IRIAF | News and Discussions

[VEVAK]

The real nerve that was struck here is the fact that the RQ is not as 'stealthy' as people, especially Iranians, would like to believe.

The reality is that there is not a single accepted 'standard' -- and I quoted that word to emphasize its dubiousness -- on low radar observability. NOT ONE. Never from Lockheed since the days of the F-117 and up to today's platforms.

In the absence of any standard, people will impute whatever values they want. You cannot deny the technical issues I presented so far. There is no 'degrading' of anything by US and from US. I speak on a technical platform that none of you have.

Admit it...You guys have learned more about low radar observability from this American than from any Iranian forums.


Sure you can. I have said for yrs on this forum that radar sees all. The issue that you guys continues to dismiss is the TACTICAL DISTANCE of that detection.

So as I have educated you guys on 'stealth', I will educate you guys further on basic radar detection.

For starter, a radar beam is not like an arrow/line like how most illustrations have it. The real radar beam is conical, even the beam shape that is labeled as 'pencil' beam.

https://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/243/

Because of beam spreading, a radar that has a claimed maximum distance of 100 km, for example, would have an OPERATIONALLY USEFUL range of between %80-90 of max. This is real physics, not Chinese physics, not Russian physics, not Indian physics, and not Iranian physics.

Inclement environment, such as weather or terrain clutter, reduces that operational useful range by another %5-10. So now out of that 100 km claimed range, it is now more like about %75 of max.

When an aircraft is deliberately designed to be low radar observable, there is a range of reduction of that remaining %75. The low end of that additional reduction will be about %50 of that remaining %75. So just in using rough figures, the least 'stealthy' body will be detected at a tactical useful distance of about 30-40 km. The F-22 and F-35 are the more 'stealthy' shapes so now the detection distance for them will be around high 10s to low 20s km. This is assuming the jet is in a steady flight state.

F-22 and F-35 pilots do not have license to be careless in an EM high environment, such as combat. When I was active duty on the F-111, F-111 crews from RAF Upper Heyford and Lakenheath routinely trains to avoid those maximum radar ranges. That is how we would penetrate Warsaw Pact radars on CONEUR. A jet can touch a radar at those maximum range without the radar triggering a target detected alert. So when a movie have a 'blip' on the radar scope, that aircraft is already well inside that %75 operationally useful range.

Whenever the environment allows, F-22 and F-35 pilots will not allow themselves to be inside that minimum 'stealthy' range of low %10-20 of operationally useful range. You will be hit without knowing where the bullet came from.

Wow so you have truly deluded yourself to a point that makes you think your schooling me on Frequency with absurd high school level comments like frequency doesn't travel in a straight line

So sorry to burst your bubble but NOTHING you have said so far about stealth tech or frequency was any news to me let alone Iranian engineers working on Iranian radars & stealth tech....

And your delusions about the RQ-170 NOT being a stealth aircraft is absolutely degrading to U.S. tech! Your claiming the Aircraft designers were absolute morons for putting it's sensor package in a hidden low signature design that limits the sensors field of view, They were morons for putting a high drag screen in front of the intake & even bigger moron for trying to hide the screws for the screens inside the body to further reduce signature,.... add to that the fact that it's a flying wing design with no vertical surfaces with a height ~2ft (Gears retracted) and you truly sound delusional to a point that your degrading your own tech.
If anything one of the main missions of the RQ-170 in Afghanistan was likely to test the capabilities of Iranian radars against an aircraft with about the same size radar signature as American B-2's & or other US stealth fighters..... And Iran knowing this rather than try to go radar on & lock on using deployed SAM in the region choose instead to hack it. So yea Iran hacked, downed & reverse engineered an American Stealth UAV my god GET OVER IT already! ​

 

[gambit]

Wow so you have truly deluded yourself to a point that makes you think your schooling me on Frequency with absurd high school level comments like frequency doesn't travel in a straight line

I have said nothing to the effect of the highlighted. I you really really thought that was what I said, then you need more schooling, which I am willing to provide.

And your delusions about the RQ-170 NOT being a stealth aircraft is absolutely degrading to U.S. tech! Your claiming the Aircraft designers were absolute morons for putting it's sensor package in a hidden low signature design that limits the sensors field of view, They were morons for putting a high drag screen in front of the intake & even bigger moron for trying to hide the screws for the screens inside the body to further reduce signature,.... add to that the fact that it's a flying wing design with no vertical surfaces with a height ~2ft (Gears retracted) and you truly sound delusional to a point that your degrading your own tech.

If anything one of the main missions of the RQ-170 in Afghanistan was likely to test the capabilities of Iranian radars against an aircraft with about the same size radar signature as American B-2's & or other US stealth fighters..... And Iran knowing this rather than try to go radar on & lock on using deployed SAM in the region choose instead to hack it. So yea Iran hacked, downed & reverse engineered an American Stealth UAV my god GET OVER IT already! ​

What I have been saying -- or schooling -- is that we did not put as much efforts into making the RQ as 'stealthy' as you would like to believe we did. Nowhere have I said the design itself had no inherent low radar observability character. Did you not understand post 3407 page 228? Or is it likely that post 3407 made too much sense for you delusion?

 

[Bahram Esfandiari]

Wow so you have truly deluded yourself to a point that makes you think your schooling me on Frequency with absurd high school level comments like frequency doesn't travel in a straight line

So sorry to burst your bubble but NOTHING you have said so far about stealth tech or frequency was any news to me let alone Iranian engineers working on Iranian radars & stealth tech....

And your delusions about the RQ-170 NOT being a stealth aircraft is absolutely degrading to U.S. tech! Your claiming the Aircraft designers were absolute morons for putting it's sensor package in a hidden low signature design that limits the sensors field of view, They were morons for putting a high drag screen in front of the intake & even bigger moron for trying to hide the screws for the screens inside the body to further reduce signature,.... add to that the fact that it's a flying wing design with no vertical surfaces with a height ~2ft (Gears retracted) and you truly sound delusional to a point that your degrading your own tech.
If anything one of the main missions of the RQ-170 in Afghanistan was likely to test the capabilities of Iranian radars against an aircraft with about the same size radar signature as American B-2's & or other US stealth fighters..... And Iran knowing this rather than try to go radar on & lock on using deployed SAM in the region choose instead to hack it. So yea Iran hacked, downed & reverse engineered an American Stealth UAV my god GET OVER IT already! ​

Now Vavek you should be fair to Gambit. After all he used to fly F-111s so he knows a thing or two about stealth aircraft design!

 

[Hack-Hook]

Now Vavek you should be fair to Gambit. After all he used to fly F-111s so he knows a thing or two about stealth aircraft design!

F-111 is not that Low RCS

 

[Bahram Esfandiari]

F-111 is not that Low RCS

I was being Sarcastic!

 

[Mithridates]

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

@LeGenD you were asking about the pilot who dodged two RIM-66 and survived confronting two american f-14s, here you are. he survived all of them and got killed in car accident.

 

[Arminkh]

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

@LeGenD you were asking about the pilot who dodged two RIM-66 and survived confronting two american f-14s, here you are. he survived all of them and got killed in car accident.

روحش شاد.

 

[Mithridates]

seems like we gonna receive stuff for our f-1s.

bombcats.

seems like an f-5 had some affair with a yf-23.

 

[LeGenD]

And you assume that Iranian version of the RQ-170's will be detected by U.S. radars from long ranges because your assuming that Iran is stupid enough to showcase it's most advanced stealth technology publicly.

Kindly provide evidence of this (super) RQ-170 type UAV you are alluding to.

Unfortunately, the RQ-170 type UAV which Iran dispatched to Israel was detected and shot down not far from the border, therefore not up to the task.

US is far ahead of Russia and China in developing radar systems, mind you. To give you an idea:

AN/SPY-1D(v) sensor system on-board the Arleigh Burke class destroyer can identify and track a target having an RCS of 0.0025 m^2 at ranges in excess of 165 KM on 3.3 GHz frequency (George Lewis and Theodore Postol). And in case you didn't knew, SPY-1D(v) have managed to notice and track ballistic missiles having an RCS of 0.03 m^2 at distances in excess of 1000 KM (heritage.org).

And AN/SPY-1D(v) isn't the best they have - not even close.

And you keep repeating that the U.S. can detect Iranian RQ-170, well IRAN CAN ALSO DETECT B-2 & F-22 Stealth Aircraft it's simply a matter of range, altitude,....

Mind telling me which (super) radar system is this? One of the following?

They are not up to the task.

Uniform rcs of B-2 Spirit = unknown
Uniform rcs of F-22A Raptor = 0.0001 - 0.0002 m^2 range
Uniform rcs of F-35 variants (Block 3f) = 0.0003 - 0.0004 m^2 range

Do you realize that VLO-class manned aircraft such as B-2, F-22 and F-35 absolutely deflect and/or scatter radar beams away from the surface and even suppress EO/IR seekers? These are the most advanced and expensive aircraft ever built, and one can only wonder about the level of research/sciences involved - surely not for public consumption.

Both Russian-origin and Chinese-origin defenses including S-400 and S-300 PMU-2, and radar systems in particular, spectacularly failed in Syria: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/why-...-days-against-us.619012/page-15#post-11496823

Most funny case is of the much touted Chinese anti-stealth JY-27 class radar system being blown to bits by an F-35 during one of the raids in the first month of 2019.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1087795248762441728

NOTE: JY-27 highlighted in the top image.

So yea depending on the range, altitude and type of radar and platform using them, U.S. radars can in fact detect all stealth UCAV's (not just Iranian)! And it's no different with U.S. stealth aircraft.
U.S. stealth aircraft aren't undetectable to all frequencies at all ranges, what gives for example a stealth F-22's an edge is the range in which they can be detected which allows them to approach their target using target data from AWACS and guided by them approach their target from the most optimal angle (least detectable approach from air & ground,.....), get within their BVR weapons range, go radar on with a passive AESA radars, lock on and fire on their target faster than any other fighter in the world.

More information in this post: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/why-...-days-against-us.619012/page-13#post-11492635

B-2 is VLO across all bands, with no peer in sight. General information in this link: https://www.wearethemighty.com/gear-tech/how-b2-stealth-bomber-works?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1

Wow so you have truly deluded yourself to a point that makes you think your schooling me on Frequency with absurd high school level comments like frequency doesn't travel in a straight line

So sorry to burst your bubble but NOTHING you have said so far about stealth tech or frequency was any news to me let alone Iranian engineers working on Iranian radars & stealth tech....

And your delusions about the RQ-170 NOT being a stealth aircraft is absolutely degrading to U.S. tech! Your claiming the Aircraft designers were absolute morons for putting it's sensor package in a hidden low signature design that limits the sensors field of view, They were morons for putting a high drag screen in front of the intake & even bigger moron for trying to hide the screws for the screens inside the body to further reduce signature,.... add to that the fact that it's a flying wing design with no vertical surfaces with a height ~2ft (Gears retracted) and you truly sound delusional to a point that your degrading your own tech.
If anything one of the main missions of the RQ-170 in Afghanistan was likely to test the capabilities of Iranian radars against an aircraft with about the same size radar signature as American B-2's & or other US stealth fighters..... And Iran knowing this rather than try to go radar on & lock on using deployed SAM in the region choose instead to hack it. So yea Iran hacked, downed & reverse engineered an American Stealth UAV my god GET OVER IT already!

RQ-170 is LO class UAV at best, and Americans have developed much better over time: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/why-...-days-against-us.619012/page-15#post-11496823

Stealth does not imply invisibility, tactics are just as important. CIA began to take Iranian defenses for granted after a while and would dispatch RQ-170 variants into Iran even in broad daylight conditions, and no wonder Iran eventually noticed.

Nevertheless, comparing RQ-170 to true VLO class manned aircraft such as B-2, F-22 and F-35 which also happen to be actual war-fighting machines, is utterly absurd. RQ-170 is suitable for limited reconnaissance missions, not among the best of even unmanned reconnaissance platforms (Avenger, Global Hawk and RQ-180 are superior by far), but a fairly advanced UAV regardless, and a good catch for Iran.

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

@LeGenD you were asking about the pilot who dodged two RIM-66 and survived confronting two american f-14s, here you are. he survived all of them and got killed in car accident.

My condolences, sad story.

Loss of a great pilot is painful.

 

[Mithridates]

Loss of a great pilot is painful.

unfortunately he was not the only one. jalil zandi, world ACE of F-14 also died in car accident.

 

[LeGenD]

unfortunately he was not the only one. jalil zandi, world ACE of F-14 also died in car accident.

Oh dear.

Do you suspect assassination effort in these cases? Two aces falling victim to accidents on the road... strange.

 

[VEVAK]

I have said nothing to the effect of the highlighted. I you really really thought that was what I said, then you need more schooling, which I am willing to provide.


What I have been saying -- or schooling -- is that we did not put as much efforts into making the RQ as 'stealthy' as you would like to believe we did. Nowhere have I said the design itself had no inherent low radar observability character. Did you not understand post 3407 page 228? Or is it likely that post 3407 made too much sense for you delusion?

No one claimed that the RQ-170 was at the edge of U.S. stealth technology! If the U.S. had added the same RAM technology as the B-2 on the much smaller RQ-170 among other things then it's RCS would be much smaller than a B-2 which wouldn't give the U.S. military accurate data in regard to Iran's AIDS capabilities against aircrafts with similar RCS as a B-2 & or other larger manned American stealth aircraft.
You think Iran doesn't know that?
But that acknowledgment in it's vary nature means that Iran can also make it's version of they RQ-170 stealthier if it so chooses. And that is what started this whole argument.

I think you Americans have been fighting cavemen with AK's for so long that you've deluded yourselves about the capabilities of countries like Iran who you perceive as enemies. And the fact that you (An American Air Force Pilot) think that your schooling anyone on stealth tech with relatively elementary public data regarding stealth is a testament to that fact.

You guys live in a bubble where somehow the very country that hacked, captured & reverse engineered an entire list of American UAV's that produces it's own Radars, SAMs, PGMs, UCAV's..... is somehow incapable of testing various materials with various shapes and designs against it's own radars, is so backwards that they don't even know that if intercepted frequency transmissions can be triangulated back to the point of origin, who hasn't had access to the internet for over 2 decades to research stealth and American stealth design...

 

[Mithridates]

Oh dear.

Do you suspect assassination effort in these cases? Two aces falling victim to accidents on the road... strange.

no there was no assassination attempt, road trips in iran are not safe...

 

[VEVAK]

Kindly provide evidence of this (super) RQ-170 type UAV you are alluding to.

Unfortunately, the RQ-170 type drone which Iran dispatched to Israel was detected and shot down not far from the border, therefore not up to the task.

US is far ahead of Russia and China in developing radar systems, mind you. To give you an idea:

AN/SPY-1D(v) sensor system on-board the Arleigh Burke class destroyer can identify and track a target having an RCS of 0.0025 m^2 at ranges in excess of 165 KM on 3.3 GHz frequency (George Lewis and Theodore Postol). And in case you didn't knew, SPY-1D(v) have managed to notice and track ballistic missiles having an RCS of 0.03 m^2 at distances in excess of 1000 KM (heritage.org).

And AN/SPY-1D(v) isn't the best they have - not even close.


Mind telling me which (super) radar system is this? One of the following?

They are not up to the task.

Do you realize that VLO-class manned aircraft such as B-2, F-22 and F-35 absolutely deflect and/or scatter radar beams away from the surface and even suppress EO/IR seekers? These are the most advanced and expensive aircraft ever built, and one can only wonder about the level of research/sciences involved - surely not for public consumption.

Both Russian-origin and Chinese-origin defenses including S-400 and S-300 PMU-2, and radar systems in particular, spectacularly failed in Syria: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/why-...-days-against-us.619012/page-15#post-11496823

Most funny case is of the much touted Chinese anti-stealth JY-27 class radar system being blown to bits by an F-35 during one of the raids in the first month of 2019.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1087795248762441728

More information in this post: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/why-...-days-against-us.619012/page-13#post-11492635

B-2 is VLO across all bands, mind you.

FYI: https://www.wearethemighty.com/gear-tech/how-b2-stealth-bomber-works?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1


RQ-170 is LO class UAV at best, and Americans have developed much better over time: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/why-...-days-against-us.619012/page-15#post-11496823

Stealth does not imply invisibility, tactics are just as important. CIA began to take Iranian defenses for granted after a while and would dispatch RQ-170 variants into Iran even in broad daylight conditions, and no wonder Iran eventually noticed.

Nevertheless, comparing RQ-170 to true VLO class manned aircraft such as B-2, F-22 and F-35 which also happen to be actual war-fighting machines, is utterly absurd. RQ-170 is suitable for limited reconnaissance missions, not among the best of even unmanned platforms (Avenger, Global Hawk and RQ-180 are superior by far), but a fairly advanced UAV regardless, and a good catch for Iran.


My condolences, sad story.

Loss of a great pilot is painful.

No one is comparing the warfighting capabilities of the RQ-170 with F-22's & B-2's moron simply their RCS (Radar Cross Section)

The fact that that the CIA is gathering intel on Iranian Radars & IADS is not a new development or a new type of operational mission for the CIA in the past CIA operated U-2 have been caught doing the very same thing against the USSR so it's nothing new for them. Add to that the requirement of human spy's within the ranks to see the capabilities of Iranian passive sensor, network capabilities,.... and it becomes clear as to why it would be a CIA op....

And despite your delusions stealth doesn't mean undetectable whether it's Iranian or American stealth technology it makes no difference and the fact that the Israeli's had to go to the trouble of deploying multiple aircrafts to intercept it shows how well the technology actually works because in war this is the type of platform Iran can deploy in vast numbers along various other assets at a relatively low cost and unlike fixed trajectory rockets they won't be so easy to intercept (It's like the U.S. deploying 1 cruise missiles against an Iranian Air Force base as appose to 100)

 

[gambit]

No one claimed that the RQ-170 was at the edge of U.S. stealth technology!

Actually, you guys have been -- all this time. Am willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that none of you have ever made even a visual comparison between the B-2 and the RQ the way I presented it back on post 3407 page 228.

If the U.S. had added the same RAM technology as the B-2 on the much smaller RQ-170 among other things then it's RCS would be much smaller than a B-2...

No, it would not. Because the main method for RCS reduction is not absorber but with shaping. See post 3407 page 228.

...think that your schooling anyone on stealth tech with relatively elementary public data regarding stealth is a testament to that fact.

Buddy, since '09 when I was invited to this forum, I have cleared up just about all misconceptions about basic radar detection and RCS reduction using just those 'elementary public' info. The fact that you continues to focus on absorber means you failed to absorb -- pun intended -- what I presented and explained.

You guys live in a bubble where somehow the very country that hacked, captured & reverse engineered an entire list of American UAV's that produces it's own Radars, SAMs, PGMs, UCAV's..... is somehow incapable of testing various materials with various shapes and designs against it's own radars, is so backwards that they don't even know that if intercepted frequency transmissions can be triangulated back to the point of origin, who hasn't had access to the internet for over 2 decades to research stealth and American stealth design...

No, it is you guys who have been living in a bubble, one created by Iran counting on your gullibility and nationalism.

Two items: theory and tools.

You can have all the theories you want, but if you have not the tools, what you know is for naught. See post 3407 page 228 and post 3350 page 224.

An EM anechoic chamber is a tool that you cannot avoid having, in other words, this tool is REQUIRED. An open environment is contaminated with other EM sources, including cosmic background radiation (CBR), that whatever shape you created will not give you accurate measurement data as to the radiation patterns, intensity, and heading of that shape.

Not only must you have an EM anechoic chamber, how do you know that what you have is of the highest quality, meaning complete isolation of a body, in the first place? In other words, you have to build a chamber, then from the inside, you measure if you detected any EM radiation, including CBR.

On post 3350 page 224, inside the US built EM anechoic chamber, there are cones built from absorber material. Although each cone is composed of absorber material, initial contact with any signal produces some reflections before absorption, that means those cones must be of precise shape and dimensions and each cone must be precisely positioned from each other based upon operating freqs, pulse characteristics, and amplitude of suspected seeking radar(s). That is what EM isolation mean, the target body is isolated from environmental noise from the outside, then from the inside, the body is isolated from any reflection from the chamber surfaces, leaving only reflected signals that came off the body.

One of your fellow Iranians on this forum -- Mr. Sina-1 -- is a claimed scientist and have not challenged my posts on the technical level. Simply put, he cannot. Not because he is stupid but because even though he may not have related experience, his critical thinking skills and higher education enabled him to examine my arguments. This is why most of the world is skeptical of Iranian claims of producing any low observable bodies -- the quickness of that production.

Bottom line is this -- without the EM anechoic chamber, there can be no 'stealth'.