IRIAF | News and Discussions

[Sina-1]

Not in this forum.

I guess I have to take your word for it!

Not really.

In aviation, controls are in 3 axes -- x y z -- and there is no way to get around that.

In most aircraft designs, we have discrete flight controls structures for each axis. If we eliminate one axis of controls, the aircraft would depart from controlled flight. There is no way to get around that.

So for most designs, we have the main wings to provide lift and on the wings, we have discrete flight control structures to alter the wings' shapes. These structures are leading edge (LE) and trailing edge (TE) flaps, and ailerons. Each of these structures have its own mechanical actuator.

Next are the horizontal stabilizers. They provide most of the maneuverability and they come in pairs. Two mechanical actuators.

Next is/are the vertical stabilizer(s). Each have its own mechanical actuator.

For the flying wing using split ailerons method to maintain yaw axis stability and control, we physically relocate the vertical stabilizers' mechanical actuators to be logically parallel with the wing ailerons' mechanical actuators. Then via software, we move the ailerons when needed.

The concept is not new. With the F-18 Super Hornet, we eliminated the actual speedbrake structure and uses all flight control surfaces in precise coordination with each other so that all of them act as speebrake.

https://www.ausairpower.net/SuperBug.html
With the F-18 SH, we literally eliminated the speedbrake structure and its hydraulic actuator. Two major physical components removed.

For the B-2 flying wing design, we did not eliminate the yaw axis but with software, we logically relocated the yaw axis vertical stabilizer to inside the ailerons'. It is a corollary to the F-18SH's flight controls system that eliminated the speedbrake phyiscal structure.

Again, Thanks for going through the fundamentals, however you did not provide a rebuttal to the point that I made. If flying wing (without vt) is not more expensive/complex to produce/operate then how come the vast majority of UCAVs and uavs are of a more conventional design?

The flying wing design have long range attribute before radar was invented. The RQ-170 was intended to exploit that attribute. Yes, the longer the RQ remains undetected, the longer it will be able to provide intelligence. But what good is an airborne intelligence asset if it cannot remain flying for distance and time?

Still doesn’t explain why other UCAVs/uavs operated where long range is the most desired attribute do not adopt a flying wing configuration. Let me give you a hint: it’s not worth it if stealth also is not a desired attribute

 

[gambit]

Again, Thanks for going through the fundamentals,...

Yer welcome. Unfortunately, the fundamentals are often ignored, as we have seen in this thread.

..however you did not provide a rebuttal to the point that I made. If flying wing (without vt) is not more expensive/complex to produce/operate then how come the vast majority of UCAVs and uavs are of a more conventional design?

Because the 'conventional' designs are conventional in the sense that they are quicker to build. COTS -- Commercial Off The Shelf.

Still doesn’t explain why other UCAVs/uavs operated where long range is the most desired attribute do not adopt a flying wing configuration. Let me give you a hint: it’s not worth it if stealth also is not a desired attribute

As I said earlier -- The fundamentals are often ignored.

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

So let us take a look at the B-2's and RQ-170's planform, shall we?

Voila...!!!

For the benefits of the silent readers out there who may not be familiar, the top image is the B-2 and bottom image is the RQ-170.

There are five main wing planforms:

- Rectangular
- Tapered
- Elliptical
- Swept
- Delta

Back in high school in the early '80s, I learned how to fly in the Cessna 152 -- rectangular. So by the time I entered the USAF, I was well familiar with flying in general.

The WW II era B-29 -- tapered.

The WW II era Spitfire -- elliptical.

The F-111, my first assignment -- tapered.

The F-16, my second assigment -- cropped delta.

The B-2's and the RQ's wing planforms are actually not true 'flying wing' but a blended swept+delta. However, the RQ's wing planform are more true towards the flying wing designs of the Northrop YB-49. What we call 'flying wing' designs today is more like blended because of the need for a main fuselage. We just do not see the main fuselage because of the blending of the fuselage to the wings.

Regarding the three rules in designing a low radar observable body, they are not rules that you can break but more like guidelines that you have degrees of obedience to them.

If we look at the B-2 and the RQ, we see each have two main leading edges (LE).

The B-2 have 10 trailing edges. The RQ have eight trailing edges.

Does this mean the RQ have a lower RCS than the B-2? No, it does not.

The B-2's trailing edges (TE) are in alignment with the LE. They are parallel. They are not that way by accident but by deliberateness. We do not see the same for the RQ's wing planform because we did not care.

The B-2, despite having the greater quantity of radiators, 10 vs 8 for the TEs, is more obedient than the RQ to Rule Two: Control of ARRAY of radiators.

That mean, given the fact that a body is a finite structure, the B-2 with its more carefully planned planform, is more likely to have a lower RCS than the physically smaller RQ.

So Iran can copy the RQ down the the mm and we will not care. The Iranian version of the RQ-170 WILL BE DETECTED.

 

[VEVAK]

Yer welcome. Unfortunately, the fundamentals are often ignored, as we have seen in this thread.


Because the 'conventional' designs are conventional in the sense that they are quicker to build. COTS -- Commercial Off The Shelf.


As I said earlier -- The fundamentals are often ignored.

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

So let us take a look at the B-2's and RQ-170's planform, shall we?

Voila...!!!

For the benefits of the silent readers out there who may not be familiar, the top image is the B-2 and bottom image is the RQ-170.

There are five main wing planforms:

- Rectangular
- Tapered
- Elliptical
- Swept
- Delta

Back in high school in the early '80s, I learned how to fly in the Cessna 152 -- rectangular. So by the time I entered the USAF, I was well familiar with flying in general.

The WW II era B-29 -- tapered.

The WW II era Spitfire -- elliptical.

The F-111, my first assignment -- tapered.

The F-16, my second assigment -- cropped delta.

The B-2's and the RQ's wing planforms are actually not true 'flying wing' but a blended swept+delta. However, the RQ's wing planform are more true towards the flying wing designs of the Northrop YB-49. What we call 'flying wing' designs today is more like blended because of the need for a main fuselage. We just do not see the main fuselage because of the blending of the fuselage to the wings.

Regarding the three rules in designing a low radar observable body, they are not rules that you can break but more like guidelines that you have degrees of obedience to them.

If we look at the B-2 and the RQ, we see each have two main leading edges (LE).

The B-2 have 10 trailing edges. The RQ have eight trailing edges.

Does this mean the RQ have a lower RCS than the B-2? No, it does not.

The B-2's trailing edges (TE) are in alignment with the LE. They are parallel. They are not that way by accident but by deliberateness. We do not see the same for the RQ's wing planform because we did not care.

The B-2, despite having the greater quantity of radiators, 10 vs 8 for the TEs, is more obedient than the RQ to Rule Two: Control of ARRAY of radiators.

That mean, given the fact that a body is a finite structure, the B-2 with its more carefully planned planform, is more likely to have a lower RCS than the physically smaller RQ.

So Iran can copy the RQ down the the mm and we will not care. The Iranian version of the RQ-170 WILL BE DETECTED.

It seems the fact that Iran's captured and reverse engineered the RQ-170 has really struck a nerve.

I remember quite clearly the very 1st American response to Iran's claim of capturing the aircraft was absolute denial and then after Iran showed video's of the UAV in it's possession they moved on to ridicule from the UAV malfunctioned & landed it's self to how the tech was so advanced and so far beyond Iran's capabilities that Iran wouldn't know what to do with it....

And it seems now that Iran has clearly reverse engineered and hacked the thing American talking points are turning to degrading their own tech and how the RQ wasn't stealth at all. lol!

And you can make up all the excuses that you want but the fact remains that with the U.S. RQ-170 mishap the U.S. handed Iran flying wing technology and flight management capabilities and flying wings designs due to their very nature are the MOST suited design for a low RCS (AKA Stealth) platforms.
And Iran can take that and do with it what it will from adding twin piece flaps & ailerons to achieve greater Yaw..., to increasing or reducing the wing angle, to adding RAM coating, to making smoother and more frequency reflectable(to reflect away, trap or scatter) & or absorbable outer & inner surfaces, to the need for using stealth tactics along side stealth technology..... and the MOST funny thing of all is that you guys seem to be living in this bubble that makes you assume that Iran doesn't know these things & doesn't possess various frequency radars to test & improve on the RCS of the UAV it's producing it's self.

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.

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,.... 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.

 

[Mithridates]

The Iranian version of the RQ-170 WILL BE DETECTED

so why israel fired almost a million dollar missile (python) instead of several k$ iron dome's tamir missile?? does not that imply they couldn't intercept it with radar??
also another question, as someone who served in AF and has real time experience with LO aerial vehicles, how much do you think the RQ-170's RCS is?? because neither US nor iran said anything about it.
another question (if you don't mind answer it), is it possible for iran to make a plane with RCS of ~0.1 sqm from F5 structure or based on it with internal weapon bays??

 

[Tamiyah]

Any idea how will IRIAF counter F35

https://twitter.com/x/status/1131926080917594112

Any strategy?

 

[Arminkh]

@Sina-1 I think this back and forth about RQ-170 is pointless. US Air Force fact sheet calls it a low observable drone:

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104547/rq-170-sentinel/

Now what does low observable mean? If you look at B-2 factsheet, it says B-2's low-observable, or "stealth," characteristics give it the unique ability to penetrate an enemy's most sophisticated defenses.

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104482/b-2-spirit/

So, low-observable and stealth are the same thing in US Air Force used terminology. Now I'm sure there are levels to stealthiness. Is the smaller RQ-170 with non-aligned edges less stealthy than B-2 which is probably 10 times larger with aligned edges? It is not something anyone in this forum would know. However, one thing is certain: RQ-170 is a stealth platform and it is not easy to detect.

Any idea how will IRIAF counter F35

https://twitter.com/x/status/1131926080917594112

Any strategy?

Iran "counters" its airbase. Then lets them figure out how to use their F-35 from that point on.

 

[Sina-1]

@Sina-1 I think this back and forth about RQ-170 is pointless

You’re right. I guess me and @gambit reached a repetitive pattern. I agree with your assessments regarding stealth. Obviously there are several layers of stealthiness, which not only depend on the physical shape of the aircraft that can be assessed visually, but other components not assessable. And as long as one does not know the entire characteristics of the aircraft then it’s futile to estimate where in the scale any given aircraft would be.

For sure though, the rq with its flying wing (or more correctly bwb as gambit pointed out) and above wing air intake to name a few is designed with stealth requirements.

 

[Mithridates]

is this real??

 

[Mithridates]

 

[VEVAK]

Any idea how will IRIAF counter F35

https://twitter.com/x/status/1131926080917594112

Any strategy?

Rather simple and no differently than if it was any other American Fighter! If they start bombing Iran, we will respond and we'll respond with full force. It's not as if American F-15's can't fly low across the Persian Gulf and start releasing a far greater number of SDB's against costal targets & get out before IRIAF could do anything....

The U.S. has had F-22's in the region for much longer period and the F-22's are a far superior platforms than the F-35's for they are faster and capable of super cruise, are far more stealthy, have far greater range & are far more maneuverable. So compared to that the F-35 has no fear factor that would make Iran act any differently than it already has in the past 2 decades and that is removing Iran's main retaliatory capabilities from Fighter Jet to Missiles.

 

[gambit]

It seems the fact that Iran's captured and reverse engineered the RQ-170 has really struck a nerve.

And it seems now that Iran has clearly reverse engineered and hacked the thing American talking points are turning to degrading their own tech and how the RQ wasn't stealth at all. lol!

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.

...well IRAN CAN ALSO DETECT B-2 & F-22 Stealth Aircraft it's simply a matter of range, altitude,....

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/

In a 3-D sense, a beam of radar emission has a cone shape. The tip of the cone is at the radar site and the diameter of the cone gradually increases away from the radar site. As a radar beam moves further from the radar, it expands to take up a larger volume.

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.

 

[OldTwilight]

So Iran can copy the RQ down the the mm and we will not care. The Iranian version of the RQ-170 WILL BE DETECTED.

well , who care !? we already have DETECED USA RQ-170 which were using more expensive material so its understandable that others will be able to detect our cheap modified copy of this drone ....

we have a saying in Persian : " I'm passed crying , so I'm laughing at my miserable self " ... as former American pilot which is brainwashed that his country is superior and invincible in every field , you still can not come to term with this kind of thing ...

کارم از گریه گذشته ، به خود می خندم

and funny part is that USA current practical military strategy is just like Soviet " overwhelming your enemy with more weapons" ...

 

[gambit]

so why israel fired almost a million dollar missile (python) instead of several k$ iron dome's tamir missile?? does not that imply they couldn't intercept it with radar??

No, it does not. In combat, you use whatever is most available.

also another question, as someone who served in AF and has real time experience with LO aerial vehicles, how much do you think the RQ-170's RCS is?? because neither US nor iran said anything about it.

Sorry, even if I do know -- which I do not -- I would not reveal it. I care about my country as much as you care about yours, right?

What we are debating is mostly academic. I presented technical information and logical reasoning to support my argument that the RQ-170 is not 'stealthy' to the degree that people believe it to be. Take it any way you like. The way I see it, you guys NEED the RQ to be 'stealthy' more than Americans do, after all, we are the world's leader in low radar observable combat systems, in the air and on the seas, so unpleasant as it maybe for you, we know what we are talking about.

another question (if you don't mind answer it), is it possible for iran to make a plane with RCS of ~0.1 sqm from F5 structure or based on it with internal weapon bays??

Bluntly -- no.

 

[Mithridates]

No, it does not. In combat, you use whatever is most available.

well considering they always blabbing about "we will respond quickly and would risk our people lives" to me preparing an ah-64 and firing python-5 missile seems a little fishy, because it would take 5-10 min that chopper fly and by that time that drone would target anything in that compact country.

Bluntly -- no.

why cause f-5's structure is limited or you think we can't?

 

[gambit]

why cause f-5's structure is limited or you think we can't?

Yes and yes.