MarshallJukov wrote: Azi wrote:The first effect is pure absorption of EM waves."
There is no such thing as "pure absorbition of EM waves"
Ah Mr. Einstein writes! Absorption doesnt't exist? So how would you name the phenomena?
MarshallJukov wrote: Azi wrote:This effect happens over a broad spectra and is of course best at resonance frequency
And longer the waves are, the less effect is. Within band we currently duscussing it is absolutely, totaly irrelevant in terms of lowering radar ranges, not just " not so good."
In longer wavelength you have -5 to -10 dB! That's NOT irrelevant!!!
MarshallJukov wrote: Azi wrote:Radar absorbing material design Yuzcelik, Cihangir Kemal
Gee, this again? Did you bothered yourself to read it in the first place? Go to page 51 and see that test was made at 300 Mhz upon PEC covered with 100mm thick RAM structure and BEST result they was able to achieve was reduction from 26Db to 3,8Db for a wavelength of 1 meter, didn`t i told you which wavelength the old P-18 has? Don`t you know what kind of RAM thickness actual aircrafts have? Don`t you aware that actual radars also give out much more than 26Db signal level? Sorry but you did not even saw forest behind the trees in that monography. And just so you know, 20-25Db signal reduction is EXACTLY the best ideal RAM can offer and thats EXACTLY around 10% contrubution to total RCS reduction in real world and EXACTLY why "stealth" is ***ALL*** about SHAPE.
Do you realize what BULLSHIT do you write? 25 dB signal reduction is not 10%! You know what dB means? It's logarithmic, so a reduction of 20 dB for example means a RCS 100 times smaller!
In laboratory a reduction of -40 to -50 dB is possible (perfect wavelength, good absorber), in reality it's more -20 to -30 dB.
And again P-18 is old soviet technology, the precision is 1 km (WOW!), so you CAN'T distinguish if 1 B-52 or 100 F-35 are coming to "visit" you! Serbia had P-18 radar and in Kosovo war the perfomance was (old story!)...ok, 1 F-117 is better than nothing! True.
MarshallJukov wrote: Azi wrote:Shape is a part of stealth concept but it's not "ALL"!
Its ABSOLUTRELY EVERYTHING.
Bullshit again and again! A B-2 stealth bomber made of pure steel would blink like a christmas tree in almost every bandwith! Shape and RAM (or composite, transparent to radar) are in the stealth concept combined!
MarshallJukov wrote: Azi wrote: why Su T-50 has RAM coating?
Because its potential enemies do not have any advanced long wave radars, ya see? And as we already discussed, efficiency of RAM grows as wavelength gets shorter. A bit of RAM to squeeze a bit more of RCS reduction is always fine. Just as, for example, they battle to win every kilogram of weight in that kind of machinery. Its not like T-50 bets everything on RAM or on "stealth" as a whole as american jets do.
Aaaaah yeah! Western countries have no long wave radars!? Sure!
US Navy use AN/TPS-71 ROTHR in HF band. US Air Force use AN/FPS-118 in HF band, a successor should follow soon. Other countries have OTH radar as well, for example Australia.
But at the last point I'm with you! T-50 is not so extreme for stealth optimized like F-35. For me the T-50 is a much better concept than F-22 or F-35, the point is Russia have only prototypes now and will lack the huge numbers USA and allies will have in F-35. F-35 is still dangerouse beside of stealth, stealth is not the important factor for F-35.
MarshallJukov wrote: Azi wrote:concept of stealth is not bad at all.
It is VERY bad concept when you try to bet your success on it entirely. Read the story of "King`s new clothes" story to get what i mean.
Reduction of RCS means nothing if capabilities of your adversary to detect your jets are few orders of magnitude above the treshold your "stealth" can offer even under ideal circumstances. .
You mean that F-22 and F-35 have only stealth? They are full fighters! In real warfare it's not the point if your fighter is 100 km per hour faster or you can turn a bit smaller rounds, it's about electronic countermeasure, the precision of your missile and bombs, datalink and tactic. And I think you underestimate NATzO complete in this case!
You are correct with the point that T-50 has much better maneuverability, I never wrote something against this point. But how many fights there dogfights in the last 30 years of aerial warfare?
MarshallJukov wrote:Thats why Russian designers invest much more in kinetic abilities of new jetfighter, more into its sensors and weapons, leaving "stealth" measures as mere weaves of fashion only
T-50 is much newer than F-35 and F-22 and of course it's electronics are newer and better! But T-50 is not to counter stealth, it's radar is a X-Band radar, so it needs information from ground stations or AWACS to search for stealth planes.
MarshallJukov wrote: Azi wrote:When will photonic radars come into service?
I bet much eartlier than US will be able to come up with viable F-22/35/B-2 replacement.
I think you are correct with your steatement, but it will take a long time to the point Russia will have photonic radar in large quantities, that's the point. One experimental photonic radar in 2018 will change nothing!
And photonic radar brings much better perfomance with lighter weight, but range is less. And don't mix quantum radar with photonic radar, that are two different pair of shoes!
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
)
