How Effective Is China's New Anti-Stealth Radar System, Really?

[Esc8781]

Good joke, 3 F-117 have been destroyed

Proof or bust.

 

[Mav3rick]

Proof or bust.

You think he even knows what he is talking about? Why waste your time, I gave up a few days ago hoping that @gambit might be able to talk some sense into him.

 

[Globenim]

I'm surprise that Diplomat use Want China Times as it's resource. So, Want China Times has leveling up and become a credible source of China military news?

The Diplomat has always been Anti Chinese gossip and propaganda and just found a new low citing even Want China Times garbage. The opposite it true. American state controlled propaganda machine just got more ruthless.

 

[english_man]

This thing about 'stealth' is ridiculous...........i've no doubt that it has its merits, and that it makes it a lot harder to detect an incoming threat...........but its no cloaking device is it?

I'am sure that nations such as the US and China wouldnt actively pursue military stealth programs if it doesnt prove that there are no advantages to it.

But.........in relation to this thread i would agree that the Chinese and other nations wouldn't pursue radar programmes against this technology if they didnt think they would be effective...........ie i believe the Chinese can detect stealth aircraft to a certain degree.

 

[gambit]

Ohh yes bombing some banana republics that have no Air Defense and you think it is a proven technology to be completley stealth and unlockable? Good joke, 3 F-117 have been destroyed, 1 MiG-29 and another SAM kill and the US denied all three unfortunatley one crashed on Serbian soil otherwise today non of those crappy planes would be officially destroyed. Not to mention that those "Stealth" jets were escorted by F-15 and EW aircrafts that provided ECM area around "stealth" aircrafts that the old and unhandled SAMs in Iraq wouldn't even have a chance to lockon.

VHF is highly reliable to track LO/VLO aircrafts and will paint them and the funny thing is you call that russian propaganda while believing physically not possible nonsense like Lockheed Martins propaganda lies of 0.00001m² RCS which is impossible to achieve, both come just beneath 1m² and not lower than 0.005m² and that only under optimal conditions in best agnles in labors not in real life.

The joke is still on you, kid.

Even if we grant you the delusion that 3 F-117s were shot down, the statistics still have the last laugh: NATO flew over 30,000 sorties. If what Zoltan Dani did was so great against the F-117, that means it should be better against 'non-stealth' fighters, right ? Or are you saying that somehow what Dani did worked only against 'stealth' fighters ? If that is the case, then you are truly out of your league in this discussion. We have seen 'Chinese physics' and 'Iranian physics' on this forum. What kind of physics are you practicing ?

Of course only mumbling of an ami fanboy who has no clue and tries to discredit Petr Ufimtsevs work, without this russian fellow US would not have a single stealth aircraft today, the US tried for years to achieve a stealth aircraft but was working on a dead end route untill Petr Ufimtsev came, his mathematical work was used on every existing stealth object be it F-117,F-22,B-2 or Zumwalt or any other stealth object. Russians were not interested because such shapes are not really aerodynamic and didn't believe that such an object would even fly, russians also could have developed ERA in WW2, but some of the generals said they will not equip their tanks with Dynamit and 2 decades later it was done.

No Petr Ufimtsev no Stealth technology, it was his work and you little ami fanboy hates to see russians being the technology holder of it.

Here is my take on Ufimtsev and 'stealth'...

F-22 / F-35 5th Generation jets | News & Discussions. | Page 18

Yes the F-35 when that crap thing starts to work call back, same as for Raptor when it starts to kill enemies and not own pilots then you can claim that something is the best, so far no 5th gen fighter has even anywhere near combat ready and operational status then any 4.5th Gen Fighter, they are without doubt till this date dominating untill the 5th Gen fighter become operational, but they all have to many disease and bugs that make them useless.

If that is your line of argument, then we can say that the Chinese military, the one you are cheering for, is nowhere as combat ready and that mean this VHF radar cannot be certified as be able to track an F-117 class body. After all, what 'stealth' aircraft does the Chinese have to show the system does work ?

I can tell that the technical aspects of this discussion is way over your head, kid.

 

[SRBM2]

The joke is still on you, kid.

Even if we grant you the delusion that 3 F-117s were shot down, the statistics still have the last laugh: NATO flew over 30,000 sorties. If what Zoltan Dani did was so great against the F-117, that means it should be better against 'non-stealth' fighters, right ? Or are you saying that somehow what Dani did worked only against 'stealth' fighters ? If that is the case, then you are truly out of your league in this discussion. We have seen 'Chinese physics' and 'Iranian physics' on this forum. What kind of physics are you practicing ?


Here is my take on Ufimtsev and 'stealth'...

F-22 / F-35 5th Generation jets | News & Discussions. | Page 18


If that is your line of argument, then we can say that the Chinese military, the one you are cheering for, is nowhere as combat ready and that mean this VHF radar cannot be certified as be able to track an F-117 class body. After all, what 'stealth' aircraft does the Chinese have to show the system does work ?

I can tell that the technical aspects of this discussion is way over your head, kid.

You are truelly limited in understanding of physics which is an irony since you are the parrott that can not stop to use this word.

Horten was not stealth and could not be made stealth since the entire concept of how radar waves work and how radar scattering works was not even understandable at that time. Not to mention that all absolutley all Anti Aircraft radars were VHF (anti stealth radars) graphite does not grand any ability to absorb any radar waves longer then MMW of very weak and distant radars. It was trackable then it would be trackable today same as for any other so called "stealth" object.
Don't think that stealth is some magical device, wunderwaffen have never changed anything and the first time Horten Reimar has opened his mouth about stealth was the time the F-117 was already in early stages of development under Petr Ufimtsevs mathematical calculations and that idiot Reimar then started first talking about stealth which contradicted with the concept and lossed his entire story.

Stealth has its benefits no doubt about that but protraying it as untrackable is just 14 year old fanboyism and nothing more. BeLIEving in such crap like Lockheed Martins horrible propaganda of 0.00001m² RCS is just impossible to achieve and RCS is affected by use of different wave lengths. Seeing same object in X-band and then seeing it in L-band has a huge impact on how the RCS appears, not to mention when you use ground based radars with hundred to thousand fold time more power and performance and triangulating the object in an IADS overlapping of multiple echolon of Air Defense and Radars covering each other. VLO shapes of such thing as F-22,T-50,J-20,F-35 or any other aircraft are specialized for lowered RCS in AIR to AIR engagements. They performe far better against airborne radars then against ground based radars and not due the power of ground radars but through the shape.

Such bullshit stories like the F-22 that was hunted in exercises by a F-15 and could not lockon with its radar on it, despite looking into the engines of the plane that was just 400m infront of the F-15 proofs the crap story of USofA that they care more about their image then about actual combat effecient technologies.

The fact that they currently claim F-22 performs air strikes in syria is another lie to make it seam that Syrians can't track or shoot it down, despite non of the air strikes performed anywhere near of Syrian Air Defense systems.

Stealth is just the Reduction of Radar Cross Section beneath 1-0.5m² RCS but they do not make them lower than 0.005m² which is the lowest RCS to achieve not counting combat relevant conditions.

Ho-229...seriously you completley discredited yourself with such horrible knowledge and fanboyism and your attitude to "Stand no ground for military achievements and inventions to the russians".

Petr Ofimtsev is the father of stealth, period.

And it is not the russians that have to proof that their radars work, it is the US that has to proof that their "Stealth" super duper planes can fly over chinese or russian radars untracked. It is not the Chinese who claim that their Aircrafts are completley unvisible and will never be tracked.

Stop bombing some small banana republics without an Integrated Air Defense System with almost no capabilities. There is not a single country the US has attacked that was not sanctioned over years up to several decades having some downgraded export models of equipment, but despite those facts Serbia ruined your entire Air Strike campaign and resulted in a disaster leaving the US only the coward option to bomb civilians, trains, TV stations, chinese Embassy, villages with guided bombs, power plant, housing blocks etc pp.
What little Serbia did despite having old export models with almost no number of Air Defense system, not to mention it was not a modern Integrated System has left US and NATO a bloody nose a single ADS operated by Dani's personal has shot down a significant number, if the entire country were on his level of knowledge and training there would be nothing the US could deny, but till this date they deny downing of so many aircrafts in Serbia despite Serbians have a museum with tons of shit of aircraft equipment some parts, ejection seats, Gforce suites, EPAs, personal aircraft equipment for operating behind enemy lines a shit ton of that stuff.

 

[gambit]

You are truelly limited in understanding of physics which is an irony since you are the parrott that can not stop to use this word.

No...It is YOU who do not understand basic physics, kid.

...0.00001m² RCS is just impossible to achieve and RCS is affected by use of different wave lengths.

No...It is not impossible to achieve. And yes, RCS is dependent on many factors, of which frequency employed is one of them. But people on this forum already know that from me, loooooong before you got here. You brought on nothing new, kid. As far your absurd claim that such a low RCS is impossible to achieve, that mean it is YOU who have no understanding of physics. With the right combination of freq employed, distance involved, and certain environmental conditions, an aircraft, especially a 'stealthy' one, will not produce any RCS at all. You do not seems to understand that atmospheric losses works both ways, from the seeking radar and from the echoes off the target.

Petr Ofimtsev is the father of stealth, period.

No...Ufimtsev is NOT. Period.

 

[SRBM2]

No...It is YOU who do not understand basic physics, kid.


No...It is not impossible to achieve. And yes, RCS is dependent on many factors, of which frequency employed is one of them. But people on this forum already know that from me, loooooong before you got here. You brought on nothing new, kid. As far your absurd claim that such a low RCS is impossible to achieve, that mean it is YOU who have no understanding of physics. With the right combination of freq employed, distance involved, and certain environmental conditions, an aircraft, especially a 'stealthy' one, will not produce any RCS at all. You do not seems to understand that atmospheric losses works both ways, from the seeking radar and from the echoes off the target.


No...Ufimtsev is NOT. Period.

A true fanboy is visible on how he gets butthurt and starts trying to discredit others by calling them "kids".

Everything you mumbled about Reimar Horten was such a fantastic story that completley contradicts with radar scattering and the to that time current radars and unterstanding of radar scattering.

But yes keep up your fanboyism and no stand ground to russian technology, claim it for yourself does not change reality what people mumble out of blind fanboyism.

Petr Ufimtsev without him there would not be F-117/22/35 or any vessel or anything else.

 

[gambit]

A true fanboy is visible on how he gets butthurt and starts trying to discredit others by calling them "kids".

Because that is exactly what you are.

Everything you mumbled about Reimar Horten was such a fantastic story that completley contradicts with radar scattering and the to that time current radars and unterstanding of radar scattering.

Then why not go to that thread and dispute what I said about the -229 in a TECHNICAL manner ?

But yes keep up your fanboyism and no stand ground to russian technology, claim it for yourself does not change reality what people mumble out of blind fanboyism.

It was hilarious that you claimed a zero RCS is impossible without providing a shred of technical evidence for it.

If a body can have a range of RCS values based upon:

- Freq
- Distance
- Atmospheric attenuation (losses)

That mean that body, 'stealthy' or not, can have a zero RCS value. Radar detection is based upon perception and that perception is based upon the QUANTITY and QUALITY of echo signals received. It means an RCS value is a fictitious accounting of that body.

Petr Ufimtsev without him there would not be F-117/22/35 or any vessel or anything else.

No...All Ufimtsev did was accelerated the development of PTD, if not under that label, then it would have been under another label. The behaviors of radar scattering was already well known. If you cannot distinguish the difference between knowledge of those behaviors versus the mathematical formalization of them, then it is true that you are a child and a clueless fanboy. Credit should be given where it is due and we gave appropriate credit and respect to Ufimtsev. But the true creator of 'stealth' rests with the US, particularly Lockheed.

 

[Gijoe]

Hey SRBM2 don't argue with the aircraft cleaner Gambit, he have all textbook about avionics. When you see reply delay he have to go through textbooks, if he busted he will call kids. Even saying Russian physics or chinese physics only Gambit is correct.

Below is a gift for you gambit

Pyotr Yakovlevich Ufimtsev (Russian: Пётр Я́ковлевич Уфи́мцев) (born 1931 in Altai Krai) is a Soviet/Russian physicist and mathematician, considered the seminal force behind modern stealth aircraft technology. In the 1960s he began developing equations for predicting the reflection of electromagnetic waves from simple two-dimensional shapes.[1]

Much of Ufimtsev's work was translated into English, and in the 1970s American Lockheedengineers began to expand upon some of his theories to create the concept of aircraft with reduced radar signatures.[2]

 

[SRBM2]

Hey SRBM2 don't argue with the aircraft cleaner Gambit, he have all textbook about avionics. When you see reply delay he have to go through textbooks, if he busted he will call kids. Even saying Russian physics or chinese physics only Gambit is correct.

Below is a gift for you gambit

Such people are well known and his entire behavior only signals fanboyism.

 

[gambit]

Hey SRBM2 don't argue with the aircraft cleaner Gambit, he have all textbook about avionics.

What do you guys have ?

 

[english_man]

You guys are so funny!..........I do enjoy reading your posts..........but seriously are any of you genuinely ex-military men or have worked for defence companies?

 

[AMCA]

Why not fly a J-20 and have this radar detect it. That way you will come to know which one is faulty

 

[SRBM2]

You guys are so funny!..........I do enjoy reading your posts..........but seriously are any of you genuinely ex-military men or have worked for defence companies?

Yes, i've served 4 years in germany, but that does not matter there are planty of people like Fofanov who did not serve and is sill a well known and accepted military expert for soviet tanks.
Just from serving in military will not give somehow magically knowledge of technologies, such things have to be learned and educated from credible sources.

Why not fly a J-20 and have this radar detect it. That way you will come to know which one is faulty

That would not proof anything.
Stealth does not make anything invisible it only lowers RCS which decreases the range of enemy radars at which ranges it can be tracked. That is the entire purpose of "Stealth".