IRIAF | News and Discussions

[Hack-Hook]

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.

Come on . that aircraft is invisible only because the reflection of sunlight on that cleon layer made enemy gunner blind. That air craft is visible from twice the distance .

 

[Sineva]

Come on . that aircraft is invisible only because the reflection of sunlight on that cleon layer made enemy gunner blind. That air craft is visible from twice the distance .

That turned out to be the big flaw with the theory,from certain angles the sunlight was reflected making the aircraft more visible not less,none the less this was the first recorded attempt at "stealth".

 

[Ray_Atek]

https://sputniknews.com/us/201905151075036807-sanders-iran-war-iraq-bolton/

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/plane-no-f-35-it-could-terrorize-america’s-enemies-58552

 

[skyshadow]

https://sputniknews.com/us/201905151075036807-sanders-iran-war-iraq-bolton/

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/plane-no-f-35-it-could-terrorize-america’s-enemies-58552

 

[Arminkh]

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.

I just can't stop admiring German engineering and their ambitious designs before they lost WWII. Wish they hadn't lost this spirit.

 

[VEVAK]

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.


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.

And what part of what I said do you think your disproving??? Maybe you should learn how to read 1st!!!!!!!! I nor Boing never claimed the F-15SE to be a Stealth fighter! Simply the fact that the modification reduced it's RCS where in LAMEN's TERMS people could claim it to be stealthier than the standard strike eagle! And nothing you said changes that fact.

As for the RQ-170 unlike the F-15SE the original design is of a flying wing design with no vertical surfaces, that uses a screened intake to further reduce radiation emissions reflecting from inside the intake which makes the design what is referred to as a stealth designed airframe! And that is simply a layman's terminology for no known aircraft is actually stealth especially against modern software assisted radars so it's simply at what range a specific size RCS can be detected & separated from your normal clutter filter due to the objects speed, altitude,..... So the F-22 could have the RCS of a bumblebee but bumblebee's and other naturally created clutters that will be filtered do not move as speed's of +300kph. Now you can claim that the RQ-170 is not at the edges of U.S. stealth technology and that my be true but it is a stealth design just as the F-117 is a stealth design.

And Iran can most definitely further reduces the RCS of an already low RCS design which again in laymen's terminology makes it stealthier especially Iran's Saegheh that's smaller with much thinner wings.

That said just look at what Yemen has been able to achieve using the type of UAV's Iran was mass producing 2 decades ago! And Iran is NOT Yemen! we are talking about a country that's been mass producing a long list of UAV's & UCAV's for almost 2 decades and Iran is under no illusion of the limitation of stealth technology or it's own Air Force so most of the funding will instead go towards mass production & mass deployment of light but highly accurate PGM's deployed off low RCS but at the same time low cost platforms so even if they are intercepted using missiles it would still count as a win for Iran.


And I'll repeat it once more because it's the last time I wish to argue about it and you can deny it all you want but The RQ-170 is a Flying Wing design, whos very existence was classified & was being operated by the world leading covert spy agency so denying that it was a stealth UAV simply makes it seem as if your in denial!

And when I say Iran is not the same country as the country you played your little sim with I sure as hell am not referring to the number of Fighter Jets, Tankers, Helo's, Tanks, Blue water naval vessels,... we operate! In that aspect Iran hasn't changed much because most of the money has gone somewhere else and UAV's are UCAV's are today a large part of that!

 

[Sineva]

I just can't stop admiring German engineering and their ambitious designs before they lost WWII. Wish they hadn't lost this spirit.

Yes,german aero-engineering and technology was incredibly advanced during both wars.A lot of people dont realise just how much effort the germans put into designing and operating large strategic bombers during ww1,some of these were very advanced designs indeed.Sadly the last vestiges of this pretty much died out in the late 60s-mid 70s.

 

[gambit]

And Iran can most definitely further reduces the RCS of an already low RCS design which again in laymen's terminology makes it stealthier especially Iran's Saegheh that's smaller with much thinner wings.

You can take this as a warning...Of sort...

Iran's UAVs, and you can call them 'stealthy' if you like, WILL be detected. Not just on the ground, but also from the sea and in the air. Iran can copy the RQ-170 down to the mm and it will do Iran no good. I am that confident.

And I'll repeat it once more because it's the last time I wish to argue about it and you can deny it all you want but The RQ-170 is a Flying Wing design, whos very existence was classified & was being operated by the world leading covert spy agency so denying that it was a stealth UAV simply makes it seem as if your in denial!

You can repeat it all you want, but considering the fact that in a couple posts I educated you on the basics of low radar observable design, maybe it is you who are in denial in the face of technical information you never knew before.

Those intake grills? There are more to them than meets the eyes. There is no valid comparison between the intake grilles on the F-117 and the RQ-170.

 

[Sina-1]

Iran can copy the RQ-170 down to the mm and it will do Iran no good. I am that confident.

Unfortunately for you, laws of physics is not a matter of opinion. Low observability vehicles are produced by engineers following laws of physics. You maybe think Iranian engineers are incompetent to achieve the same result their American counterparts made decades ago, you att entitled to have that view. However, logically, “stealth” is not a magical or divine attribute only reserved to a few. Put in enough manpower and literally any country could figure it out. That is my opinion as an engineer and scientist.

 

[arashkamangir]

Unfortunately for you, laws of physics is not a matter of opinion. Low observability vehicles are produced by engineers following laws of physics. You maybe think Iranian engineers are incompetent to achieve the same result their American counterparts made decades ago, you att entitled to have that view. However, logically, “stealth” is not a magical or divine attribute only reserved to a few. Put in enough manpower and literally any country could figure it out. That is my opinion as an engineer and scientist.

Ignore him. He has superiority complex.

 

[gambit]

Unfortunately for you, laws of physics is not a matter of opinion. Low observability vehicles are produced by engineers following laws of physics. You maybe think Iranian engineers are incompetent to achieve the same result their American counterparts made decades ago, you att entitled to have that view. However, logically, “stealth” is not a magical or divine attribute only reserved to a few. Put in enough manpower and literally any country could figure it out. That is my opinion as an engineer and scientist.

The laws of physics are not opinions? You should have told that to your fellow Iranians.

I have more respect for engineers and scientists, no matter their national allegiance, than you think. The issue is not whether Iran can replicate the RQ-170 down to the mm. Am sure Iran's best can do so. But the issue is whether the -170 is as low radar observable to the degree of the F-117 that so many believes that it is. If it is not, and I have reasoned out why in post 3350 page 224, then that ability to copy down to the mm is moot. We will detect it.

You claim to be a scientist and engineer. I will take you at your word. You can exercise critical thinking skills and tell me where am I wrong regarding the laws of physics in post 3350 page 224, posts 3366 3367 3371 page 225. You do not need to have related experience, although that would be great if you do, but as a scientist, one level up from engineer, your cognitive and reasoning skills should compensate for any lack of relevant experience.

 

[VEVAK]

You can take this as a warning...Of sort...

Iran's UAVs, and you can call them 'stealthy' if you like, WILL be detected. Not just on the ground, but also from the sea and in the air. Iran can copy the RQ-170 down to the mm and it will do Iran no good. I am that confident.


You can repeat it all you want, but considering the fact that in a couple posts I educated you on the basics of low radar observable design, maybe it is you who are in denial in the face of technical information you never knew before.

Those intake grills? There are more to them than meets the eyes. There is no valid comparison between the intake grilles on the F-117 and the RQ-170.

As long as it's within the laws of physics sure and it wouldn't be any different if Iran was operating F-22's.
As for U.S. sensors detecting Iranian UAV's of course if Iran was to launch them from normal military bases and air fields stealth wouldn't mean much against the U.S. since U.S. spy Sat monitoring those bases will detect their launch & would be prepared for them.... You think Iran doesn't know that and wouldn't plan accordingly?
U.S. also monitors every radio emission off every frequency it can pickup globally using sat & overt & covert assets on the ground, sea and air which again Iran is fully aware of and would again plan accordingly.

As for stealth capability against radars every radar has it's limitations & the rest is a matter of figuring out the limitation of each asset at each location and working your way around them and operating stealth or low RCS aircrafts or UAV's simply gives you an edge when your attempting to work your way around them and Iran is under no illusion that stealth somehow make Iranian UAV's untouchable. You do understand that Iran has it's own radars and produces it's own radars and is fully capable of testing it's own UAV's against all the various radars that we possess. And limitation of stealth isn't only restricted to Iran.

You Americans act as if Iran's various military branches and leadership has somehow magically been oblivious to the fact that the United States has been threatening Iran with military action and has been building up military bases around Iran for almost 2 decades and Iran's Military has somehow magically chose not to plan for and prepare for how to respond and with what to respond with if a war was to take place.

U.S. Dollar is a few decades from loosing it's global supremacy and countries like Russia and China are slowly stocking up on gold & you guys are still running around obsessing on Iran a country who doesn't have the capability to deliver a single armored battalion to U.S. shores. And rather than begging Iran to continue using USD in it's Oil transactions and increase trade with Iran your president sanctions Iran. So who do you think lives in a bigger bubble today us or you? And Donald Trump screaming the U.S. economy has never been this good isn't gong to wipe away your $22 Trillion USD debt! And once dollar loses it's supremacy a military that spends over $100 Billion of it's budget on paychecks alone is going to be in real trouble!

 

[mohsen]

So here is the conclusion of reading several last pages:
RQ-170 was not stealthy!
Electronic systems in both Saar5 were offline!
American dream is invincible, PERIOD. (The way Obama liked to say)

P.S. Later Trump said that dream is dead!

 

[Sina-1]

the issue is whether the -170 is as low radar observable to the degree of the F-117 that so many believes that it is.

I have a hard time believing they went through all that hassle in regards aero-instability that is inherent in a flying wing (without vert-tail) concept AND not gaining any low radar cross-s. Seems like a waste. Would you care to explain why not using a more conventional design?

If it is not, and I have reasoned out why in post 3350 page 224, then that ability to copy down to the mm is moot. We will detect it.

I do not agree with you premise in that specific post. You explain the EM chamber for f16, correctly and rationally I might add, but then you move on to say that the case is the same for the RQ. You did not really connect your premise to your conclusion, hence I do not find the argument to be true.

You can exercise critical thinking skills and tell me where am I wrong regarding the laws of physics in post 3350 page 224, posts 3366 3367 3371 page 225.

Sorry I didn't have time to go through the other posts.

You do not need to have related experience, although that would be great if you do,

No specific knowledge but I have a colleague doing his PhD in this field so I know a grain,

 

[aryobarzan]

So here is the conclusion of reading several last pages:
RQ-170 was not stealthy!
Electronic systems in both Saar5 were offline!
American dream is invincible, PERIOD. (The way Obama liked to say)

P.S. Later Trump said that dream is dead!

Few general rules to observe about Americans :
A) To an American their military technology is always cutting edge and second to none..the reality is that their technology is already old ....full of bugs...extra expensive and difficult to maintain examples...performance of Patriot AD in Israel, and Saudi Arabia...F35 disaster... Zumwalt class warships..etc...(too many to mention!)..The primary reason other countries buy them is political blackmail that the US government runs on these vassal countries..(case Turkey wants S-400..Americans are forcing Patriots down their throat!!).
B) To an American they are always the good smart guys and the enemy is the evil dumb *** who wet their pants when they see an American soldier. ..The reality is exactly reverse (US sailors wetting their pants when captured by IRGC in the Persian Gulf)..

Since WWII US military has not fought a winning war:
1- Korea war (just ask kim youm youm ..lol)
2- Vietnam (we know how that ended!)
3- Afghanistan (Northern alliance entered Kabul and Americans claimed victory!..still bleeding!..now they want out honorably!).
4-Iraq ( Saddam generals all received phone calls with US visa offers in exchange for abandoning their posts..they did..US military entered Baghdad and claimed victory!!!..Iraq generals did it again in Mosul when ISIL entered..wonder how many ex Iraq generals are now in US..lol ).

Of course US military wins wars is in Hollywood battle fields..but that is another story.....

Conclusion: Do not get into any argument with an American about War, technology or any thing of the sort...They are the best ....the have the best.... and that is written in their minds it is called "american exceptionalism" .