Well you can hold your views, no problem... and anyway, all I was trying to convey is that some aircraft don't go all the way in reducing RCS, doesn't matter what you call it...
But it does matter.
Names and labels set the initial mental step for understanding anything, and when the discussion involves scientific issues that requires accuracy and precision, the proper names and labels and their contexts are very important. Scientists and engineers do use casual names and labels, but they do it base on the expectation that their receivers are on the same plane of understanding. On a public forum like this one where laymen abounds, those like me who have experience in the field must tread very carefully lest I misled those lay readers.
The words 'full stealth' implies an external and fixed measurable standard, which is incorrect considering the reality that the radar cross section (RCS) value is a 'fictitious' value. I do not mean that this value, such as 1 meter square at so-and-so distance, is conjured out of someone's imagination like a book of fiction.
In popular speech, the context of 'fiction' is something imaginary and temporary. But in the field of radar detection, the context of 'fiction' is that the target is real, its radar detectability is real, but that its RCS value is a
VARIABLE. Not imaginary, but a factor that has numerical variations under specific environmental conditions.
So the label 'full stealth' implies that there is a fixed standard for low radar observability based upon a known RCS value, which is not true. You are free to continue using 'full stealth', but my advice is against. Saying a design has 'some or limited RCS reduction methods employed' is indeed clumsy and is a mouthful of words, but even for scientists and engineers who love to come up with acronyms and short cuts in language, there are times when we must place a higher priority on accuracy and precision.
Guys , I didn't want to begin a scientific discussion here ... I just meant that saegheh has lower RCS than our current drones and it's harder to detect it ....
Don't make things so complicated ....
You are treading into two dangerous areas: scientific and emotional.
Whenever people say 'mine is better than yours', immediately the burden is upon me to prove why mine is better in some measurable ways. Is it taller and if it is, by how much ? And when you are insinuating that taller is superior, you are touching on the emotional side. People are touchy about that.
When you starting saying Iran is capable of doing X and there is an objection to what you say, all sides have to back up their arguments. If X intrudes into the technical realm, then everyone must negotiate that technical minefield.
