Wrong answer sorry. What kind of a stupid ego is that. This is a forum and I don't need to read your comments to make another comment. What are you a fascist? "Intellectual dishonesty" in a forum. Well I think you seem to be isolated from all kinds of real intellectual communities and try to make defence.pk like one. Which is son, is not one.
The one with the outsize ego here is yours, buddy. No one, least of all me, said you have to respond to me. But the point that you completely missed is that it is useless for you to say on a publicly accessible forum that you will ignore me, as if the rest of the readers will be lemming like and follow your lead. If you say something that is false or from ignorance, you will be corrected whether you like it or not and whether you respond or not. The silent readers will decide on who is the more credible.
You don't even have the ability to understand what you read. I didn't say anything about IRST giving the range information, I said it gives the location. Than why are you replying something that I didn't tell so? Why are you deliberetly misleading what I've said. From what I see you are a better politician than a technician.
I have been debating this issue long enough to know that whenever a person bring on infrared detection, he is usually ignorant of the differences between active sensor (radar) versus passive sensor (infrared). He usually thinks that IR produces similar, if not the same, target resolutions as radar. It is always revealed that he get his knowledge from popular media articles than from genuine technical examination of those differences.
The manufacturers count many features that decreases the RCS of Eurofghter. Than if it's deterministic to catch Eurofighter (which means you detect a Eurofighter in every case that is possible from every direction) than why did they bother reducing RCS? You claimed Chinese engineers were stupid and taking measures for "imaginary" problems which we have discussed before. Now you claim this for German and British ones. I'm sorry but I am not going to talk to a twisted mind anymore. You have huge problems.
This is exactly what I mean when I said that someone posts from ignorance. And that is not being insulting.
I give you my favorite example of radar detection...
Since an aircraft is a finite body and a composite of many shapes that produces different radiating mechanisms, the goal of radar cross section
CONTROL, not reduction, is to achieve as much as possible a balance of those radiating mechanisms. RCS reduction is a bit misleading. It is not wrong to use it and even engineers in the field uses it casually as well. But control is the more precise descriptor.
In the example above, assume that the aircraft's EM graph came from simulation and not from a real body. The simulation revealed that I have a large spike from the rear vertical and horizontal stabilators configuration. Also obvious is a cluster of spikes from the three engine pods. The question now is where to focus the RCS control methods. Lockheed established these guidelines long ago with the F-117. Do I focus on the engine pods or on redesigning the rear flight control surfaces configuration? Common sense dictate that I should focus on the highest radiating factor on the body. Yes, I could also assign teams to work on other areas to control their contributorships but as long there is a dominant radiator, I should understand that seeking radars will automatically home in on this dominant radiator.
If the Eurofighter have RCS control methods on certain parts of its body, it was done with the hope that the fighter's RCS will be small enough to certain less capable radars, but its designers are under no illusions that those methods are of any good against the more capable American radars. Radar detection is essentially stochastical, fancy word for statistics. Yes, it is non-determistic but only to a degree. Those spikes are also clustered and against a background like the sky, that cluster will stand out clear enough to make detection assured.
And I thank God that a large portion of Americans are not like you and they are still communicateable.
Must have been a very small sampling.
By the way a feedback to you. I have read some of your discussions with the Chinese members. Sorry but you seem like a racist, who is trying to find some sources (relevant or irrelevant) and make some pseudo-scientific claims (IEEE is a pretty good community. I'm actually one of the members. However when you post an article from IEEE that is not even close to what the other guy says make it still a pseudo-scientific discussion) and make noise/insult to win a discussion. You know what I don't believe you have worked in USAF anymore. You seem like a wanna-be high school student who wants to say long live USA in every comment. Racist. And don't take any of them personally. lol
Another one who got suckered by the Chinese members here. You suspect me of being racist?
Are you afraid of finding out how many of the Chinese members here got suspended for their racist posts? Looks like you are.
When the Chinese came on here, right around the J-20 came out, they started making claims that practically defied the laws of physics. Not one of them have any military experience or even associated background. I politely pointed out their errors and supported my arguments with impeccable sources. The response was swift and insulting. To the Chinese members here, the
ONLY reason to challenge their claims, outrageous to the laws of nature as most were, is because the challenger is a racist. Then when they found out I was a Vietnamese-American, the insults got more personal and vile. And here you are calling me a racist.
Now that you know I am not a white American, feel free to descend to the gutter and use my origin in your posts.