Again, I never said the problem was with X-Band, you're use of this false accusation is irritating.
Then your entire argument to date falls apart. The issue is not if there is something 'wrong' with the X-band -- there is not -- but whether or not
THE WORLD is in error for using it in this manner the first place.
Review my messages, I said it like 10 times, it's the "narrowband" stealth weakness of the F-35 which is its weakness to the upper S-Band, L-Band, UHF...etc. You're continued wordplay is expected though.
This same argument can be applied against
EVERYTHING flying out there. In light of the current technology level in active cancellation, or rather the lack thereof, this cannot be construed as a 'weakness' because it implies there is a viable alternative, which there is not. So I will say it again that this is nothing more than a great leap of faith on your own flawed assumption: Lockheed's focused on the X-band is 'proof' of their ignorance that wavelength is part of the RCS creation.
Absolutely! LM blundered not because they didn't understand that they were creating an inferior "front line", jack-of-all-trades master of none, stealth fighter.
And absolutely you are
WRONG. Lockheed is the provider. It was the US military that sets the criteria and if those criteria demands compromises in designs, both parties understood and accept them. Take the SR-71 for an extreme example of highly specified criteria. The A-10 is the opposite. The F-16 is somewhere in between. An aircraft is an exercise in working compromises between competing demands. No one 'blundered' anything here.
Where they screwed up is that they didn't foresee the current military situation as it stands now and in the near future. LM analysts assumed foreign opponents were so far behind them that they could create the high-low fighter mix not with the same quality relationship as F-15/F-16 but of the widely disparaged F-35 and the prize winning F-22. Need I remind you again that the F-22 will not be sold to any allies, not even the British. Any allies buying into the F-35 fiasco will be in a precarious situation everytime they come up against non-American stealth jets.
Wrong. There are no credible arguments that the F-22/F-35 mix is any less effective than the F-15/F-16 combo, especially when the F-35 is still under development. Your argument reminisces of the F-16 when it was widely disparaged. Yet now every military want the F-16 or at least its standards.
We can agree with one thing here, as the wing-mounted L-Band radar stands now, it is a band-aid solution but it is a solution. The fact is, L-Band is the sweet spot weakness of the F-35, and that band-aid solutions exist for it NOW, means that when the F-35 is actually in full production and being sold to the allies, band-aid solutions will have likely evolved into full scale interlinked systems AEGIS style as I mentioned previously. Targeting is not as big a problem as you make it out to be because you're concentrating on singular L-Band radar systems working alone whereas we know that such radars when working together can have missiles guided close enough for the missiles to do the rest themselves even when LPI modes are used.
Wrong. Targeting is a big problem and apparently we must review some basic principles of radar detection, specifically behaviors.
In the above illustration, with the 10-lambda rule in effect, the only way to have assured detection of the sphere is if the signal's wavelength is 10 times the diameter of the sphere (or cylinder). Even that tiny amount of specular reflection does not guaranteed detection within a certain statistical range, and radar detection is essentially a stochastical process. The only region that can give assured detection is in the meters length HF/VHF/UHF bands. The difference between the X and L bands is only a few cm. Throw a much more complex body than a sphere into the mix and the L-band's efficacy against 'stealth' severely decreases, except in the minds of the gullible.
The so-called 'solution' provided by the Russians have no supporting data for that few cm difference in a highly dynamic stochastical process. If you want another visual aid, look at the meter stick and see how tiny a few cm are compared to the meter. That is the range of the statistical uncertainty you are looking at when comparing the HF/VHF/UHF bands against the more common centimetric bands used in radar guided weaponry.
Since when have I "hyped" either of these fighters? LOL I never claimed the PAK FA or J-20 had stealth performance on par with the F-22. The information required for that sort of analysis is far too detailed without more data.
Here...
Given a GREATER weakness to L-Band than J-20s and PAK FA, the F-35 would have a weakness that they do not have.
In effect, you are saying that the J-20 and the PAK-FA is on the same level as the F-22. There are several others but there is no need.
My contention concerning this topic has generally focused on your contention that the J-20 is not even a stealthy aircraft. You actually questioned whether it had an RCS of ~1 meter square when 4+ gen delta canard fighters like the Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen which are known to have RCS of less than this in clean configuration. Seriously, you have some balls to claim that repeatedly with a straight face.
Sorry, these are not simple shapes but very complex bodies. Going by your simplistic arguments, these aircrafts have common flight control surfaces so therefore they should have similar RCS. If they have these RCS figures then we can say they are because of measured efforts, not because they 'looked' alike in some respects. I can grab my balls and say so because I have the laws of physics on my side. We have nothing on the J-20 so the default should be doubt, not generosity. If anything, putting the J-20 into the same RCS figures as the Typhoon
et al is being generous enough.
I already answered this, but you simply ignored it and replied exactly as I predicted, with a request for classified fighter data and analysis based on said classified data....clearly impossible at this time.
I don't need to write a thesis or expand more than this, nor do I have the time or inclination to do so. Anybody with basic radar stealth knowledge would understand what I said here explains how specular reflections and EM wave propagation will be directed away from the radar source. You have claimed before that you are some sort of radar expert and worked in the business no? The only unknown is the required size of the aircraft which is obviously large enough to bleed EM away before some had a chance to return back to the radar source. Early on there was even speculation that the J-20 was a stealth bomber. Pictures alone can never give the full "picture", but claiming they are useless is wrong. Your desire for detailed anechoic chamber data is akin to wanting to know Pi to 100 decimal places, whereas I deem it necessary to only provide Pi to 1 decimal place since that is enough to prove the point.
Good, then we say the J-20 may have the same vulnerability to the L-band as the F-35 is alleged to have.
If your opponent has the capability to detect you, you are not stealthy to that opponent. Thus...."Stealthy to your opponent". As I've said several times, out of context, using unrelated but factual minutiae.
It depends on the opponent. To date, the fighter class airborne radars have been limited to the X-band and this has been the rule for RCS control: Target the threat freq. You have yet to show the readers any working, let alone workable, alternatives in the same class.
Next we're going to have a wind tunnel described to us. lol Radar has been a major topic on military forums for many years, think back to the 1990s. Radar at different wavelengths has always been a major discussion concerning stealth since the 1990s when it was mostly about optimal lambda against RAM coatings. You can't even decipher some of my English sentences without getting confused and using your misinterpretations of said sentences as part of your arguments.
And from what I have seen so far, you have not been paying attention, especially here where the basics of radar detection presented but you ignored them.
All hail, all hail! I bow before your godly Americaness....
In this particular area, it would be wise to bow to what is proven.
Well, first of all I said wayyyy back that there is no way to have a 100% accurate analysis without anechoic chamber data analyzed by a supercomputer. So thank you for finally admitting that, you are making progress. Your request for detailed J-20 technical details as I also said way back is a rhetorical question because it is still classified information. Here's what I said in message #441...
Then how can you say that the F-35 can be defeated by the L-band? Because the Russians and APA said so? Remember, we are talking about the difference of only a few cm of wavelength.
Take a look at this...
If we have a flat plate that is perpendicular to the impinging signal, if there is an increase of X percent of incident power we would have a reasonably matching corresponding increase in reflected power between the lower and higher wavelengths.
But the moment we depart from perpendicular...
Surface wave behaviors -- flat and/or curvatures -- and edge diffractions from surface discontinuities of all sizes begins to break down any estimation, leaving only direct measurements as the best way to know a body's RCS. The closer the two wavelengths are to each other, the greater the need for those measurements. And when we deal with highly dynamic targets, the differences of only a few cm in wavelengths can be negated by atmospheric attenuations and/or assorted clutter types.
What this mean is that there is
NO WAY for both the Russians and the Australians to definitively say that the L-band is the definitive 'stealth killer' in the absence of credible measurement data.
Concerning radar vulnerability estimation via visuals, irregular shaping will have detrimental stealth effects at all frequencies but relatively more so the higher the frequency. The L-Band weakness is mostly the result of the F-35 size. L-Band radar illumination on the sides could exploit this and allows some EM to creep around the body before it is all bled off, that is something you can visually see if the aircraft dimensions can be reasonably estimated.
Go back to the simple sphere example and review my explanation of the 10-lambda rule again. In radar detection, the sphere is the only body where the larger it is compared to the impinging signal, the lower its RCS to the point where only a tiny amount of specular reflection matters. The L-band is about 10-12 cm in wavelength.
When we are dealing with large surface expanse that are clearly greater than when the 10-lambda rule would apply, the surface expanse, as in the sphere or the wingspan, becomes the 'electrical path' and the longer this path, the greater the 'leaky' wave behavior, leaving nothing for the creeping wave behavior to occur. The F-35's wing span is meters across. Its fuselage is shaped with a 'pinch' on the opposite side of the impinging signal to create edge diffractions to prevent
ANY creeping wave behavior, which would occur only the meters length freqs.
I explained the fuselage shaping, most notably the nose, here =>
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/20908-rcs-different-fighters-7.html#post2104567
The only location on the F-35's fuselage where there might be a creeping wave behavior is on the radome tip and even that is questionable at best, X or L band, due to that 'pinch', like how the SR-71 has it. Side aspect RCS in the centimetric bands and upon complex bodies with meters length electrical paths comes mostly from specular reflections, like how they would be created when the F-35 momentarily present a perpendicular 'flat plate' style aspect to the incident angle,
NOT from creeping wave contributorship. But then this would apply to
ALL aircrafts, 'stealth' or not. So when you said this: '...allows some EM to creep around the body before it is all bled off...'
YOU ARE WRONG.
In the case of the F-35, nothing was ever solely based on visuals, it was publicly declared by LM and had already been visually speculated from its size. In the case of both the J-20 and PAK FA, their size coupled with their shaping gives a "preliminary" speculation of having no such L-Band weakness. Although there are questions concerning the PAK FA irregularities, these are not specifically related to L-Band alone and will probably be addressed eventually since it's obvious the stealth aspect is not the main part of the current PAK FA flight test regime.
This is ridiculous. When asked for data to support your claim, you said there are none and that I am unreasonable to ask for them. But now you have no problems making the same baseless claims all over again. You denied hyping up the J-20 and the T-50, but here you are making the same baseless claim that their RCS has no L-band weakness, like the F-22. Be consistent. Be intellectually honest and take in what I explained so far about radar detection and apply them against your hope, the J-20.
Your exaggerations continue unabated. No, it is not by centimeters, it is gradual because EM is gradually bled off curved surfaces when creeping around the surface and no I never said anything about visuals "ALONE" are enough for analysis.
Buddy, when I said 'centimeters' I meant
YOU claimed
YOU are able to tell, from visuals alone, that an aircraft has so-and-so performance between wavelength differences of centimeters. There is no way for any human to tell, even with as simple a body like the sphere, that said sphere has performance of so-and-so RCS between wavelengths of 5 and 10 cm. But of course you are a mutant with radar vision.
Your ignorance and pretense of knowledge continue to amuse the readers.
That does not mean visual inspection is "useless" as you so badly want to proclaim. An EODAS like system is speculated from the visuals, LOAN nozzles are speculated from visuals, serpentine inlets are "confirmed" from visuals, planform alignment "confirmed" from visuals, continuous curvature "speculated" from visuals, titanium-oxide coated canopy speculated by visuals, glass cockpit "confirmed" by visuals, internal weapons bays "confirmed" by visuals, etc, etc....almost everything we know to date has been either directly or indirectly from the visuals. This merry go-round logic of yours is disingenuous.
No, speculations based upon visual inspections, near or far, are not useless. But when we are dealing with performance details down to the level where the human eye could not discern the differences, then those speculations are baseless. Everything you cited can only tell us that an aircraft is deliberately designed, and shaping fall under design, for RCS control. But not to what degree. Serrated (sawtoothed) panels are obvious enough, but what is not obvious is whether or not those serrations create 90 deg corner reflector structures. Can you tell if it is 90 or 89 or 91 just from looking? There are different types of absorber and each type has strengths and weaknesses. Can you tell which just from looking?
The conditions that you created here is not an apples to apples study because the complex bodies you are trying to use as examples are not stealth bodies of the type we are talking about....stealth fighters...which minimize irregular structures as much as possible except where they destructively interfere with radar returns to the source. Irregular structures on non-stealth aircraft are the main contributor of radar, irregular structures on aircraft considered stealth are minor contributors of radar.
What make a complex and irregularily structured body a 'stealth' body is how they are arranged, not because the body is 'stealthed' from the start. In RCS control measures,
ALL non-spheroid shapes are complex bodies. Even a string is considered a complex body. You have a false understanding of the context of the word 'irregular' here. The F-117 is no less irregular than the F-16. Both aircrafts have flight control surfaces in the same locations. Do you see a vertical stab anywhere else on either aircrafts' bodies? Do you see landing gear panels on their upper sides? Do you see an aft radome? If no to all questions, then the F-117 is just as irregular a body as the F-16. Or the F-22 is just as irregular a body as the A-10. Or the C-5 is just as irregular a body as the B-52. Or the Sopwith Camel is just as irregular a body as the 747 airliner. Get it?
There are two measures of RCS: mono-static and bi-static. It is the mono-static configuration that 'stealth' irregular bodies differs from 'non-stealth' irregular bodies and I suspect this is where you got your misunderstanding. I do not expect you to admit it. Your pride and emotional investments into the J-20 will not allow you to a confession of ignorance, especially to a lowly American.
But there is something else. Even though I have said it before here that a bi-static configuration is the greatest threat to 'stealth', how much of that degree of threat of bi-static radars to the current generation of US 'stealth' aircrafts you and the rest here will never know.
The L-Band weaknesses of the sort we are talking about here, related to stealth fighters, are mainly a creeping wave phenomenon and less effective RAM performance. Your example is completely biased. You know, it's easy to jerry-rig a biased example. Here's one of my own...if a stealth fighter were under radar bombardment and the bands changed from X to HF, would there be a greater than 10dB difference.
Of course there would be. But this is like comparing the meter to the centimeter. Not applicable to your criticisms of the F-35. Could the Russians make the T-50 transmit in the HF? Yes. Then why not? But here is where
YOU continually make a fool out of yourself: I could call the Russians and the Chinese 'shortsighted' or 'blundered'
IF they install the L-band wing leading edge radars in the absence of credible data that a difference of a few cm of wavelengths can produce a 10dB difference in detection. And I could call you and every such gullible people 'fools' for believing it
sans data.
Maybe you should propose your idea to the US Air Force. Then America can use your superior meter wave radars idea against everybody else inferior X-Band and L-Band radars. This is your chance to get back in the business!!! Godspeed!
What make you think Lockheed have not thought so and decided to follow the rule that you cavalierly dismissed: Target the threat freq.
What freqs do they uses? Ground air defense radars usually have multiple antennas with different sizes and shapes transmitting different freqs. Look at the 'Clam Shell' APA source and see how large the antenna is compared to the truck carrying it. So what freqs does missile guidance radars uses? Do you even read your own sources before posting them? Your sources actually supported my argument that it is better to target the highest threat freq, which is the shorter X-bands, than the longer wavelengths search radars. The freq and antenna combination requirement truly escaped you.
Unbelievable, something we finally agree on.
Nonsense. I have 'agreed' nothing with you. Instead, I continually proved you wrong.
No tactician would assume their opponent would make themselves easy targets like you nonchalantly assume. As I said earlier and have always maintained, the L-Band radar on fighters are supplements. They would and should only be used to do the final "flash" scan LPI style of an already detected F-35 found by the more distant L-Band AWACs and use the multiple L-Band signatures to triangulate target location to within a reasonable distance, say less than a mile. That is accurate enough for a firing solution because the missile could be guided via satellite and then do the rest once within that close range. Btw, Beidou-II, China's GPS system, has a unique feature that allows 2-way messaging. In other words, Beidou-II could do missile guidance by messaging real-time coordinates to missiles transmitted to it from datalink'ed military aircraft L-Band radars. Like I said....not your forte.
And no tactician would array his forces on hope and speculations as you have. I have consistently found that the less relevant experience the claimant has, the greater the emphasis on ideal situations and perfect equipments run by perfect operators. The US did not achieve the spectacular technical successes of Desert Storm by speculations but through years of training and of trials and errors. What have the Russians and the Chinese done since the collapse of the USSR? The proposed wing leading edge L-band radars create vertical fan beams more appropriate for volume search, so did either the Russians or the Chinese have F-117 class bodies to test out their speculations? The only possibility that we can entertain is by using physically smaller sized bodies to approximate the RCS of an F-117 class body and even then, unless there is at least a 10dB difference produced from a few cm difference in wavelengths, the endeavor is pointless. No amount of data tweeting between aircrafts and satellites is going to help.
AWACS using L-band radars? This tells me that everything I said about basic radar detection regarding the freq and antenna combination is lost upon you. An AWACS can be large enough that it
MAY NOT use the L-band at all but would use longer wavelengths to have increased odds -- if not assurance -- of detection. According to Northrop Grumman, the American E-3 Sentry AWACS uses the S-band, which is right next door to the L-band. But in using these wavelengths, any AWACS would advertise its presence and the F-35 pilot would avoid the AWACS's radar field of view. At low altitude, ground clutter would eat up most specular reflections produced by 'stealth'. You really think the USAF have not practiced these scenarios? So for you to think that what I said mean I can only think of the L-band from the fighter aircrafts is to be delusional.
You are less the 'tactician' than you are a dreamer casting bones and reading entrails.
Financial speculation and financial abuse will bring down the American Empire once the USD$ loses world reserve currency status. If you know what happens next, then the collapse of the American Empire is the least you should worry about.
Your beloved and hoped for China will collapse long before US. We are not the country with
TENS OF THOUSANDS of citizen protests
PER YEAR, villages with no women, built but empty cities, unrestrained environmental disasters, foreign oil dependency that is greater than US and increasing, and many more problems...
,It must be J-XX i think .TEll u what it looks more futuristic & stealthy than j20 SERIOUSLY & china should concentrate more on it.
,well nothing wrong in copying & stealing technology,
but u should nt boast & humilate other countries who cant do that.
but what to do ,fact is after all fact?
& how could all 5th gen fighters look alike tell me .Go to any eye specialist buddy
