IRANIAN Concept stealth fighter _ ZXX HOUND

[gambit]

Ok, so in a nutshell, why is the F-22 when viewed from top view (the side with most returns as according to surface area) lacking curves?
Why doe it have chines instead of LERX?

Lets forget that in previous post you simply dismissed it as "im way off course".
I'm guessing the designers at LM weren't as much off course as you make the seem.

While you are at it also explain why the predominant shape of contemporary fighters deviated from the tubular fuselage to a more geometrically correct shape with angles when viewed from forward and top?

Also the oval shaped argument when looked from the side-the key word is from the side-where there is less return because of less surface area. So, tradeoffs can be made to accomodate both aerodynamics and stealth.

Explain all this without deflecting attention on some "you might want to review your knowledge ofthis and that" or diagrams of ancient fighters that don't reflect reality.
A good example of this would be the corner thingy-on your picture its is set up at a right angle sowhen it bounces off 2 surfaces it returns in the same path-in contrast to the stealth fighter corners which are all tilted so that the signal isn't returned in the same direction.

As for the F-35 being less stealthy, it is a fact widely recognized on various forums-the USAF posted that info. Going on memory alone here but i remember it saying its shape is optimised for radars in SAM installations, fighters and seekers in missiles. S and X bands iirc-so in theory all it would take is make a radar that works in a different band.
Yes it would be inferior to the other (normal) radar in everything but detection of shapes/surfaces which were designed specifically to beat the X, S band radar.

And someone actually 'Thank' you for that? Sheeesssh....

You obviously have a difficult time accepting the fact that you have at best an incomplete -- if not outright wrong -- understanding of this subject.

In the above example, the curve with the highest RCS and also the smoothest line came from the sphere. But in no way does that mean the sphere is the worst shape when it comes to RCS. It is actually THE BEST shape in that its RCS is CONSISTENTLY THE SAME no matter the radar's orientation. Nothing else as far as shapes, from simple to complex, can match the sphere in its consistency.

Do not confuse 'the same' with being the highest when compare to other shapes.

What you see is an illustration of common shapes -- other than the sphere -- that can have a lower RCS than the sphere but only in an exceptional aspect angle: Frontal. So imagine the seeking radar signal going from 'left to right'.

What is also common among all of the above shapes is that all of them are surface wave inducers.

For example with the plate...

If we continue to tilt the plate from above to horizontal we will eventually meet the point where the return signal will be far lower than the sphere's because the majority of the signal became surface wave signal and not direct reflected signal. Likewise, if you take any of the shape from the top illustration and rotate it, eventually you will meet the point where its RCS will be greater -- far greater -- than the sphere's. But for now, the reason why these shapes produces such complex reflected signals is because of their diverse surfaces, which are not consistent. They may be symmetrical, but they are not consistent. So for all of the above shapes -- not including the sphere -- their RCS-es will varies. Their RCS-es already varies while being stationary. Now mentally rotate them in one axis...Then two and three axes.

For the sphere, no matter how you rotate it, the sphere look exactly the same and it will produces the same RCS. That is why the sphere is usually used as a calibration standard in radar detection.

A complex body is comprised of many of these complex shapes and never in its entirety for each of these shapes. Not even the cylinder -- missile -- is unitary. A missile has fins or 'plates'. We can break the missile down to discrete shapes but as far as a complex body goes, the missile is no different than an aircraft, a toaster, a bottle, or a human figure, all are complex bodies and all will present diverse RCS-es with each RCS being a complex signal.

That said...When it comes to looking at a complex body from a 'global' perspective, we can even see that a complex body can exhibit a general shape as that of a simple shape...

The F-22 from a 'global' perspective exhibit an overall shape similar -- not exactly -- like that of an ogive (oh-ghee-vee not oh-zee-vee). This shaping is not accidental. It is a shape whose intention is to be for meters long wavelengths as well as shorter ones. So if the F-22 maneuvers while it is inside a radar beam, of course at one point it will present itself a view like that of a plate to the seeking radar. See 2nd illustration. This is completely unavoidable UNLESS the aircraft does not maneuver and is lucky enough to be at the frontal aspect AT ALL TIMES, which we know is highly unlikely.

You must also try to understand that a radar beam is not a 'beam' despite the casual wording but more like a cone or even a fan depending on antenna shape...

Beamwidth and beamshape WILL produce different RCS-es from the same complex body even if said body is stationary. For fan shape beams there is the beamshape which give us that fan shape imaging, beamwidth which came from distance where the further from the radar the wider the fan angle, and beam thickness which is obvious enough.

The vertical fan beam as it sweeps laterally -- side to side -- will impact one wing before the other. The horizontal fan beam as it sweeps vertically -- up/down or nodding -- will hit both wings at the same time. So there will be slightly different RCS-es from the same complex body.

A truly conical beam will impact just about every part of the aircraft at the same time, producing a different RCS and a mono-pulse system with four true conical beams...

...Will produce an even different RCS from our same complex body.

The 'global' shapes of the B-2, F-22, and F-35 are much more sophisticated than they look because we -- the US -- have taken into consideration the seeking radar's factors. So just because you cannot see the curvatures on the F-22...

...Does not mean those curvatures do not exist.

It would be interesting to know out of what composites the F-22 is made and if they have some inherent radar absorbing characteristics that make the use of coatings "obsolete" or moot.

Composites does not automatically mean absorber properties. That is the greatest misconception whenever anyone throw up the word 'composite'.

Concrete is a composite: Gross.

Stainless steel is a composite: Molecular.

Water is a composite: Atomic.

That mean YOU are made up of composites. Comprende?

I fully expect you to 'handwave' away everything I said above. They are too basic. But even though they are necessary for the greater understanding of this interesting subject, the majority of people frequenting forums like this one do not look for illumination but rather confirmation of what they ALREADY made up in their minds from their incomplete and even outright wrong understanding of the subject. I say the above for the benefit of the silent readers, many of whom are genuinely interested and have no problems admitting their ignorance. At least to themselves.

 

[longbrained]

I say the above for the benefit of the silent readers, many of whom are genuinely interested and have no problems admitting their ignorance. At least to themselves.

A Persian Proverb:

“He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool—shun him. He who knows not and knows that he knows not is a child—teach him. He who knows and knows not that he knows is asleep—wake him. He who knows and knows that he knows is wise—follow him.”