>The U.S. Air Force, in it's effort to get money to build more F-22s, has revealed just how "stealthy" the F-22 is. It's RCS (Radar Cross Section) is the equivalent, for a radar, to a metal marble. The less stealthy (and much cheaper) F-35, is equal to a metal golf ball.
This made radar operator's work easier. Why not just look for flying marbles or golf balls? Having the engine exhaust only radiate marble size returns is nothing to scoff at. And it's 30 years old technology. How impressive would a current technology J-20 be in terms of lower RCS returns? Probably a needle sized RCS?
shitposting aside, we dont really know. china isnt exactly a reliable source and no one else has commented on it. although we can make some assumptions from the look of it. overall id say it has the basics of F-22 stealth down, but there are some problems in its design that may inhibit stealth 1.) those engines arent stealth engines, theyre taken off a J-15 IIRC (and even if they arent by the looks of them they still arent configured for stealth) 2.) its a long boi. like really long. and that means more RCS 3.) last but certainly not least
Jordan Smith
ah shit, hit post before i finished typing 3). the canards. more surfaces, especially moving one that can be seen from the front easily. there are alot of other factors that could raise or lower the RCS as well, but thats just what sticks out to me. overall id say its somewhere between an F-35 and an SU-57
Colton Perez
>it's effort >It's RCS No, no and no.
Lucas Ross
>the canards. more surfaces you're fucking retarded. If you're going to talk about LO, you need to read at least 2 papers. One of which is Russian I suggest you stfu.
Xavier Brown
>russia >knowing anything about LO confirmed for either seething wumao or vatnigger. pls learn about how RCS works.
Justin Ward
Which basically means China acknowledges stealth as non integral and has it but only in moderation. Superior performance still is the priority, especially being able to fly Mach 3++ on patrols and launch anti air stealth ballistic missiles.
Bentley Rogers
Stealth theory originated partly in the Soviet Union. Kirov battlecruisers were noted by Norwegians to have the signature of a corvette.
Kayden Murphy
And if China says it's non-integral that means they can't replicate the tech and their top military officials are covering their own asses so they don't get hung for incompetence.
Carson Diaz
there really should be certain qualifications enforced for commenting on non-trivial topics, otherwise morons like you will just perpetuate falsehood and retardation.
Do us all, and you, a favor and shut the fuck up.
Tyler Gutierrez
>And if China says it's non-integral the only way saying that is a retard on Jow Forums and you're an even BIGGER retard given your stupid ass reply.
Carter Diaz
>Can't replicate >Chinese
This is paradoxically impressive.
James Reyes
I implessed myself today To see if I still feel I focus on the keyboard The only thing that's real The pla it is quantum The old familiar lie Try to kill American all away But I remember everything What have I become My sweetest Mao Everyone I know goes away In the end And you could have it all My empire of dirt I will let you down I will make you implessed
Oliver Morales
>This is paradoxically impressive. The Jokes on the Chinese, the plane never had any stealth to being with! They're just saying it to fuck with China
Owen Sullivan
>seething vatnigger provides no arguments
Charles Adams
>stealth on ships is the same as stealth on planes i wouldnt be terribly surprised if you were a sukhoi engineer tbqh.
Matthew Green
>wumao is in tears
Isaac Gray
It isn't?
Blake Roberts
>he thinks the US hasn't developed a stealth aircraft countermeasure. >He thinks we actually sell planes to other countries that we don't know how to neutralize with little to no effort. >he thinks we still use radar Whatever technology has surpassed radar has made this measurement irrelevant.
Jacob Garcia
We track the heat rails from the exhaust.
Jordan Thomas
According to Real China(Taiwan), the J-20 is little better than the F-18. I guess Fake China didn't steal enough of stealth data to make the J-20 work.
Luis Sullivan
This is impressive-tier fantasies
Carter Morales
>Why not just look for flying marbles or golf balls? >Why not just look for waldo sized people? >Why not just look for needle sized things in the haystack?
Hunter Butler
>long boi I read Ben Rich's memoirs on Skunk Works and according to him they discovered the RCS of an object depends on it's shape, not it's size.
Jordan Evans
>canards means more surfaces But it has the same number of wing pairs as non canard fighters.
Zachary Morris
Not that guy, but they did the original work on stealth. Lockheeds entire stealth program is based on a translated copy of an obscure Russian paper on calculating how radar waves bounce off surfaces.
Lucas Davis
Super power india claimed it has easily detected the J20 and why would you ever question the authenticity of someone who uses bare hands to whipe his butt after shitting on a public street and cant even produce the paint for its imported aircraft
Caleb King
> launch anti air stealth ballistic missiles.
But are they Quantum anti air stealth ballistic missiles?
Adam Lewis
>because it wants to make the case that it makes more sense to cut production of the F-35 (which cost $30-50 million each)
oh those poor people from 2005. if only they knew had bad things really are
Ryder Lopez
Thats a picture of an older protoype. The new models have engines with jagged nozzles so you can easily tell them appart from any older Chinese variants or even Russian engines they have been compared to, and they have nothing to do with the j15.
Carson Fisher
They didn’t discover it. It was from a russian paper.
Luis Allen
That would imply that an object of infinite size could be invisible to radar.
Colton Brown
Wait wait wait, the airforce is lobbying to have more F-22s?
Or that an object of infinitesimal size could be visible to radar I think he meant just flat panes, as in a mirror of infinite size would still not reflect any light back at you if angled away
Carson Thompson
GaN Super AESA with maximum range of 40 degrees sustained.
Caleb Anderson
Radar Cross Section is a meme, it has the cross section of a marble when it is directly flying at the Radar, but from any other angle the Cross Section increases dranatically.
Easton Richardson
Where did the 40 deg. Sus. meme come from? Does it refer to AoA?
Jonathan Martin
sustained turn rate. Basically some butthurt burger clung onto this value and forced it into a meme.
It's far for the course for Jow Forums.
Parker Bell
>it has the cross section of a marble when it is directly flying at the Radar, but from any other angle the Cross Section increases dranatically. Good thing each country only has one radar right
Anthony Kelly
A Russian paper that described radar scattering as a general concept. They basically invented every practical element of how to actually make something stealth.
Jace Hughes
>X RCS is equivalent to X size object >gee whiz, look for X size object and discriminate by velocity, radar sure is easy
It's this stupid fucking vidya gamer meme again? ITT user demonstrates that he doesn't know just how much he doesn't know. Oldfags will recall Rumsfeld's famous saying.
Now apply that to signals analysis. Radar doesn't work like your phone cameras Jow Forumsids, that's why we use it in the first place.
Noah Smith
That famous paper didn't do anything about practicalities; it didn't invent the math either. It merely proposed a way to calc 2d RCS, resulting in media attention later, after the Have Blue programs were revealed.
Aiden Martinez
In Russian ABA BN TOE effective targeting and detection ranges per standard deployment zones....yeah, pretty much. Factor in detection ranges, then engagement ranges.
That's why ADA is historically shitty m8. Planes can easily concentrate their entire force on a single point, ground based defences not so much.
James Stewart
This. My dad works for Area 51 and we have interdimensional aliens in there who give us some cool tips and tricks for military tech every now and then. Radar? Lmao. We have an invisible force field in the atmosphere that detects all movement within it. We're at least 30 years ahead of the rest of you cucks around the world. Deal with it.
David Ramirez
>Stealth theory originated partly in the Soviet Union this is patently false. The equations for how electromagnetic waveforms interact with objects was published by a Russian mathematician. Americans were the first to come to the idea that these equations could be used in computers to model radar deflecting shapes and this model aircraft for stealth. Stealth as a whole is American you might aswell argue that anything that uses algebra is actually greek therefore the greeks landed on the moon or some shit, or the British landed on the moon because calculus.
James Carter
You never read the paper. I did. I suggest you keep your mouth shut.
Julian Jenkins
This statement has no source. This "golf ball" meme came from some dude on some conference, and no one remembers who was that dude, when was that conference and, of course, no recordings are out there. And that too may be a technical trick, because golf ball has complex shape and it's real RCS is not equal to RCS of a sphere of a same size.
Bentley Howard
Not that I know of. The article linked to is 13 years old.
Jaxson Ortiz
If we can track down people trapped under a collapsed building with a satalite you can be damn sure we can track a plane.
Luis Allen
Beautiful.
Henry Torres
I suggest you fuck the hell off and stop pretending the paper matters.
It's a rough approximation people would understand offhand.
Juan King
> we can track down people trapped under a collapsed building with a satalite
...LACROSSE?
Juan Barnes
Nope! It isn't. I mean, if you had an IQ higher than room temperature you could infer that it's vastly different due to a couple blatantly obvious things:
1. Ships are fucking enormous, weigh thousands of tons, and move through the water at a slow pace. Aircraft are significantly smaller, have vastly different designs, weigh a fraction of a ship, and fly well over the speed of sound.
2. Ships don't pull G's in combat. Ships don't worry about stealth features being compromised by external weapons. Ships have room for a shit ton of missiles, torpedoes, sensors, damage control systems, etc. Ships are not easy to spot optically.
But hey, this explains why you build your jets with shitty steel and they maneuver like flying bricks. You're just copying your naval development, who could blame you?
Ryan Roberts
I bet they stole the initial designs for the X-35, realized they had to change the design, and completely fucked it up.
>Chang, if we build an American X-35 they will have evidence we hacked them!
>Just put canards on it!
>It still looks like the X-35!
>Double the engines or something!
>There's no room Chang!
>MAKE IT HAPPEN XANG MAKE IT HAPPEN
And thus the X-35's half developed render lost it's S ducts and gained two shitty J-15 engines and huge fucking canards. No wonder the thing has terrible RCS and flies like a brick, the Chinese managed to defeat themselves.
Liam Miller
>Butthurt burger It was the most buttblasted chink I've ever seen. Thread hit like 200r and he was still clinging to it.
Thomas Sanders
That is from all other aspects, that marble is from the exhaust plume. F35 has larger diameter exhasut hence larger rcs. The plane is effectively invisible from the frontal aspect.
Brandon Lopez
>this level of deflection
Logan Adams
>"l-lies Russia strong!"
Anthony Kelly
lol
Jack Diaz
Kirov had stealthier than corvette characteristics almost by accident. The SS-N-19 Shipwreck launcher config and the hull are cleaner than the corvette. It not that it's designed much stealthier it's the fact that Russian corvettes are great radar reflectors.
>Americans were the first to come up with the idea that these could be used as stealth This is just patently stupid. The Russians long ago realized this. It is not a very difficult logical leap to understand that if you can calculate how radar interacts with surfaces you can make a stealth plane. The Russians never put any effort into it because the equations produced designs that were so unaerodynamic. Only with the invention of much more powerful computers and CAD did a stealth plane become possible.
Also the Greeks invented geometric algebra. The rigor and general applications of equational algebra comes from the Persians.
Jeremiah Fisher
Are you pretending to be retarded? Why would China care? And why would you steal a plane design then not used it?
Also it has S ducts
>reworked 1.44 This would imply the 1.44 was ever a functioning plane
>This would imply the 1.44 was ever a functioning plane The Chinese bought/stole/traded for TsAGI's work on the aerodynamics and applied working S-ducts
>why would you steal a plane design then not used it? But they did, albeit with a bit more F-22 influence (twin engines, flat-panel stealth, vertical stabilizer shape)
>relatively unknown math equations were allowed through the soviet publishing system because they were deemed unimportant >ackschually the soviets knew everythang about stealth they just didn't wan't to try Your claim counters itself and fails to mesh with the facts of the issue. good day.
Can anybody link that Blue Ribbon Committee inquiry into stealth, where a congressman/senator asked the navy if we could counter stealth, the military guy said yes and the congressman asked again if we could do it, what's stopping Russia or China from doing the same? And the military man answered that would only happen if they have enough money.
Currently China has better radar detection using GaN AESA and has better research and development. It is virtually impossible for China to not have a stealth counter, they are visibly the leaders in this field already.
There is more to radars than the T/R emitters chemical compisition. The US has gotten long legs out of its GaA's...hell, the F-22's upgrade is the longest ranged radar in the world, still useing the F-35's GaA emitters.
Isaac Morales
Tell me the most important takeaway from the paper. Go ahead, I’ll wait, retard
Jaxson Jackson
Let me guess, you're the kind of retard who thinks the total lifetime cost of the plane is what it costs upfront
The problem with assuming everyone else is just as retarded as you is...well, not everyone is retarded.
Jeremiah Nguyen
>Calls others retards while still trying to pretend Russia invented stealth
Jaxson King
>Calling someone who made a valid point retarded
Leo Peterson
Retarded
Blake Kelly
>physics change depending on designation of a craft as a ship or plane
>switching to an objectively stealthier shape doesnt make it stealthier >valid point
I wish they would rangeban Indian and Vietnamese IP's.
Cameron James
>Implying "looking kinda jagged" is actually stealthy
>Huge panel gaps >Straight-line bays >Exposed rivets >Canards >No knowledge of RAM It's not "objectively stealthier", it's what someone who looked at an F-22 and said "I can fake that!"
That value of that steel marble is stupid because it assumes that the RCS is non-variable over angle, let's see where it comes from. Oh obviously wikipedia, i should have known... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor "in 2009 Lockheed Martin released information indicating that FROM CERTAIN ANGLES the aircraft has an RCS of 0.0001 m2 or −40 dBsm – equivalent to the radar reflection of a "steel marble".[164]" That means you have from the right angle (which is possibly as the plane is oriented at the viewer) you have that radar cross section. Otherwise it's higher because that plane is not a fucking marble. Also: Radar works a little like yelling into a valley and waiting for the echo. Obviously it sounds like a stupid idea to just wait for an echo of a certain intensity if you're not entirely sure how much your target you're trying to find is going to return and where it is (as you're searching for it). That changes over the angle, the possible attenuation due to weather effects and the surrounding environment, and most obviously the range between radar and target.
And finally: There is (currently) no "true" stealth. Every stealth plane is just reducing the returned radar echo, that being said a reasonably close or strongly radiating radar will still see it. For instance if a plane has been visually found a radar may be used like a search light to illuminate a target with x times the power it may usually employ. That makes the radar station a good target just like it makes the targeted plane one. In any war radars (the natural predators of planes lol) are a target of planes and vice verca. As soon as a radar network is thinned out (or the to be democratized country employs old radar technology) the low RCS becomes useful, otherwise it's a gimmick at best because if you go to fighting height you're close enought to be visible anyways. If you're far above it (like the B2 bomber) it may actually be useful. >cont.
... It's a bit like a discussion if military camouflage is important or not. Yes, it is important, but at the end of the day a guy in a track suit can still kill you with his ak or whatever. It doesn't have the importance people tend to believe.
About the (barely readable) formula: This is the radar equation, the most basic equation when it comes to the works of radar. The resulting range to a target can be calculated by it. Ps = Transmission signal strength Pe = Receiver signal strength G = Gain of Antennas (constant) lambda = wavelength = speed of light / frequency of radar sigma (the little 'o') = radar cross section = the value we're talking about. (4 pi) = constant So you can see: If the transmission fieldstrength is increased you may be able to see your 'invisible' fighter again. Or if the frequency of the radar is reduced. Or if your receiving side gets more sensitive. (Ps: All of these had time to develop aswell.)
you're statements are bad and retarded and show a fundamental misunderstand of stealth, radar, and aerial combat as a whole. fuck off back to wikipedia
Yeah, say that to the Germans from operation paperclip who actually did the groundwork for stealth.
Josiah Russell
>if you go to fighting height you're close enought to be visible anyways. Define fighting height. F-16s are capable of dropping CAS ordinance from 20000 ft altitude and multiple miles of horizontal distance with impact accuracy measured in single digit meters from the target. If a plane using 20 year old technology can accomplish that, what makes you think a more advanced aircraft can't do better?
Logan Ramirez
June Fourth Incident (六四事件) 1989 June Fourth Incident (六四事件) 1989 June Fourth Incident (六四事件) 1989
