It is nice to see that after getting massacred over your failed attempt to pass simulated RCS (without relative factor) as Real RCS, you now seem to have shutup about it now like many times you have chosen to do the same when countered with fact. Now remember the lesson learned:
- Do not quote scientists for things they do not claim in their papers (Brazilians never claimed simulation values = real values)
- Never try to pass simulation values as real values without relative factors
- Read the source before posting something because people will catch you pants down spreading misinfo.
Which F-18 are you referring to? They have different RCSs depending on which version or Block.
You truly believe size is everything when it comes to RCS? With such logic the RQ-170 has a smaller RCS than B-2 since they are both flying wing designs but one is smaller. Yet in flying wing design the smaller the design the HIGHER probability of the the RCS increasing due to less surface area for radar to be scattered or absorbed vs reflected.
Size does play a role not to say there is NO ROLE, but shape and design plays a much bigger role if not majority. Hence why the Zumwalt destroyer has the RCS of a small fishing boat despite being the size of a mammoth destroyer.
Another point using your own F-18 example
Guess which version has the lower RCS? Shocker the F-18E. Guess which version of F-18E has the lowest RCS of any F-18? Block III also know as the stealthy F-18 being marketed around the world currently to friendly western countries looking to avoid the expensive F-35 while staying in the US military aerospace ecosystem .
But according to you smaller = lower RCS is more important factor. Not actually the surface/shape/design of the aircraft and how it respondes to radar waves in your expensive radar rooms.
Your logic is imbecile like always (I provided the list of absurd claims from you, it is growing).
When we are comparing two airframes and no RAM are involved, the smaller and less edgy airframe => has low RCS if the basic shape of the airframe is related. F-18 and F-5 are all from the same family of airframes called N-156 from which came the T-38, F-5E/F, YF-17, F/A-18, F/A-18EF/G, Saeqeh-I/II, Kowsar, F-20, and FCK-1. The relationship between RCS and size without RAM sustains if the basic airframe design is related. Can we say that about your BS analogy of Zumwalt and a boat? If USN claimed F/A-18 to stand at 1-3 m2 then please explain how come the smaller version of it, the N-156 with fewer edges and smaller air-intakes becomes 16 m2 like you have been parading about for a week now.
Even if I assume that F-5 airframe has higher RCS that F-18 which is claimed to be 1.2 m2 (F/A-18CD) then is it even possible that it will be 16 m2 ?
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
You have claimed that F-5E/F has a real RCS of 15-16 m2 without any remote evidence of F-5 airframe ever been tested for F-5. You tried to pass the simulated values as real ones, I bet you did not even know someone will notice, but someone did
. In your quest to be right, you may have googled "F-5 RCS", the first paper showed up and you decided to post it as "Real RCS of F-5" here without even reading the abstract.
Reality: You got caught pants down trying to pass simulated RCS as real RCS which even the authors are not claiming in their paper! Two crimes, lying and misquoting the authors!
And yet many (if not majority) of online sources say RCS of SU-35 is 1-3M2. If you don’t believe me, simply search for yourself.
Provide us the source which says SU-35 has 1-3m2 RCS? Dont try to run away from your claim by saying "sEaRcH YoUrSelF". You know there is no actual literary source which is why you are saying this.
The fact remains, SU-35 = SU-27M ... literally the same airframe with an avionics upgrade. Except for mild verticle stabilizer modification, the entire SU-35 is just a re-marketed SU-27M which flew some 35 years ago (first flight 1987). They tested canards and reverted them back to the non-canard design of SU-27.
So if nothing changes in the airframe of SU-27 to become SU-35 except for an avionics upgrade. How come SU-27's 10-15 m2 RCS turned 1-3 m2 suddenly? I have yet to see any official claim for this 1-3 m2 anyways. Some Sukhoi paper or from some RuAF official, but no one has said that except for a few internet fanbois. Sukhoi renamed a fighter from 47 years ago (SU-27 first flight) because of an avionics upgrade and you here started claiming it has got reduced RCS by 12 m2?
Literally, this is your logic:
The plane on left, SU-27 has a RCS of 10-15m2 (company patented) and the right one, SU-35 has an RCS of 1-3 m2???? They do not even have an inch of difference.
While the planes on right and left have RCS in 1-3 m2 range but the middle one somehow has the RCS of 16 m2 because simulated RCS
without relative factor for real RCS said so?
SU-35 carries the hypersonic R-37 BVR with max range of ~ 400KM also carries R-77M with ~200KM and R-27 130-170KM
But who cares about that right? I forgot super duper top secret data links are only for the F-14AM or Kowsar. SU-35 is too old and outdated to possibly be able to communicate with other sources of radar. Which even @AmirPatriot who rarely posts here anymore had a urge to rebuke.
R-37 is not part of any SU-35 export deal. I would expect only a fool like you to believe that Russia will provide their golden weapon R-37 to anyone let alone a politically dangerous client like Iran. Same Russia that resisted to provide or did not at all to Iran with following:
- Signed/ordered MIG-29 9.13
- R-77
- RD-33
- S-300
.... will somehow provide Iran with its deep killer R-37? Let along R-37 which is an exclusive thing for RuAF, they will not even share 40 years old now obsolete R-33 with anyone during their money-for-anything poverty days. Among the R-77 family, only R-77-1 is for export with ~100 km range which Iran may get with SU-35 if it ever lands in Iran for billions of USD. R-77M is again an exclusive weapon for SU-57. If you want to talk about SU-35 with BVR package in Iranian hands consider it with R-77-1 at best and nothing else. Even the R-77T is not exported. Why do you think China had to resort to development of PL-12 in late 90s ?
And Yes Flanker (SU-27/30/33/35) has
- High RCS, 10-15 m2 admitted by Sukhoi.
- IRBIS-E tracks a modern fighter at 100 km range
- Extremely high price of 85 Million USD.
This is the Detection range by "Claim of the manufacturer". Reverse search the image and you will find that even the quotation below it is saying the same. Not even the manufacturer is claiming it as a tracking range (I am hoping you know the difference). To analyze the actual performance of IRBIS-E there is nothing better than their manufacturer's officially released video which shows the ~250 km away detected target, only to be tracked at barely 100 KM. It tells us that SU-35 with IRBIS-E at best can serve as a Mini-AWACS like F-14A using its radar for search/detection. While F-14AM in IRIAF can fire Fakour-90 or AIM-54 at the target from 150+ km away the SU-35S will have to wait for ~100 km to get a lock with R-77-1. Such a massive advantage it is providing at only 85 million USD per piece.
The paper looks at what ramifications of adding to RAM to an F-5 body aircraft would do in regards to reduction of RCS. The results are quite clear and the paper makes a definitive conclusion that may have flown over your head, so read again.
Just answer troll, Where did the authors say the simulated RCS is real?
NOWHERE THE AUTHORS ARE MENTIONING THAT THE SIMULATED RCS THEY MEASURED IS EQUAL REAL RCS. So please provide us the justification for your 10 days of constant lying and misquoting the authors, trying to pass simulated RCS without relative factor to real RCS, as a real RCS value.
Here is a list of your failures:
- Software Simulated RCS =/= Real RCS. No simulation in the entire world of science can ever be equated to real-world values without relative factor Z which needs to be x or + or - from the simulated RCS to make it equal to the actual lab tested value. We dont know that because the paper was not about that.
- Even the
authors in your "trophy" paper you posted, are nowhere claiming that their simulated RCS = Real RCS. They are not doing it because they are scientists. While you being a troll are constantly misqouting their hard work they put in the paper. Scientists hate being misquoted but you are committing the crime of using them to support your lie.
-
Actual RCS is measured by multimillion USD facilities, not on freeware software by actual professional scientists, who according to your stupid logic are just fools wasting their years of lives, millions of USD on lab work. They can just download freeware and design the next generation of F-22 from their bedrooms.
-
US aviators themselves are claiming that their F-5N is hard to track/observe even from an F-18E of F-35. Would they say it about an airframe that you are claiming to be having an RCS of 16 m2?
-
F-5E/F during the war has never been shot by a BVR missile. MIG-25PD and MIG-23ML shot F-4E and F-14A with R-40, and R-23 BVR missiles but failed to track "16 m2 F-5". Iraqi MIG-25PD later had to wait till 30 KM to get a lock on US F/A-18. N-156 family has small RCS no matter which member we take.
Yes, a simulation has a margin of error that cannot be matched perfectly with a radar room worth millions or tens of millions of dollars. But with such logic, simulations in academia/medical field/science field/etc should never be conducted because they cannot hope to compete with ultra expensive real world data gathering. Which again is propostreous conclusion. Many discoveries were first discovered via simulations that quite accurately predicted the final result within the margin of error. Simulations exist to get very close to real life data gathering in the absence of using such expensive methods.
More BS from a nontechnical troll. Where did I say that simulations are not to be conducted? I guess you are not even mentally capable of handling technical discussions.
This is my post before,
now tell me where did I say simulations are not to be conducted?
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.
Simulations are done before actual experimentations. They are not substitutive ways of measurement but one leads to the other. They are done in sequences and are related to each other through relative factors between simulations and experimental values. 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. This is how projects are created and they win millions of USD in grant money from scientists.
Simulations values =/= Real world values
Simulations with relative factor Z = Real World values
And btw, If you say BS like "Simulation has error" you will get bitchslapped by its makers/users. Error in a plot is the deviation of slope from the origin point, compared to another plot where deviation does not happen from the same origin point. Both cases have the same origin point, if two particles A and B go from Point 1 to Point 2, and particle B by the end of their journey has deviated from the path by 5 degrees then we have an
"error in the flight path of particle B compared to A" because the origin point 1 was same for both particles A and B. In the case of simulation vs real-world values, the origin points are different because the measurements have VASTLY different origin points. Radar oscillators throwing EMR at an airframe in an actual world inside a multi-million USD lab can have some 50 factors that affect the resultant values. Simulations do not even address all these factors.
ERROR =/= Relative factor
So now the software is “bogus” according to you. Good to know.
Quite hilarious you talk about Iranians being arrogant and ignorant and love to argue. Yet conveniently miss your own behavior in all this.
Like I said your biases toward the F-5 project just completely blind you to considering alternatives. Doesn’t look like Iran has the same enthusiasm as you with regards to the project.
Software values are bogus unless we have actual real-world values to compare. You can parade around naked with a poster above your head saying I found the RCS of F-5 from a paper as 15-16 m2, but it won't change the fact that
- You lied to us here and tried to pass simulated values as real ones
- You misquoted the authors for things they did not even claim.
and btw 70 % of my posts roughly amount to missiles, in the IRIAF section I mostly talk about avionics, armaments, and radars, but thanks for following me around.
.
