gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
Everyone should take a hard look at the below illustration...
Say that we want to reduce the aircraft's overall RCS. The first thing that must be understood is that an aircraft is a complex body that is made up of many smaller complex bodies, or structures, and each structure is called a 'contributor'.
For the above illustration, it would be a waste of resources if the largest contributorship, that complex corner reflector structure created by the single vertical stabilator and the two horizontal ones that resulted in that huge voltage spike, is not reduced.
This is what a 'corner reflector' look like...
...And such a structure is a big no-no if the goal is to control RCS.
Buoyage Systems Australia Pty. Ltd. :: More Info
For the PAK-FA, we should not expect to see anything that drastic, however, we would not know if there are structures on the aircraft that demands immediate attention until we take isolated EM anechoic chamber measurements, like how the US measure our 'stealth' aircrafts at Benefield => Edwards Air Force Base - Media Search
This is part of the 'balanced stealth' approach where not only do we try to balance out infrared, acoustic, visual, and EM, when it comes to EM, the goal is to focus on the largest contributorship and work our way smaller. Once we have achieve a relatively uniform intensity level from all EM contributors. The really hard work begins where we would work on all contributors at the same time to maintain that reduction level. It make no sense, financial or else, to reduce a contributor to negligible while several other contributors simply cannot be reduced further.
This is why Lockheed engineers laughs so hard at some who would zero in on the F-22's conventional diverter inlets as if somehow the aircraft's RCS have been 'compromised'. Since everything are already contributors, it make evident common sense the 'so what' question: So what if the diverter plate may be the greater RCS contributor than the DSI 'bump'? If everything else on the aircraft cannot be reduced further, what financial sense is it to install the DSI system anyway? But since the F-22's RCS is so low overall, that mean its conventional diverter plate inlet systems are irrelevant and is actually very well designed.
The PAK-FA may have a relatively uniform EM signature overall. We just do not know and Russia is not going public with the true figure.
Say that we want to reduce the aircraft's overall RCS. The first thing that must be understood is that an aircraft is a complex body that is made up of many smaller complex bodies, or structures, and each structure is called a 'contributor'.
For the above illustration, it would be a waste of resources if the largest contributorship, that complex corner reflector structure created by the single vertical stabilator and the two horizontal ones that resulted in that huge voltage spike, is not reduced.
This is what a 'corner reflector' look like...
...And such a structure is a big no-no if the goal is to control RCS.
Buoyage Systems Australia Pty. Ltd. :: More Info
Corner reflectors are used for small marine craft safety purposes so large vessels can see these smaller boats. It is not that difficult to look at an aircraft, a car, or even the human body, and find plenty of corner reflectors of varying sizes. But for RCS control as in having the vehicle as small an EM signature as possible, they are to be avoided like the plague. So for the aircraft above, that large voltage spike must be reduced to at least the same level as the other voltage spikes.Every boat needs a radar reflector.
Experts agree that the best radar reflector is the one that gives the highest radar cross-section and continuous coverage.
For the PAK-FA, we should not expect to see anything that drastic, however, we would not know if there are structures on the aircraft that demands immediate attention until we take isolated EM anechoic chamber measurements, like how the US measure our 'stealth' aircrafts at Benefield => Edwards Air Force Base - Media Search
This is part of the 'balanced stealth' approach where not only do we try to balance out infrared, acoustic, visual, and EM, when it comes to EM, the goal is to focus on the largest contributorship and work our way smaller. Once we have achieve a relatively uniform intensity level from all EM contributors. The really hard work begins where we would work on all contributors at the same time to maintain that reduction level. It make no sense, financial or else, to reduce a contributor to negligible while several other contributors simply cannot be reduced further.
This is why Lockheed engineers laughs so hard at some who would zero in on the F-22's conventional diverter inlets as if somehow the aircraft's RCS have been 'compromised'. Since everything are already contributors, it make evident common sense the 'so what' question: So what if the diverter plate may be the greater RCS contributor than the DSI 'bump'? If everything else on the aircraft cannot be reduced further, what financial sense is it to install the DSI system anyway? But since the F-22's RCS is so low overall, that mean its conventional diverter plate inlet systems are irrelevant and is actually very well designed.
The PAK-FA may have a relatively uniform EM signature overall. We just do not know and Russia is not going public with the true figure.