TheImmortal
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2017
- Messages
- 7,091
- Reaction score
- -12
- Country
- Location
You have a habit of claiming baseless things (yes there is a list) and when someone proves your claim as wrong you run away from the thread without replying or even addressing the points made by others, which I am sure you will do after this post as well. I replied to your funny RCS post but I could not post it because me and few other people in Iranian sections were incapable of posting at that time due to bot attack (fixed now by mod WAZ).
Anyways, here goes:
Your posted paper presented a simulated RCS by software which by no means can be equated to real world RCS value. Nowhere in the article, the Brazilian authors mention that their values are equivalent to real experimental RCS values.
This is how real RCS is measured by actual pro-labs who spend tens and hundreds of millions on the establishment of such facilities, which according to your logic is a waste of time, all they can do is download the freeware software these Brazilian students had and Tadaaaa! they can have the RCS. You should contact the fools in Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Sukhoi, and BAE who have been wasting their decades and millions on these labs. All they needed was the .... free software.
View attachment 867690View attachment 867691View attachment 867692
........................
How science of simulation and experimental results work? I will explain here. I know you would not read it beyond this point so .... I am addressing other members. The simulated and experimental values are relative to each other by a factor (let's call it Z) which can be a coefficient or addition/subtraction factor to the simulated values, like this:
Z x RCS (Simulated) = RCS (Experimental)
OR
Z +/- RCS (Simulated) = RCS (Experimental)
The same simulation that is putting a needle-like tiny airframe of F-5 at 15-16 m2 may also put a Flanker airframe at 45+ m2 for all we can predict here, so we may know that the Z = ~3 for this software. Did the Brazilian paper measure the RCS of another airframe that we have actual RCS values of to know this relative factor Z ? no they did not because they are not even remotely claiming that the RCS they measured is a real one. They simulated the RCS in their software at 15-16 m2 and then they put the RAM on and measured the RCS again in the same simulation to prove that simulated RCS values dropped. They are claiming the "drop" in RCS vs RAM coat plot. If the software is super accurate, the ratio of simulated RCS without RAM / RCS+RAM could be close to the actual experiment ratio RCS without RAM / RCS+RAM but BY NO MEANS THE SIMULATED RCS alone CAN BE EQUAL TO ACTUAL RCS. Otherwise everyone in the entire combat aviation field is a fool, they should all just download softwares and design 6th generation stealth planes from their bedrooms.
Relative factors between simulations and experimental values work like this in the entire plethora of scientific fields where both simulated and experimental measurements are possible. We first measure values in a simulated environment over a range, then we find them experimentally to get this relative factor "Z" so next time we can get a good idea from the simulation of what the actual values would be. No one gets the simulation done only and starts claiming oh that is it, I won't take it to the lab. Which is why in modern world we have a theoretical physicist, biologist, chemist and an experimental physicist, biologist, chemist. They work in tandem on projects, and can't replace each other.
Era has nothing to do with it. F-16, F/A-18, Mig-21, and Mirage-2000 all are from the 1960s and 70s yet their RCS values are below 5 m2. F-15 and Flanker family is from the 1970s yet they have enormous RCS values. FA/18 itself has a USN claimed RCS of 3m2 (1999) and the airframe is a modified version of F-5E/F, but larger and edgy, Do you really want us to believe that F/A-18 is 3 M2 but the tiny needle like F-5 is 16 m2 somehow?
View attachment 867694View attachment 867695
F-5 was and is quite hard to track in aerial combat which is why its base design (N-156) was chosen to be driven into F/A-18 which became the premier USN fighter for decades and still is. Even the modern US aviators call an upgraded F-5N a small low observable platform that you can not just defeat easily in the sky. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42507/first-navy-f-5-aggressor-begins-upgrade-that-will-make-the-entire-fleet-far-more-potent
We have a logical base as well. In the Iran-Iraq war, the thickest possible majority of F-5E was downed by SAM fire which tracks the aircraft from the aspect of lower body. Even an F-22 will have a hard time hiding its lower body RCS. Barely ~8 confirmed air-to-air kills of F-5E were recorded during combat with MIG-25PD, MIG-23ML and all by WVR engagement. None killed at distance during BVR attack which Iraqis used to launch like maniacs with R-40 BVR missile from MIG-25PD. They once even got an F-14A of Hashem Ale-Agha but none ever got an F-5E despite being fired upon multiple times by an R-40. It tells us how difficult it is to track such a small airframe and kill it with ARH/SARH missiles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iraqi_aerial_victories_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war
Sattari was no fool to start a dometic F-20 equivalent program. HESA today is not either, that they will let go of this project. The day we procure larger turbofans or produce a larger version of Jahesh-700, and HESA works on the frontal part of the plane to reduce the RCS to the levels of EF-2000 or rafale (<1.0m2) we will have a tiny monster in the sky. We already have a superb avionics and controls package for it along with a from-scratch production facility for Kowsar.
All this talk and zero reputable evidence provided that F-5 has a 1-3 M2 radar cross section. Just conjecture on your part. You excel at talking a lot while providing no evidence. As if your opinion is fact alone.
But yes my research paper from an reputable aeronautical and technology journal from Brazil (a major F-5 operator) is not a valid source of information.
RCS on F-5 from the lateral and rear is quite large and in an pseudo air defense role enemy radars would be be bombarded from various sources of radar waves (AWACS, F-35, F-16, F-18, F-22 etc) from different directions. So let’s also take that into account and not just frontal RCS in a vacuum.
Once you demonstrate a valid source showing 1-3m2 (frontal) I will happily admit I’m wrong. I love being wrong. But until then your claims are borderline propaganda. The obsession you have for F-5 derivative projects is admirable from a patriotic standpoint, but causes biases in your mind to think rationally.
Last edited: