What's new

IRIAF | News and Discussions

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.


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


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.


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'.
maybe the definition of the stealth is the problem, for example maybe you (US) consider an object with below 0.01 sqm as stealth, while for example russians consider below 0.1 sqm is stealth...
 
maybe the definition of the stealth is the problem, for example maybe you (US) consider an object with below 0.01 sqm as stealth, while for example russians consider below 0.1 sqm is stealth...
While there is not an accepted standard of 'stealth', it is common sense that the leader sets the 'official unofficial' standard. However, the problem of the lack of an 'official' standard is compounded by the needs of national security that allows practically no openness whatsoever. The result is that anyone can set his own standard and raise himself to the same level as that of the leader.
 
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...

Thats the same talk from Saddam after comparing to U.S. fighting rice farmers aka Charlie in Vietnam. Can't beat the Vietcong so that means couldn't beat Iraq during Gulf War 1.
 
Thats the same talk from Saddam after comparing to U.S. fighting rice farmers aka Charlie in Vietnam. Can't beat the Vietcong so that means couldn't beat Iraq during Gulf War 1.
right now ur president beging for talk he send his phone number .but if he send her doghter number i pesonally call her bic she is good thing to f.....
 
right now ur president beging for talk he send his phone number .but if he send her doghter number i pesonally call her bic she is good thing to f.....
You have to check whether his father has left anything for you!
 
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.


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


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.


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'.

1st off I said AMONG OTHER THINGS! But aside from that you can most definitely reduce the RCS of an RQ-170 by applying RAM Technology in certain parts of the airframe and shaping the reflective structure beneath in such a way that it can trap frequency attempting to bounce off various parts of your frame back to it's point of origin (like the honeycomb structure of B-2 Flaps & diagonal ribs at the leading edge) & I believe you know that & you can do it without having to reduce the angle of the wings &.... It will be a highly expensive airframe to make it flight worthy on a jet aircraft that size but most defiantly possible. Which also mean having the capability to produce RAM means nothing unless you also have the capability to make the structure underneath sound and flight worthy and at the same time capable of properly reducing the RCS or else simply applying ram on a none stealth structure would have little to no effect. Which is NOT NEWS to me or anyone else!



2ndly Your missing the point! The RQ-170 is a lot smaller than a B-2 so if the same Tech was applied to it from head to tow it's RCS would naturally be smaller which then wouldn't help gather accurate data on Iranian IADS capabilities against manned stealth fighter/Bombers...
I believe the U.S. / CIA was under no illusions that at the very least Iran had the capability to detect them but at what range & in what locations they can be detected using what sensors and at what range and in what locations they can actually be targeted & using what systems, Iran's network capabilities, reactionary response speed,..... These are things you need human assets within the ranks spy's for which makes the CIA best suited to handle such missions.

FYI on the very same day Iran showcased the RQ-170 I checked and compared it the B-2 & every other flying wing design I could find including the Nazi Ho229
 
Thats the same talk from Saddam after comparing to U.S. fighting rice farmers aka Charlie in Vietnam. Can't beat the Vietcong so that means couldn't beat Iraq during Gulf War 1.

Right because Saddam had a vast stock of domestically produced precision guided missiles and ability to strike aircraft bunkers 100's of KM from his own boarders! And 85% of his Naval capabilities hadn't already been sunk by Iran and his Air Force and Helo fleet weren't fully dependent on imported parts, weapons & even foreign maintenance professionals and he wasn't living in a country where the vast majority of men within fighting age wanted him & his government gone because they were being oppressed by a minority group.
Yea sure that sound a lot like Iran! LOL!

And lets not forget in the 1st Gulf War the U.S. didn't actually hold any significant portions of Iraq but rather carpet bombed Iraqi armored battalions near the boarder so they can simply drive their Tanks all over Iraq rather quickly to scare Saddam and get him to withdraw from Kuwait and it worked. But the actual invasion happened over a decade later and only after the U.S. spent over a decade bombing Iraqi Air Defenses, Weapons factories and depots.

Now if your asking me if I think the U.S. has the capability to drive it's Tanks a few hundred kilometers inside Iranian territory from various sides and then hull a and get out my answer to that would be of course they do but that's not really an invasion is it! AND unlike Saddam Iran has the retaliatory capabilities to strike back at Airforce bases that the U.S. would need to provide Air Support and Iran wouldn't need fighter jets to do it so disabling Iran's ability to launch fighter from every single Iranian Air Force Base would have no effect on Iran's retaliatory capabilities
 
most it's of targets are way larger than 30 m in diameter.

750lb/30 meters (~100ft) is not sufficient for most bunkered assets but it is sufficient enough for targeting fixed un-bunkered military assets (Radars, Aircrafts at an airfield, runways,...) or for targeting infrastructures like powerplants, refineries,.... so the accuracy is sufficient enough that that it would be worth risking a pilots life and an aircraft but it's not enough to cover all targets specifically bunkered targets.

Also, GPS or even an Iranian land based version of it should only be used as a backup and their main purpose should be to simplify and speed up your targeting capability. And Iran's ability to use GPS based weapons will depend on various factors and although GPS type systems are a low cost solution (If your not the one paying for the SAT) they lack the security needed to be relied on.
 
113456_800.jpg

imagine this load with this JDAM-ER, it would be devastating for any country. and i think pilot has minimum risk over his life for doing the job because it does not matter how high you release them so you can release them of really high and avoid ground fires.
regarding the guidance i assume we are using russian satellites.
 
Thats the same talk from Saddam after comparing to U.S. fighting rice farmers aka Charlie in Vietnam. Can't beat the Vietcong so that means couldn't beat Iraq during Gulf War 1.

In case of Iran, almost all war estimates by Pentagon call for land force up to 500,000-650,000 soldiers to do land invasion of Iran. I assume the planners of Pentagon know much more than you in regards to what to expect from Iran.

Let’s say a total of 750,000 soldiers for just securing Iran. That would mean all able soldiers along with reserves and even a draft.

On top of that, US would likely need another 250,000 soldiers to deploy to Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq and Afghanistan to stem the militia attacks.

So you want to know why Iran hasn’t been attacked? Because no politician will call for draft let alone a mobilization of million man army.

And if you go the route of limited air strikes and “hope” that it doesn’t escalate then all you do is guarantee an Iran with a nuclear bomb and potentially a global economic crisis as Iran sets fire to every major oil installation in the Middle East.

So again, this is well known by Pentagon planners. There is no scenario where US enters war and exits smelling like roses. This is why there will never be war.

The US could “afford” WWI and WW2. It could afford the Cold War. It could afford Vietnam. It can not afford an Iran war, the world can not afford it. Times have changed.

Devil is in the details.
 
Back
Top Bottom