What's new

My PAK-FA analysis

haha..was wondering when you will get your hands on this post.
Electricaly charged skin !!! You have to wonder..all that static electricity due to friction with the air ..why did they try to get rid of it all these years...they should have kept it..airplanes would be invisible since the first jet flew.... :coffee:

Here read this Popular Science - Google Books

See thats what i meant posting here is a catch 22 situation. If you use to much technical language (Like many posters do) no one understands anything and you get many useless thanks. on the other hand if you use less formal and easier to understand language, everyone on board comes down to ridicule you. lol impossible to win :P
 
Stealth Technology/ Low observable technology

Lockheed Martin's F-117A Nighthawk stealth fighter was the star of the Gulf War, flying behind enemy lines to hit Baghdad targets with pinpoint accuracy. At night, the F-117 was unstoppable. But by day, the black jet stayed on the ground.

The F-117 isn't fast enough to outrun missiles or agile enough to dodge them, and it can't fight back because it's armed only with bombs. These limitations don't matter at night, because the F-117's stealthy shape enables the aircraft to avoid detection by enemy radar. But in the light of day, the enemy can see the black plane against the sky, and can take aim without the help of radar.

F-117 pilots train almost exclusively for night missions, and the darker it gets the happier they are. But this is a compromise at best. In the summer, a night-only fighter can fly only one sortie per day. And the darkness that hides the F-117 also hides its targets.

Air Force generals would love nothing more than to have a stealth aircraft that would be invulnerable during daylight hours, as well as at night. And as Popular Science has learned, military engineers are already hard at work on the technologies needed to build such a plane. Special lights, coatings, and other technologies under investigation could not only make future fighters disappear from radar screens, but could also make them almost completely invisible to the human eye. By the early 2000s, stealth may be practical in broad daylight.

Today's experiments exploit a principle that was demonstrated half a century ago, in a secret project codenamed Yehudi . In that project, engineers mounted lights on an antisubmarine aircraft to make it harder to spot against a bright sky. Similar technology was used in the Vietnam War to shorten the distance at which the F-4 Phantom could be detected.

Lighting systems were available when Lockheed's Skunk Works was awarded the contract to build Have Blue, the world's first stealth aircraft, in 1976. The breakthrough that made Have Blue possible was the ability to reduce an airplane's radar reflectivity to less than one-hundredth of what was considered normal in the 1960s, slashing the effective range of enemy radar. Reducing the radar reflectivity so dramatically meant that the designers of Have Blue also had to reduce the visual and infrared signatures of the plane, according to a rule of thumb known as "balanced observables."

This rule says that a stealth aircraft should be designed so that every detection system arrayed against it has roughly the same range. There is no point in building an airplane that is invisible to radar at five miles if optical sensors can see it at ten miles.

Have Blue was the prototype for an aircraft that would make its attack run at a moderate altitude of 10,000 to 15,000 feet-close enough to designate the target accurately, but high enough to elude medium-caliber gunfire. At the time, the designers' goal was an aircraft that would be as stealthy in daylight as at night.

The designers realized that visual detection depends on a number of factors, including the position of the observer, his angle of view, the position of the sun, and the presence of haze or clouds. Altitude is extremely important. A jetliner at its cruising height always appears brightly lit in the sky, because dust and moisture in the air beneath the aircraft scatter light onto its underside. There are relatively few particles of dust and water in the thin air above the airplane. So the higher the plane flies, the more light is scattered onto it, and the darker the sky behind it.

A dark color that absorbs as much light as possible provides the best camouflage for a high-flying airplane. But even the jet-black Blackbird and U-2 spyplanes look brighter than the sky when seen from below as they cruise at 80,000 feet. At lower altitudes, there is less light-scattering atmosphere below the aircraft, so lighter colors provide the least contrast.

For Have Blue, Lockheed devised a scheme of graduated grays, lighter on the bottom and darker on top. The aircraft's designers also planned to test light apertures, which would be installed on the sides and undersurfaces of the airplane, about two feet apart. (Seen from a distance, the individual lights would blur into a single image.) The apertures would be connected to a central light source by fiber optic lines, and their output would be controlled by light sensors on the upper side of the aircraft. The sensors would "read" the background light and adjust the skin's luminance to mirror it.

This system never flew on Have Blue, possibly because the first aircraft was lost in an accident. Work on visual stealth continued, however.

In 1980, the Air Force tested a small aircraft, probably unmanned, under a project known as IMCRS (what the acronym stands for is not known). The aircraft's lower wing skins incorporated slit-like Fresnel lenses to beam light ahead of and below the aircraft, in the direction of the most likely threats.

The IMCRS experiment may have been related to a Defense Advanced Research Project Agency program known as Active Camouflage. Under that program, a small powered drone was fitted with fluorescent lamps and tested at the White Sands Missile Range with so much success that the project has since been reclassified as Top Secret.

Neither of these lighting systems were adopted for stealth aircraft in the 1980s. They were complex to install and design. Their effects were hard to predict and difficult to test. Carefully designed conventional camouflage worked well enough under most circumstances to ensure that an aircraft would not be visible before a radar could detect it.

So why were the first F-117s painted soot black instead of a toned gray scheme that would provide better camouflage? One Lockheed engineer recalls that the commander of Tactical Air Command "didn't believe that real fighter pilots flew pastel-colored airplanes." An Air Force source close to the program says that some senior officers doubted the F-117 could survive in daylight, and wanted to ensure that nobody would try it.

Black is one of the least stealthy colors for daytime flying at medium altitudes. In fact, the British Royal Air Force is painting its trainers black to make them more visible and reduce the risk of collisions. Black isn't much good at night either, because there is nearly always some light from the moon. That's why the latest F-117s have been seen in a more sensible gray color.

The B-2 stealth bomber's underside is a very dark gray. Many people think that it is designed to attack only at night, like the F-117. This is unlikely, because the B-2 was designed to bomb Russia, and the most direct route from the center of the United States to central Russia lies smack across the Arctic Circle, where the sun shines 24 hours a day for a large part of the year.

The B-2's underside is dark because it cruises at altitudes as high as 50,000 feet, where a dark gray blends into the sky. It does not use an "active camouflage" lighting system, but it may have an upward-facing light sensor that tells the pilot when to increase or reduce altitude slightly to match the changing luminance of the sky.

It appears likely that active camouflage will make a comeback in the 2000s. Improvements in radar stealth have reached a point where visual and infrared signatures are dominant. One sign of increasing interest in the non-radar aspects of stealth is that the Air Force has commissioned a new flying laboratory called FISTA II (Flying Infrared Signature Technology Aircraft), to replace a vehicle that has been used since the early 1960s to measure the heat signatures of airplanes.

A modified tanker aircraft, FISTA II carries not only ultra-sensitive infrared imagers but also a visual imaging system, an indication that the Pentagon is becoming serious about visual stealth.

Modern follow-ons to Yehudi are both more effective and easier to install. Instead of individual lights, the Pentagon has tested thin fluorescent panels of the type already used on military aircraft for nighttime formation flying. A civilian technician working at the isolated Tonopah Test Range airstrip in Nevada says he witnessed a test of an F-15 Eagle with a prototype system. According to the technician, the fighter virtually disappeared as it lifted off the runway.

"We had no problem acquiring the aircraft from about a mile away," the technician recalls, "but at distances over two miles it became harder and harder to spot. Although it was a crude system, it was pretty impressive. Trying to pick out the aircraft against a clear, blue sky was next to impossible. The only time we could easily spot the aircraft was when it produced an unexpected contrail." (Contrails form when the water vapor in aircraft exhaust freezes. On the B-2 and F-117, anti-contrail systems inject chemicals into the exhaust stream to break water into droplets too small to be seen.)

An even more experimental active-camouflage system uses thin sheets of light-emitting polymer that glow and change color when charged. Different voltages cause the sheets to glow blue, gray, white, or whatever shade is needed to match the sky. As an added advantage, the thin sheets are easy to apply to existing aircraft.

One such "electrochromic" polymer has been developed at the University of Florida, and the Air Force is studying it as a way of applying a variable tint to the cockpit canopy of a fighter aircraft. In theory, such a coating could also be used over a white-painted skin to vary its color.

But what about concealing an aircraft from an enemy flying above it? Defense contractors have told Popular Science that an even more exotic invisibility system is being tested on two new stealth aircraft at the high-security Groom Lake air base in Nevada. The skin is derived from an electromagnetically conductive polyaniline-based radar-absorbent composite material. It is optically transparent except when electrically charged, much like the LCD panels used in laptop computers.

What makes this new material attractive is that it can change brightness and color instantaneously. Photosensitive receptors, mounted on all sides of the plane, read the ambient light and color of the sky and ground. An onboard computer adjusts the brightness, hue, and texture of the skin to match the sky above the plane or the terrain below it.

The system is also claimed to make the aircraft even stealthier. The electrically charged skin dissipates radar waves, reducing the range at which an air defense radar can track the aircraft by as much as 50 percent.

Such systems do not have to be perfect. The goal is not to build an invisible airplane, but to delay the visual acquisition of an aircraft for as long as possible. In fact, the most effective way of fooling either the eye or a missile may be to present it with an image that is difficult to interpret.

Using fast-changing electrochromic panels, the military is experimenting with "flickering skins" that could prevent missiles from locking onto their targets. In demonstrations at Groom Lake, engineers have turned the entire skin of an aircraft into a missile jammer by applying a special coating that flickers in intensity in both the visible and infrared spectrum.

A flickering skin could help aircraft hide from a new generation of missiles that use visual and infrared sensors to build an image of a target. Older heat-seeking missiles could be lured away from aircraft by decoys-hot flares ejected during flight. But the newer missiles use visual sensors to "see" the edges of an aircraft and distinguish its shape from that of a decoy. A shimmering skin, which looks something like a desert mirage, confuses the missile's sensors by displacing or distorting the aircraft's image.

Engineers have also taken steps to reduce the heat signatures of military aircraft. In the 1970s, infrared sensors had a much greater range than visual imaging systems-video cameras with telephoto lenses that were mainly used to track or identify targets that had already been detected. Infrared accordingly became the stealth designers' second priority, after radar.

Infrared sensors detect hot spots, such as engine exhaust or the leading edges of the wing, which are heated by air friction. At closer ranges, infrared sensors detect solar radiation glinting off curved surfaces or scattering from the skin.

Designers countered infrared sensors in several ways. The exhaust nozzles were flattened into slits, because a flat nozzle has a longer perimeter than a round plume, and the exhaust mixes more quickly with the cool air.

Designers also developed paints containing compounds such as zinc sulfide, to suppress reflections from the airplane's skin. Paint cannot eliminate the heat generated by skin friction, but special coatings can change the "emissivity" of the surface-that is, the efficiency with which it transforms heat into infrared radiation. Only certain wavelengths of infrared radiation travel efficiently through the atmosphere, so the goal is to concentrate infrared radiation outside those bands and let the atmosphere soak it up.

Low-infrared paints and coatings are now widely used on many aircraft. Lockheed Martin even coated a 747, reducing its infrared signature tenfold.

After years of research focused on the suppression of infrared and radar signatures, aircraft designers now appear to be giving more attention to visual stealth. There are still some basic physical problems to be solved. For example, even a very efficient lighting system requires a lot of energy to match the brightness of the sky, equivalent to several times the power absorbed by the fighter's radar. Experts in the field of electrochromic materials caution that there are major technical hurdles that have not yet been cleared in the unclassified world, and not for lack of interest: The building industry would love to see a practical, large-area electrochromic film, because it could greatly reduce the energy needed to heat and cool buildings.

Electrochromic materials must not only be able to change color, but also to withstand sunlight and extreme weather, and continue operating through many switching cycles. The problems are compounded for a stealth aircraft, because the material must also be compatible with existing radar and infrared stealth technologies. This may well be the reason why, for now, visual stealth measures are confined to a few experimental aircraft-and may stay that way for some time to come.

Hope I satisfy someone now lol The tech used on the F-117A is quite similar to the one used on the F-22, F-35 and in the future the T-50. Yes the technology has moved on futher but the basic idea remains the same.
 
Here read this Popular Science - Google Books

See thats what i meant posting here is a catch 22 situation. If you use to much technical language (Like many posters do) no one understands anything and you get many useless thanks. on the other hand if you use less formal and easier to understand language, everyone on board comes down to ridicule you. lol impossible to win :P
Project Yehudi is old news. Everyone in the radar detection business knows about it. The concept was sound but to date, radar detection techniques consistently outpaces any attempt to mask an airborne body in the visual spectrum.
 
Yes...Quite often it is the Russians and the Chinese who are comparing the PRAT-FALL with the F-22 and F-35. lol.


But did you just criticize others for making comparisons?


If a PhD does not mean one knows everything, as you said, then throwing plenty of money at a project does not mean it will succeed. Right, comrade?


I do. At least some.


Yes...We shall see.


The language is crude but acceptable.


All bodies, from organic to metallic, reflects an impinging EM wave. But essentially, a hard body, such as that of a metal or even plastic, reflects more energy.


Nothing is 'invisible' to radar detection. We can detect raindrops, albeit in cluster, but detect them nevertheless.


No violations of the laws of physics here.


Wrong...A sphere or curve is a natural radar low observability planform due to the 'creeping wave' effect...

Creeping wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Wrong...You are seriously out of date, buddy. First...What is casually thrown out as 'stealth' is properly called 'radar avoidance' or being a 'noncooperative' target. An airliner is a 'cooperative' target, it wants everyone to know it is out there. In contrast, hostile aircrafts, be it a fighter or even the giant C-5, because they have hostile intents, they want to be 'noncooperative'. Second...Flying below the radar horizon make ANY aircraft a 'noncooperative' target, hence automatically a 'stealth' aircraft. Throwing out a lot of ECM measures also make an aircraft a 'noncooperative' target.


Like what? Did you missed a copy/paste somewhere after the colon? Looks like you are lifting your arguments from someone else's.


In addition to what? You cannot say 'in addition' without giving the readers some previous info. You may want to review whatever sources you have the next time you want to copy/paste your arguments.


The F-22 uses far less absorbers than the F-117 and it has a lower overall RCS. On the F-22, absorbers are most prominent on leading edges such as intakes and control surfaces. To achieve such radar low observability, the F-22 and F-35 uses mostly curves to exploit the 'creeping wave' effect. There are some angled faceting and some absorbers.


No problem there.


Proper word is 'faceting' or the phrase 'angled faceting'. The F-117 used this technique prominently. The F-22 and F-35 considerably less. See 'creeping wave' effect.


What kind of explanation is that? Fly-by-wire in analog form was in the F-16. Prior to that, we have computer assisted 'stability augmentation' in mechnical flight control systems.


Not going to bother with this one.

Gambit dont try lol Your true love for the F-22 and F-35 are undeniable. Read my previous post for all your answers.

P.S. i just noticed that you have received thousands of thanks but never even cared to thank anyone even once. WOW thats truly amazing, speaks a lot about you. :cheers:
 
Project Yehudi is old news. Everyone in the radar detection business knows about it. The concept was sound but to date, radar detection techniques consistently outpaces any attempt to mask an airborne body in the visual spectrum.

I think you missed the post where i said that true stleath on the visual spectrum is not possible but yes efforts to keep the aircraft as hard to spot as possible are still on.
 
Great...More wholesale copy/paste jobs.

Isnt that something you do also with your countless repeating diagrams and articles. Dont kid me gambit we both know where all these pics and overly technical articles can come from. Putting things you read in your words is the same as copying and pasting lol
 
Principles of LPRL Technology

LPRL IR stealth coating technology alters the thermal emissivity of a host. Emissivity is defined as the ratio of radiant energy emitted by a body to the radiant energy emitted by a black body at the same temperature. Formally,

where e is the emissivity, and Wgray body (Wblack body) is the total radiant energy emitted by a gray body (black body) at a given temperature. Hence an emissivity of unity corresponds to a perfect black body, while an emissivity of 0 corresponds to a completely non-emissive material.

The radiation emitted by a black body is described by Planck’s Law and is shown below in Figure 1 for several temperatures. As the temperature increases, the peak emission wavelength shifts towards the blue. This is known a Wien’s law, and is described by the formula

where lmax is the wavelength in microns of the peak of the radiant emittance and T is the temperature in Kelvin.


Spectral radiant emittance from a black body at several temperatures.

LPRL IR stealth coatings exploit LPRL’s patented selective emissivity technology, which enable our coatings to shift the energy of the emitted radiation outside the detectable band.

For example, we show below the spectral radiant emittance from a body at 700 K (427 C) that is coated with a coating of LPRL low observable paint, and the same thing coated with a broad-band metallic-based low observable paint. Note that the emittance from the LPRL coated object is reduced in band II (3 to 5 mm), and is increased outside of this band (red curve is above black dashed curve outside of band II). The same object coated with a metallic-based low emissivity coating also emits less in band II (although not to the extent of the LPRL coating), but does not shift the emittance into the atmospheric absorption band (5 to 10 mm) as does the LPRL coating. In addition, since the broad-band coating acts as a thermal insulator, the temperature of the underlying object is increased to a much greater extent than for the LPRL coating.


The spectral radiant emittance from a 1 cm black body cube heated to 700 K (427 C, dashed curve), the same cube coated with an LPRL low emissivity coating (red curve), and coated with a broad-band metallic-based low emissivity coating (blue curve).[/B

The LPRL coating not only render IR detection more difficult by reducing the emission in band II, but, by perturbing the spectral distribution of the emitted radiation, also deceives thermal images that rely on reference spectra to arrive at the brightness temperature of an object. In addition, being non-metallic in nature, LPRL low emissivity coatings are also compatible with radar absorbing materials (RAM), and may therefore be used in multipurpose coatings (IR/RAM), which we describe in more detail below Finally, LPRL coatings minimize the thermal penalty of low emissivity coatings.
 
Combined Infrared and Radar Stealth

IR stealth technology has often been discussed as separate from radar stealth technology. However, in the near future coatings will have to perform both functions simultaneously in order to counter the threat of dual mode missile guidance systems such as the MICA air-to-air missile that equips, among others, the Mirage 2000-5. In general, a unit’s coating will need to satisfy the requirements of the missions for which it was designed. For example, ground-support aircraft face very different threats than tanks or ships or aircraft designed with air superiority assumed, and the coatings of each will be different. Certain zones need only an IR stealth or RAM coating, while other zones require a combined IR/RAM stealth coating.
As discussed above in the brief review of stealth technologies, it is difficult to combine IR and radar stealth because current IR stealth materials are based on electrically conductive elements, which are highly reflective in the radar domain. Hence the dielectric nature of the LPRL IR stealth coatings proves advantageous for creating combined IR/RAM coatings because the active elements that provide IR stealth do not perturb the RAM characteristics. On the contrary, LPRL IR stealth coatings actually provide a modest amount of radar furtivity.

To provide true multipurpose coatings (combined IR and radar stealth coatings) LPRL IR low observable coatings must be combined with radar absorbing materials, using either a multilayer or homogeneous approach. The schematic diagram below gives the essence of these two approaches.
7628254dc35a012e5eca4f200a830daf.gif

A schematic diagram showing two different approaches for making dual-purpose coatings (IR and radar stealth).

The multilayer architecture consists of applying sequential layers of different coatings. In this approach, the outer layer typically provides the IR stealth properties, without perturbing the RCS of the host. The inner layer is designed to reduce the RCS.

In the homogenous material the active dopants that provide IR or radar stealth are blended together in precise stoichiometric ratios that are varied depending on the application (aircraft, ship, tank…) and/or mission. These coatings are typically much thicker than IR low observable coatings, since the wavelength in the GHz (radar) regime is longer than in the IR regime.
We note that although LPRL has developed RAM coatings, our core competency is IR stealth coatings, and tuning these coatings for RAM compatibility or to meet other mission-specific requirements. Therefore, our primary thrust in this field is to exploit our IR stealth technology in partnership with current manufacturers of RAM coatings to develop multifunction coatings.
 

Isnt that something you do also with your countless repeating diagrams and articles. Dont kid me gambit we both know where all these pics and overly technical articles can come from. Putting things you read in your words is the same as copying and pasting lol
No...It is not. If that is true, then there would be no need for teachers, right? All we have to do is toss out text books and after a while give exams, right? My explanations of basic principles are not 'overly' technical. May be to you, but certainly not to the general readership. The sources I presented are not meant to be instructional but to give interested readers a way of verifying if what I explained is true or not. They can use those sources and keywords for that purpose. They can take their own time to read the entire source.

I pointed out several inconsistencies in your argument/explanation. Please for the readership's benefits explain those inconsistencies. Let me start with one...

Most conventional aircraft have a rounded shape. This shape makes them aerodynamic, but it also creates a very efficient radar reflector. The round shape means that no matter where the radar signal hits the plane, some of the signal gets reflected back:

A stealth aircraft, on the other hand, is made up of completely flat surfaces and very sharp edges. When a radar signal hits a stealth plane, the signal reflects away at an angle, like this:
But the F-22, F-35 and the B-2 have mostly curved surfaces, not angled facetings like the F-117 and they have either equal or lower RCS. The F-22, F-35 and the B-2 are on the first paragraph. The F-117 is on the second paragraph. So you are implying that the F-117 is a true 'stealth' aircraft but the other three are not. This is a gross inconsistency. Please clarify for the readership.
 
Last edited:
Combined Infrared and Radar Stealth

IR stealth technology has often been discussed as separate from radar stealth technology. However, in the near future coatings will have to perform both functions simultaneously in order to counter the threat of dual mode missile guidance systems such as the MICA air-to-air missile that equips, among others, the Mirage 2000-5.

<snipped>

We note that although LPRL has developed RAM coatings, our core competency is IR stealth coatings, and tuning these coatings for RAM compatibility or to meet other mission-specific requirements. Therefore, our primary thrust in this field is to exploit our IR stealth technology in partnership with current manufacturers of RAM coatings to develop multifunction coatings.
Great copy/paste job. Now how does this defend the PRAT-FALL from current criticisms?
 
No...It is not. If that is true, then there would be no need for teachers, right? All we have to do is toss out text books and after a while give exams, right? My explanations of basic principles are not 'overly' technical. May be to you, but certainly not to the general readership. The sources I presented are not meant to be instructional but to give interested readers a way of verifying if what I explained is true or not. They can use those sources and keywords for that purpose. They can take their own time to read the entire source.

I pointed out several inconsistencies in your argument/explanation. Please for the readership's benefits explain those inconsistencies. Let me start with one...


But the F-22, F-35 and the B-2 have mostly curved surfaces, not angled facetings like the F-117 and they have either equal or lower RCS. The F-22, F-35 and the B-2 are on the first paragraph. The F-117 is on the second paragraph. So you are implying that the F-117 is a true 'stealth' aircraft but the other three are not. This is a gross inconsistency. Please clarify for the readership.


Gambit, curved surfaces dont work so greatly, because you need a huge area to weak the signal, and that only applies in X band radar -and the reduction isnt so great-, actually the best shape to that concept is a half flying saucer pointing up, that increase better the area and also have a special tangential effect of the normal compound of the reflection -that if we just consider the particle features, lower band. RADAR stealth or invisibility requires that a craft absorb incident RADAR pulses, actively cancel them by emitting inverse waveforms, deflect them away from receiving antennas, or all of the above. Absorption and deflection, treated below, are the most important prerequisites of RADAR stealth. Metallic surfaces reflect RADAR; therefore, stealth aircraft parts must either be coated with RADAR-absorbing materials or made out of them to begin with. The latter is preferable because an aircraft whose parts are intrinsically RADAR-absorbing derives aerodynamic as well as stealth function from them, whereas a RADAR-absorbent coating is, aerodynamically speaking, dead weight. The F-117 stealth aircraft is built mostly out of a RADAR-absorbent material termed Fibaloy, which consists of glass fibers embedded in plastic, and of carbon fibers, which are used mostly for hot spots like leading wing-edges and panels covering the jet engines. Thanks to the use of such materials, the airframe of the F-117 (i.e., the plane minus its electronic gear, weapons, and engines) is only about 10&#37; metal. Both the B-2 stealth bomber and the F-117 reflect about as much RADAR as a hummingbird

Many RADAR-absorbent plastics, carbon-based materials, ceramics, and blends of these materials have been developed for use on stealth aircraft. Combining such materials with RADAR-absorbing surface geometry enhances stealth. For example, wing surfaces can be built on a metallic substrate that is shaped like a field of pyramids with the spaces between the pyramids filled by a RADAR-absorbent material. RADAR waves striking the surface zigzag inward between the pyramid walls, which increases absorption by lengthening signal path through the absorbent material. Another example of structural absorption is the placement of metal screens over the intake vents of jet engines. These screens&#8212;used, for example, on the F-117 stealth fighter&#8212;absorb RADAR waves exactly like the metal screens embedded in the doors of microwave ovens. It is important to prevent RADAR waves from entering jet intakes, which can act as resonant cavities (echo chambers) and so produce bright RADAR reflections.

Most RADARs are monostatic, that is, for reception they use either the same antenna as for sending or a separate receiving antenna colocated with the sending antenna; deflection therefore means reflecting RADAR pulses in any direction other than the one they came from. This in turn requires that stealth aircraft lack flat, vertical surfaces that could act as simple RADAR mirrors. RADAR can also be strongly reflected wherever three planar surfaces meet at a corner. Planes such as the B-52 bomber, which have many flat, vertical surfaces and RADAR-reflecting corners, are notorious for their RADAR-reflecting abilities; stealth aircraft, in contrast, tend to be highly angled and streamlined, presenting no flat surfaces at all to an observer that is not directly above or below them. The B-2 bomber, for example, is shaped like a boomerang.



A design dilemma for stealth aircraft is that they need not only to be invisible to RADAR but to use RADAR; inertial guidance, the Global Positioning System, and laser RADAR can all help aircraft navigate stealthily, but an aircraft needs conventional RADAR to track incoming missiles and hostile aircraft. Yet the transmission of RADAR pulses by a stealth aircraft wishing to avoid RADAR detection is self-contradictory. Furthermore, RADAR and radio antennas are inherently RADAR-reflecting.

132e3ae0490d672823fc88e300d10600.jpg


At least two design solutions to this dilemma are available. One is to have moveable RADAR-absorbent covers over RADAR antennas that slip aside only when the RADAR must be used. The antenna is then vulnerable to detection only intermittently. Even short-term RADAR exposure is, however, dangerous; the only stealth aircraft known to be have been shot down in combat, an F-117 lost over Kosovo in 1999, is thought to have been tracked by RADAR during a brief interval while its bomb-bay doors were open. The disadvantage of sliding mechanical covers is that they may stick or otherwise malfunction, and must remain open for periods of time that are long by electronic standards. A better solution, presently being developed, is the plasma stealth antenna. A plasma stealth antenna is composed of parallel tubes made of glass, plastic, or ceramic that are filled with gas, much like fluorescent light bulbs. When each tube is energized, the gas in it becomes ionized, and can conduct current just like a metal wire. A number of such energized tubes in a flat, parallel array, wired for individual control (a "phased array"), can be used to send and receive RADAR signals across a wide range of angles without being physically rotated. When the tubes are not energized, they are transparent to RADAR, which can be absorbed by an appropriate backing. One advantage of such an array is that it can turn on and off very rapidly, and only act as a RADAR reflector during the electronically brief intervals when it is energized.
So in theory one can have an aircraft that has a very un-stealth shape but yet be a stealth aircraft by using enough composite material. The downside is the amazing amount of added weight as well as the cost involved.
 
Great copy/paste job. Now how does this defend the PRAT-FALL from current criticisms?

Because all these basic principles form the basis of the PAK-FA and the Furiously expensive-22 (F-22) lol
 
Lol im acutally having fun now lol lets keep this going :P
 
Last edited:
Buddy,

Comparing the crude language and disjointedness of your previous attempts to 'explain' radar low observability to this one now, it is clear that it is YOU who are modifying other's works to present them as your own. But as you wish...

Gambit, curved surfaces dont work so greatly, because you need a huge area to weak the signal, and that only applies in X band radar...
The X-band is the most prevalent so it is logical to target the X-band due to other technological limitations, such as limited bandwidth in absorbers.

-and the reduction isnt so great-, actually the best shape to that concept is a half flying saucer pointing up, that increase better the area and also have a special tangential effect of the normal compound of the reflection -that if we just consider the particle features, lower band.
No objections there, except that we currently do not deploy 'flying saucers' so your point is...errr...pointless. Angled facetings ala F-117 proved to be inadequate once other needs are taken into account. The F-117 had no radar, for example. That leave those curved surfaces to exploit, as much as possible, the 'creeping wave' effect as the best solution for a fighter with extremely low radar reflectivity.

RADAR stealth or invisibility requires that a craft absorb incident RADAR pulses, actively cancel them by emitting inverse waveforms, deflect them away from receiving antennas, or all of the above.
True...But for now it is mostly deflection that we can use.

Metallic surfaces reflect RADAR; therefore, stealth aircraft parts must either be coated with RADAR-absorbing materials or made out of them to begin with. The latter is preferable because an aircraft whose parts are intrinsically RADAR-absorbing derives aerodynamic as well as stealth function from them, whereas a RADAR-absorbent coating is, aerodynamically speaking, dead weight. The F-117 stealth aircraft is built mostly out of a RADAR-absorbent material termed Fibaloy, which consists of glass fibers embedded in plastic, and of carbon fibers, which are used mostly for hot spots like leading wing-edges and panels covering the jet engines. Thanks to the use of such materials, the airframe of the F-117 (i.e., the plane minus its electronic gear, weapons, and engines) is only about 10% metal. Both the B-2 stealth bomber and the F-117 reflect about as much RADAR as a hummingbird
Is this where you stole for your 'arguments'...?

Stealth Technology ? FREE Stealth Technology information | Encyclopedia.com: Find Stealth Technology research
Metallic surfaces reflect RADAR; therefore, stealth aircraft parts must either be coated with RADAR-absorbing materials or made out of them to begin with. The latter is preferable because an aircraft whose parts are intrinsically RADAR-absorbing derives aerodynamic as well as stealth function from them, whereas a RADAR-absorbent coating is, aerodynamically speaking, dead weight. The F-117 stealth aircraft is built mostly out of a RADAR-absorbent material termed Fibaloy, which consists of glass fibers embedded in plastic, and of carbon fibers, which are used mostly for hot spots like leading wing-edges and panels covering the jet engines. Thanks to the use of such materials, the airframe of the F-117 (i.e., the plane minus its electronic gear, weapons, and engines) is only about 10% metal. Both the B-2 stealth bomber and the F-117 reflect about as much RADAR as a hummingbird
Dang...Practically word for word...We can pretty much dismiss the rest. I have no overall objections to what you stole...errr...I mean 'explained'.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom