Iranian S-171 stealth drone in blue sky !

[Rajaraja Chola]

Great achievement by Iran. Wow. Congrats.

 

[Rukarl]

its has low RCS but not stealth ...

lol...what? what does stealth mean to you? if it has low RCS then it is stealth.
In any case, how do you know how stealthy it is? Were you involved in measuring its RCS?

 

[AmirPatriot]

lol...what? what does stealth mean to you? if it has low RCS then it is stealth.
In any case, how do you know how stealthy it is? Were you involved in measuring its RCS?

Low RCS is relative. The norm is the Shahed-129, MQ-1 type conventional UAVs. Flying wing has less control surfaces so it is lower RCS. It would need internal weapons bays to be truly stealth.

 

[Rukarl]

Low RCS is relative. The norm is the Shahed-129, MQ-1 type conventional UAVs. Flying wing has less control surfaces so it is lower RCS. It would need internal weapons bays to be truly stealth.

These are arbitrary definitions here. Giving it internal bays would make it more stealth, this is obvious. There is no true definition of what stealth is. When people say something has small or low RCS they're essentially saying it's stealth. They use the terms interchangeably. Stealth itself is a relative term as there is no such thing as absolute stealth in today's technology. Maybe in the future.

 

[AmirPatriot]

These are arbitrary definitions here. Giving it internal bays would make it more stealth, this is obvious. There is no true definition of what stealth is. When people say something has small or low RCS they're essentially saying it's stealth. They use the terms interchangeably. Stealth itself is a relative term as there is no such thing as absolute stealth in today's technology. Maybe in the future.

Let me give you an example.

An Su-27 is a huge fighter jet with absolutely no regard for reducing RCS.

A J-10C is an ordinary fighter jet but with efforts made to reduce RCS. These include Divertless Supersonic Intakes (DSI), radar absorbing coating and some shaping differences (like the nose) to reduce RCS. But it still has many conventional elements, like a vertical tail (not angled like in all modern stealth designs), all weapons carried externally etc.

The F-22 is a "full fat" stealth aircraft, with all the characteristics associated with stealth aircraft. I don't think I need to explain.

Stealth is not a blanket term for anything with a reduced RCS. Different designs take different approaches in order to account for important factors like cost, performance and role. The small flying wing with the externally mounted smart bombs is clearly using some stealth features - like the inherently low RCS flying wing - but it has not gone the whole way in order to save on cost, complexity and weight.

OldTwilight was clearly not using stealth as an interchangeable term, he was making distinctions between reduced RCS and "full" stealth.

 

[gambit]

thats Saegheh ... its a super cheap and expandable drone that will be used as combat drone ... its has low RCS but not stealth ...

Currently, the word 'stealth' is associated with radar, as in 'radar cross section' (RCS).

Why ?

Because radar is still the best and primary method of detection of anything flying. Not infrared (IR). Not video. And certainly not audio.

So if you are going to use the acronym 'RCS' you are by default associating whatever you say to 'radar stealth' or simply 'stealth' in general.

 

[Aramagedon]

Just love these words America cannot harm

Better translation: America cannot do any shit wrong

 

[PeeD]

Some points:

- S-171 has strong structural differences to the RQ-170. The RQ-170 was rumored to be something like a monolithic airframe due to a very large polymer additive manufacturing machine built for skunk works. This would make the RQ-170 airframe cheap and stealthy.
The S-171 has a airframe made by several large pieces of carbon fiber sheet formed parts. The carbonfiber parts would be structurally stronger but create gaps and revert joint mounted interface brackets. These revert joints are visible at the interface of fuselage to wings and together with the additional gaps created by additional airframe parts, would have negative impact on RCS if no additional RAM or RAS is used. One detail difference is the seperate air inlet radar blocker on the S-171, whereas it seems to be built into the RQ-170s airframe structure.

- Some of the RQ-170 sensor suite and gear is omitted in the S-171. Could well be that this gear is special for nuclear reconnaissance and other too specialized tasks.

So without additional RAM and RAS treatment, the S-171 would have higher RCS due to the different production methods. On the other hand the S-171 airframe could be structurally stronger.

 

[Rukarl]

Let me give you an example.

An Su-27 is a huge fighter jet with absolutely no regard for reducing RCS.

A J-10C is an ordinary fighter jet but with efforts made to reduce RCS. These include Divertless Supersonic Intakes (DSI), radar absorbing coating and some shaping differences (like the nose) to reduce RCS. But it still has many conventional elements, like a vertical tail (not angled like in all modern stealth designs), all weapons carried externally etc.

The F-22 is a "full fat" stealth aircraft, with all the characteristics associated with stealth aircraft. I don't think I need to explain.

Stealth is not a blanket term for anything with a reduced RCS. Different designs take different approaches in order to account for important factors like cost, performance and role. The small flying wing with the externally mounted smart bombs is clearly using some stealth features - like the inherently low RCS flying wing - but it has not gone the whole way in order to save on cost, complexity and weight.

OldTwilight was clearly not using stealth as an interchangeable term, he was making distinctions between reduced RCS and "full" stealth.

I don't need you to tell me which planes are stealth or how stealth works. I tried to explain something simple to you but it seems you're interested in creating your own arbitrary terms. When sometone says something has low RCS they're essentially saying it's a stealth platform. What part of that is so hard to understand?

There is no such thing as "full stealth". You're creating your own terms again. There is no real objective consensus as to when something should be considered stealth or not stealth. Instead people use these terms such as low RCS and stealth interchangeably to describe a platform that has much lower RCS than other planes i.e F-22 compared to F-16.

 

[monitor]

View attachment 340002 View attachment 340003 View attachment 340004 View attachment 340005

I wish one day F-22 will fall from sky unharmed and reversed engineered by Iranian. Congratulation Brother.

 

[AmirPatriot]

Instead people use these terms such as low RCS and stealth interchangeably

I don't.

I re-emphasise this. Something like a J-10C, an F/A-18E/F, a Eurofighter Typhoon, have low RCS. But they are not as focused on stealth as an F-22 or a J-20 is. Stealth is not a blanket term for anything with low RCS. Do you ever hear the J-10 being called a stealth aircraft? Or the Eurofighter? Or the F/A-18?.

OldTwilight even made an effort to distinguish between low RCS and the sort of full stealth that something with an internal weapons bay would have.

here is no such thing as "full stealth"

Are you therefore saying that there is no such thing as partial stealth? Aircraft do not have the exact same RCS you know.

Full stealth very much does exist, simply because partial stealth exists. An aircraft can adopt only some RCS-reducing techniques, since there are more than just one ways to reduce RCS. Actual size, shaping, materials, stealth coating all play a factor. Each of those techniques have certain individual aspects, like for examples the DSI.

 

[Rukarl]

I don't.

I re-emphasise this. Something like a J-10C, an F/A-18E/F, a Eurofighter Typhoon, have low RCS. But they are not as focused on stealth as an F-22 or a J-20 is. Stealth is not a blanket term for anything with low RCS. Do you ever hear the J-10 being called a stealth aircraft? Or the Eurofighter? Or the F/A-18?.

OldTwilight even made an effort to distinguish between low RCS and the sort of full stealth that something with an internal weapons bay would have.

Are you therefore saying that there is no such thing as partial stealth? Aircraft do not have the exact same RCS you know.

Full stealth very much does exist, simply because partial stealth exists. An aircraft can adopt only some RCS-reducing techniques, since there are more than just one ways to reduce RCS. Actual size, shaping, materials, stealth coating all play a factor. Each of those techniques have certain individual aspects, like for examples the DSI.

None of the F-18, EF, J-10C are considered low RCS planes at all. No one reffers to these planes as "low RCS" planes.
You're creating your own random theories. There is no such thing as "full stealth" today as there is not a single plane on the planet that one can consider fully stealth to radar. For the millionth time, people use the term stealth and low RCS interchangeably. I don't know how I can make this any easier for you to understand?

I
Are you therefore saying that there is no such thing as partial stealth? Aircraft do not have the exact same RCS you know.

You keep creating bunch of terms to try and save your argument. Partial stealth compared to what? Fully stealth? Fully stealth does not exists, no such plane exists. Thus all planes with stealth capabilities can be considered what you say i.e partially stealth (to varying degree of course).

Full stealth very much does exist, simply because partial stealth exists. An aircraft can adopt only some RCS-reducing techniques, since there are more than just one ways to reduce RCS. Actual size, shaping, materials, stealth coating all play a factor. Each of those techniques have certain individual aspects, like for examples the DSI.

No it doesn't exists. Show me a single plane that is "Fully stealth" to radars.

Rest of your post is bunch of random comments. I don't need you to explain to me about RCS reduction. We are not talking about RCS lowering techniques but what a "low RCS" plane means and how it compares to "stealth" and I am telling you they are used interchangeably.

 

[Faravahar]

I don't.

I re-emphasise this. Something like a J-10C, an F/A-18E/F, a Eurofighter Typhoon, have low RCS. But they are not as focused on stealth as an F-22 or a J-20 is. Stealth is not a blanket term for anything with low RCS. Do you ever hear the J-10 being called a stealth aircraft? Or the Eurofighter? Or the F/A-18?.

OldTwilight even made an effort to distinguish between low RCS and the sort of full stealth that something with an internal weapons bay would have.

Are you therefore saying that there is no such thing as partial stealth? Aircraft do not have the exact same RCS you know.

Full stealth very much does exist, simply because partial stealth exists. An aircraft can adopt only some RCS-reducing techniques, since there are more than just one ways to reduce RCS. Actual size, shaping, materials, stealth coating all play a factor. Each of those techniques have certain individual aspects, like for examples the DSI.

You don't even make sense dude. Are you replying to @Rukarl for the sake of replying?

When one states a particular plane is a low radar cross section plane that also means it's a stealthy plane. Of course there no such thing as absolute stealth as all planes are vulnerable to radars at different wavelengths and ranges etc. But when someone says X is a low rcs plane it means the same thing as x is a stealthy plane. low rcs means stealthy.It does not matter if you consider J-10 low rcs (and its rcs may be small compared to other random planes you found with higher than rcs compared to it). But fact is, no one will call it a low rcs plane as that terms is reserved by people for planes like F-22, F-35, RQ-170 etc etc.

Hope that clarifies it for you.

 

[AmirPatriot]

@Rukarl @Faravahar

Oh my God. When I talk about full stealth I am talking about design considerations. I have been talking about design considerations in this entire conversation. You do not need to tell me that stealth cannot make aircraft invisible to radar. I am learned enough in these matters.

And for the hundredth time, the only "people" who use low RCS and stealth interchangeably are not using the term correctly. There is a middle ground between an aircraft not dedicated to stealth (Su-27) and an aircraft fully dedicated to stealth (F-22). It would be an aircraft partially dedicated to stealth (J-10C). I can't believe I need to explain this.

We are not talking about RCS lowering techniques but what a "low RCS" plane means and how it compares to "stealth"

I started this whole discussion talking about RCS lowering techniques like internal weapons bays and reduced control surfaces. I then continually talked about DSI, stealth coating and shaping yet you are making it out as if I said "stealth=complete invisibility". You fabricated this whole accusation that I think anything can be completely invisible to radar.

None of the F-18, EF, J-10C are considered low RCS planes at all.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm

Su-27 RCS = 15m^2
F-15 RCS = 25 m^2
F-18 RCS = 1 m^2 (and actually I think that is for the older variants, Boeing claimed in 2000 that the latest version, the F/A-18E/F has an RCS closer to 0.1)
Eurofighter RCS = 0.5 m^2
J-10C RCS is unknown, but with RAM coating, DSI and some stealth shaping expect it to be <1.
F-22 = 0.0001 m^2

Looking at this data, plus observations of designs, its clear that the EF and F-18 use RCS lowering techniques. Compared to a "standard" fighter like the F-15 or Su-27, they have a low RCS. But they are not fully committed to stealth like the F-22.

(and its rcs may be small compared to other random planes you found with higher than rcs compared to it).

No, it is low RCS compared to other fighter aircraft. Not "random", a word which you and Rukarl seem to like. Well I'll reassure you that none of my comments and theories are "random", unless you two want to talk shit, in which case just let me know. I am perfectly capable of talking shit, but that would reduce the conversation into an argument. I don't particularly want that, but if you two do, I am ready to oblige.

Hope that clarifies it for you.

No. As I've already said, I don't need any clarification on what stealth is.

 

[gambit]

What is 'low radar cross section (RCS)' mean ?

Technically speaking, there is no such thing as a 'low RCS' criteria. What we really have is 'lower' or 'higher', in other words, relative in comparison to an accepted standard.

But realistically, a 'low RCS' is an RCS level that is TACTICALLY useful to one side. Or TACTICALLY threatening to the other side.

Is there a reasonably accepted level ? Yes, there is: a clean F-16.

Why not the F-117, the world's first 'stealth' aircraft ? Because the true RCS value (level) of the F-117 is not revealed. That is why a clean F-16 is used.

Most fighter class airborne radar systems uses the X band and most have similar radar antenna dimensions, so the TACTICALLY useful range for the fighter class radar is 120-150 km. We can stretch it out to 200 km but the detection statistics decreases. So 120-150 km range is where a detection is categorized as a 'target' and traceable over time.

So the acceptable criteria is 1m2 at 120-150 km range. The one meter squared energy level is where the radar computer can reasonably process. Anything weaker and the signal can often get lost in background clutter.

Here is something everyone must understand: Any body can and will become 1m2.

A clean F-16 is 1m2 at 120-150 km range.

The F-117, F22, F-35, and B-2 WILL become 1m2 at less than 50 km. If you can detect the F-22 at less than 50 km, according to your radar, you are seconds away from death. An AIM-120 is already on the way to you.

The human body WILL become 1m2 (X-band) at sports arena field length.

A B-52 or C-5 is 1m2 at further than 200 km range.

This mean there are no such things as 'full stealth' or 'partial stealth'. Everything either approaches or departs from that 1m2 criteria.