IRIAF | News and Discussions

[Mithridates]

You can read some of the public reports about the F-18's RCS reduction results here...

https://www.defensenews.com/digital.../09/how-stealthy-is-boeings-new-super-hornet/


Details? Or rather lack of?

well by your classifications of alerts they should have see we are coming for 1 hour but they didn't noticed. i mean you can avoid being detected even if you are in a non stealth plane. then how is that classification relevant?? do you mean normal flights in normal altitudes?? then again that classification is not accurate.

 

[gambit]

well by your classifications of alerts they should have see we are coming for 1 hour but they didn't noticed. i mean you can avoid being detected even if you are in a non stealth plane. then how is that classification relevant?? do you mean normal flights in normal altitudes?? then again that classification is not accurate.

I think you missed the point of my examples.

The alert status I presented was to illustrate the posture of response independent of whether there is a detected threat or not. If the suspected threat is 'stealth', then the prudent status is Alert 5. Unfortunately, no air force base can maintain that status for long, and that was the point: That 'stealth' creates high degrees of uncertainty which inevitably increases operational tempo stress on the defense.

However you avoid detection is your business. For US, we are now using 'stealth'. Avoidance by 'non-stealth' methods does not invalidate the tactical utility and advantages of 'stealth'. Just that 'stealth' gives more options.

 

[WinterNights]

I did say you would not like it and would dispute it. I know my post was informative. In fact, since '09, I debunked most of the 'stealth' myths that were carelessly tossed around on this forum. Today, no forum 'old timer' talk about making any jet 'stealthy' any more, thanks to me. Either the jet is designed to be 'stealthy' from paper, or it is not 'stealthy' at all. I posted the basic guidelines in designing a low radar observable body yrs ago. You are free to believe anything you like.

The point is not whether I like it or not, the point is the substance of your argument. Like I said, the core of your claim has no evidence backing it up. Unless you can provide actual evidence that this RQ was never designed to be a stealthy platform form it's inception, then there is not much more to discuss here.

 

[VEVAK]

I did say you would not like it and would dispute it. I know my post was informative. In fact, since '09, I debunked most of the 'stealth' myths that were carelessly tossed around on this forum. Today, no forum 'old timer' talk about making any jet 'stealthy' any more, thanks to me. Either the jet is designed to be 'stealthy' from paper, or it is not 'stealthy' at all. I posted the basic guidelines in designing a low radar observable body yrs ago. You are free to believe anything you like.

Maybe you should of told that to Boeing before they spent all the money on the F-15 Silent Eagle.

So you can most defiantly reduce an Aircraft's RCS where in layman's terms people could claim it to be stealthier! But does it make it a stealth fighter, unless originally designed to be one of course not! Because your modifications would have to be so extensive that you'd probably be better off paying the cost of a completely new design.

The point is not whether I like it or not, the point is the substance of your argument. Like I said, the core of your claim has no evidence backing it up. Unless you can provide actual evidence that this RQ was never designed to be a stealthy platform form it's inception, then there is not much more to discuss here.

It's a flying wing design UAV that was being used by the CIA! I believe that speaks for it's self as to whether it's a stealth UAV or not!

 

[WinterNights]

It's a flying wing design UAV that was being used by the CIA! I believe that speaks for it's self as to whether it's a stealth UAV or not!

I tried telling him that, but apparently this was not obvious enough for him.

 

[gambit]

The point is not whether I like it or not, the point is the substance of your argument.

From my debating on this forum since '09 when I was invited here, I found USUALLY nationalistic passions trumps logic and evidence, so from that perspective, it does matter whether you like what I presented or not.

- The flying wing design have been around since the 1920s. The first powered flight was in 1903. So we are looking at barely 20 yrs since the birth of aviation that the flying wing started being investigated as a viable flying design.

- The flying wing design have inherent reduced radar return. The first operational radar did not make its debut until WW II. The idea of an EM 'cross section' of a body did not exist.

In hindsight, we cannot reasonably associate the two facts that the flying wing design itself was the result of a deliberate intent to design a radar low observable body, so despite hindsight with improved knowledge, the usage of the flying wing design itself does not equal to a deliberate intent to avoid radar detection. Long range as an inherent character of the design is also well known since the 1920s.

Like I said, the core of your claim has no evidence backing it up. Unless you can provide actual evidence that this RQ was never designed to be a stealthy platform form it's inception, then there is not much more to discuss here.

Regarding post 3350 back on page 224, another thing I noticed about debating on this forum is that people do not want to take the time to observe the photographic evidence they see.

What did you noticed about the F-16 in that anechoic chamber? Is it possible that the jet's wings payload are asymmetrical for a reason? If there was a technical reason why, is it possible that what I said about measurement of radiation patterns -- valid?

The 'actual evidence' you insist on does exist, but just because they do exist does not mean they are publicly available. So even if somehow I am 'in the know', I cannot reveal such evidence anyway. I care about my country as much as you care for yours, right?

So what remains are our willingness to put aside any biases, look at the list of available evidence, the chain of associations, and at least be willing to entertain reasonable assumptions of alternative conclusions, as best of conclusions as we can.

Your mind is made up. I get that. But you are not the only person who are interested in this event and its associated technical issues involved. I post not to debate your made up mind, but give the silent readers out there the alternative conclusions that do not exist in most forums, certainly not in Iranian military oriented forums.

 

[gambit]

Maybe you should of told that to Boeing before they spent all the money on the F-15 Silent Eagle.

So you can most defiantly reduce an Aircraft's RCS where in layman's terms people could claim it to be stealthier! But does it make it a stealth fighter, unless originally designed to be one of course not! Because your modifications would have to be so extensive that you'd probably be better off paying the cost of a completely new design.

This implies I do not know what I am talking about regarding basic radar detection principles and 'stealth'. So here goes...

There are three rules in designing a low radar observable body:

- Control of QUANTITY of radiators
- Control of ARRAY of radiators
- Control of MODES of radiation

While I used the world 'rules', they are more like guidelines. They are not 'rules' that you can break but guidelines that you can have degrees of obedience to them.

While rule one -- Control of QUANTITY of radiators -- is the first rule, it does not mean it is of higher value than the other two. All three rules are equal in importance with Rule One having the first consideration at conception.

You can take what I said above to Lockheed, Boeing, or your Iranian aviation/radar experts and NO ONE will dispute. I am that confident.

So for the F-15SE, we cannot put the basic airframe under Rule One. We cannot remove any flight control structures. At best, we may reshape or even resize them, but we cannot remove any of them.

Which lead to Rule Two -- Control of ARRAY of radiators. Twin canted vertical stabs eliminated the 90 deg corner reflectors created by the physical relationships -- array -- between the vertical and horizontal stabs. Enclosing the weapons load also falls under Rule Two because the conformal weapons bays (CWB) eliminated completely any geometric structures from the weapons.

For Rule Three -- Control of MODES of radiation -- there is some application of absorber at strategic airframe locations. The curvatures of the CWB also affects radiation behaviors (modes).

So based upon the three rules, not likely the F-16 will be a candidate for any kind of RCS reduction package because the F-16's basic airframe cannot fall under rules One and Two. We cannot eliminate the single vertical stab and we cannot cant (tilt) it. We can install a V tail on the F-16 but that would make the new airframe less obedient to Rule One, but if we cant (tilt) the new twin vertical stabs to eliminate the 90 deg corner reflector structures, that would make the new airframe more obedient to Rule Two. Then we can apply absorber to make the new F-16 more obedient to Rule Three. Do you see where am heading here?

The F-15 is a larger airframe and that made it more flexible for modifications than the F-16. The F-16's basic airframe would make it difficult to modify it to have twin canted vertical stabs without having major structural reinforcement to that area. This further reduces the odds of the F-16 candidacy for any level of RCS reduction methods.

So yes, I do know what am talking about. And am willing to bet you just learned a lot more from me than from your Iranian military forums.

It's a flying wing design UAV that was being used by the CIA! I believe that speaks for it's self as to whether it's a stealth UAV or not!

Aaahh...So just because you inserted the initials 'CIA' into the mix, that made the RQ-170 valid in your argument?

In my opinion, the RQ-170 does have some inherent low radar observable traits but it is not 'stealthy' in the deliberateness of the F-117, F-22, F-35, and B-2.

My opinion is based upon knowledge as posted above. Your opinion is based upon three letters of the English alphabet and readers' inferences.

 

[Hack-Hook]

In my opinion, the RQ-170 does have some inherent low radar observable traits but it is not 'stealthy' in the deliberateness of the F-117, F-22, F-35, and B-2.

i wonder if it not desigbed to be stealthy , why you guys used RAM on it , what difference it have compared to b2

 

[gambit]

i wonder if it not desigbed to be stealthy , why you guys used RAM on it , what difference it have compared to b2

See post 3350 page 224.

 

[Hack-Hook]

The installation of RAM on the RQ-170 is not to reduce RCS, although that is a benefit. The drone is unmanned and remotely piloted. It can also receive various communication signals from other sources. The absorber is there to primarily control interference. If there is a reduction in RCS, great. If not, we do not care. The remote pilot feature is satellite relayed so that mean the antennas for that are topside. Absorber reduce and even eliminate any interference from edge diffraction signals that came from radar or any common EM transmissions that can negatively affect those topside antennas. The transmission/reception signals for the remote pilot feature should be as absolute integrity as possible.

That explanation can be held exactly about B2 .you just need to change remote pilot with onboard computer.
The drone was designed to work unnoticed in contested air space and behinf enemy air defence .thats also my logical and technical explanations I wonder how you refute that.

Also I still wonder why B2 is stealth but you say RQ-170 is not.while it has the design of a stealth fighter.
Here we say if its round look like and taste like walnut then its probably walnut.

 

[gambit]

That explanation can be held exactly about B2 .you just need to change remote pilot with onboard computer.
The drone was designed to work unnoticed in contested air space and behinf enemy air defence .thats also my logical and technical explanations I wonder how you refute that.

This falls under the Horten 229 appearance error. Because the Nazis explored the flying wing design and the Horten Brothers had iron fillings in the design, that mean the Nazis had first dibs on 'stealth'.

What make the B-2 different from the Ho-229 and the RQ-170 was that the B-2 was designed from concept, shaped, measured, reshaped, remeasured, and the cycle continued until we see the final product today.

The Ho-229 did not go thru that shape-reshape-measure process. The Horten Brothers did not have a continuous usage of radar to test their aircraft. Their flying wing design was chosen more for long range, which I pointed out several times already, than for its inherent low radar observability.

Same for the RQ-170. Just because the aircraft was designed in secret, it must have mean 'stealth', right? No. Its predecessors were also developed in secret and we know there is nothing 'stealthy' about propellers. The RQ-170 is designed to be EXPENDABLE, meaning any losses for any reason would not affect the greater tactical mission, which is primarily about providing real time intelligence. If we lose one, the local commander have another readied, and another, and another, and so on. From the B-2, we know enough about the flying wing inherent low radar observability that there is no need to make it any more 'stealthy' than it already is. Spending more technical efforts on this UAV to the extent of the B-2 would mean each UAV would reach a price point where its availability would be tactically limited.

 

[Hack-Hook]

This falls under the Horten 229 appearance error. Because the Nazis explored the flying wing design and the Horten Brothers had iron fillings in the design, that mean the Nazis had first dibs on 'stealth'.

Horton 229 had lots of vertical stabilizers, not very good for RCS.

And do you have any evidence that RQ-170 didn't go under the tests for reducing RCS.

By the way while you guys already did all the hard work while developing B2 what's the need to reinvent the wheel . many of the calculation and concepts related to the design of B2 can be used for designing RQ-170 and that's the reason it didn't go under as rigorous test as b2.
Also who says being expendable means being not stealthy .
A question for you a U2 is less stealthy as RQ-170 is it designed to be cheap and expendable.

Being expendable mean being able to replace it easily . you can't replace a U2 easily as you must train the pilot for it and that's not easy. You can replace RQ-170 easily by ordering one out of storage.

 

[gambit]

Horton 229 had lots of vertical stabilizers, not very good for RCS.

But those who were/are eager to deny US the credit for 'stealth' go by appearance. Details are irrelevant.

And do you have any evidence that RQ-170 didn't go under the tests for reducing RCS.

No, I do not. But that does not automatically make the opposite happened. Again, the Ho-229 have inherent low radar observability but we know it did not go thru measurement.

By the way while you guys already did all the hard work while developing B2 what's the need to reinvent the wheel . many of the calculation and concepts related to the design of B2 can be used for designing RQ-170 and that's the reason it didn't go under as rigorous test as b2.

Sounds reasonable.

Also who says being expendable means being not stealthy .

Never said it could not be. Again, the flying wind itself have inherent low radar observability. I can repeat that all day.

A question for you a U2 is less stealthy as RQ-170 is it designed to be cheap and expendable.

No, the U-2/TR-1 was not designed to be expendable. Its design includes mission adaptive packages, meaning different sensor for specific mission. We had the U-2 and SR-71 for different types of reconnaissance.

Whenever people use the words 'real time', they think of something from the movies where you can watch something going on immediately. While that is technically true, what is 'real time' actually have time intervals between updates of intelligence. If you are informed of something at 2 hrs apart, that is 'real time'. A car can move farther in two days than in two hrs. A U-2 can fly for 12 hrs. So within that 12 hrs, you can be informed of the car's movement every two hrs, one hrs, or one minute intervals. On the other hand, the SR-71's speed and fuel capacity enabled it to penetrate contested airspace, gain intelligence, and return home in as short a time as possible, usually within a few hrs. That is also 'real time'.

This means the U-2 was not intended to be expendable regardless of how much to produce it.

 

[Hack-Hook]

But those who were/are eager to deny US the credit for 'stealth' go by appearance. Details are irrelevant.

I credit USA with stealth but the flying wing design is not USA design .

 

[Sineva]

I credit USA with stealth but the flying wing design is not USA design .

Weeell,that would of course depend on your definition of "stealth".Historically the 1916 Linke Hofman r1 bomber is usually considered to be the first attempt at a "stealth" aircraft,tho the stealth in question was optical,basically making a large section of the fuselage and tail see-thru through the use of a material called cellon.