanboyism and no stand ground to russian technology, claim it for yourself does not change reality what people mumble out of blind fanboyism.
No...All Ufimtsev did was accelerated the development of PTD, if not under that label, then it would have been under another label. The behaviors of radar scattering was already well known. If you cannot distinguish the difference between knowledge of those behaviors versus the mathematical formalization of them, then it is true that you are a child and a clueless fanboy. Credit should be given where it is due and we gave appropriate credit and respect to Ufimtsev. But the true creator of 'stealth' rests with the US, particularly Lockheed.Petr Ufimtsev without him there would not be F-117/22/35 or any vessel or anything else.
Pyotr Yakovlevich Ufimtsev (Russian: Пётр Я́ковлевич Уфи́мцев) (born 1931 in Altai Krai) is a Soviet/Russian physicist and mathematician, considered the seminal force behind modern stealth aircraft technology. In the 1960s he began developing equations for predicting the reflection of electromagnetic waves from simple two-dimensional shapes.[1]
Much of Ufimtsev's work was translated into English, and in the 1970s American Lockheedengineers began to expand upon some of his theories to create the concept of aircraft with reduced radar signatures.[2]
Hey SRBM2 don't argue with the aircraft cleaner Gambit, he have all textbook about avionics. When you see reply delay he have to go through textbooks, if he busted he will call kids. Even saying Russian physics or chinese physics only Gambit is correct.
Below is a gift for you gambit
What do you guys have ?Hey SRBM2 don't argue with the aircraft cleaner Gambit, he have all textbook about avionics.
Yes, i've served 4 years in germany, but that does not matter there are planty of people like Fofanov who did not serve and is sill a well known and accepted military expert for soviet tanks.You guys are so funny!..........I do enjoy reading your posts..........but seriously are any of you genuinely ex-military men or have worked for defence companies?
Why not fly a J-20 and have this radar detect it. That way you will come to know which one is faulty