New Recruit
ya the photoshop guys are working hard, we shall see the jet soon
New Recruit
Why should I not? Once again, we can only wonder what would motivate people to make claims that are contrary to the laws of physics. Let us take a look at this claim...
Whose definition are we seeing here that say a diffraction field, unless physically blocked, cannot return to source direction? Where is the TECHNICAL source to support this claim? I have presented at least two sources that said otherwise.
...
If there is a god of radar physics, he must be laughing his guts out when he read the nonsense about bi-static radar operation from you. Anyway...What the hell does this...'inhomogeity of the medium'...mean? The 'medium' here is air, or rather relatively 'empty space'. A bi-static configuration exploits the greater forward scatter signals. So by your argument here...the inhomogeity of the medium...whatever the hell that mean...make a bi-static configuration inefficient, then that would make the mono-static configuration completely worthless. And yet mono-static radars are prevalent. As I have pointed out before and will repeat, in theory, a bi-static configuration is low observable aircrafts' best detector precisely because of those forward scatter signals. So in trying to prove me wrong about canards, you just ended up calling bi-static radars worthless against 'stealth'. Am beginning to suspect that these are not your words but someone else's that you are trying to pass off as your own. There seems to be no technical consistency.
That is why bi-static radars are no panacea to 'stealth' despite what some chinese fanboys would like believe whenever they tried to downplay the F-22. This is not because bi-static sensor systems, like the Kolchuga or Silent Sentry, do not work but because a bi-static configuration is inherently structurally intensive, requiring physically distinct transmitter and receiver stations.
Meaningless drivel. The point I am making is that diffraction energy in a contributor to a body's total RCS. So far you have yet to show the readers a source that says otherwise.
Sandwich? When a fighter launches a semi-active radar guided missile, we have an airborne bi-static configuration.
The parent aircraft illuminated the target, the missile is the receiver and its position is an offset from the parent's position, thereby creating a 'bi-static triangle'...
Bistatic radar noncooperative illumination synchronization techniques
When we have data link capability, the transmitter aircraft is one leg of that triangle, the target is another leg, and the receiver aircraft is the final leg. It does not matter if there is one or ten receiver aircrafts, for each receiver there is only one bi-static triangle. That mean we can have ten bi-static triangles from one transmitter. The receivers do not have to be directly opposite of the transmitter. Forward scatter does not mean literally straight forward but can be angular as the signal is deflected off the target. If anything, the ideal bi-static position is when the transmitter-target-receiver triangle is like below...
...But since airborne targets are in motion we know this is not possible. A bi-static configuration can exploit diffraction or deflection or both. So once again your ignorance and pretense is exposed.
More like made up 'facts' and 'truths'. But hey...Since when is a communist an honest person?
The JXX is supposedly equipped with canards. Naturally the question would be if canards are detrimental to its RCS reduction. I presented arguments and sources that say leading and trailing edges produces diffraction fields that are detrimental to RCS reduction.
RCS Pylons | Antenna Measurement Solutions
the delta will never be zero as the conductivity is always finite and the wave energy will ALWAYS diminish in the skin of surface.
ya the photoshop guys are working hard, we shall see the jet soon
^^^ A joke would be the LCA Tejas.
Superconductor...???An airfoil is conducive to surface traveling waves, which do not lose energy as it traverse the wing's surface.
Man, you are so reckless! Hahahaha, the mere conductive can sustain a traveling wave to stay forever. Gee, you are the person to get fa(ke)sics Nobel Prize soon, as you are in open defiant of energy conservation!
<snipped>
Unless your airplane has wings of superconductor,
Here is the definition for 'conducive'...
Yes...But the point of the experiment, as confirmation of many previous, that a diffraction field is a scattering point, or that it created a scattering point, and that the diffraction field's signal can and usually does return to source direction, contrary to this claim...
The one who is trying to fool the credulous here is YOU. This is what I asked about...
As I always find: too many people are just too much letting themselves entangled with trivial details but forget the essences of principles. Those people include federal employees, defense expertise, national lab leaders, and even some university professors... Frankly, Im fed up with those fools. And I dont understand why you make such a simple thing so complex, provided that you want to fool the credulous.
a) any inhomogeneity of the media will cause EM wave to going in a bent way (roughly speaking).
Canards do introduce the inhomogeneity in general.
If you have any language problems because of your upbringings, from EM point of view, just let you know that dialectic property can be described with permittivity and permeability of the medium, including vacuum. In general they are the function of space (x,y,z) and EM frequencies. If they are constants in terms of space (x,y,z), they are spatially homogenous. If EM wave travels within such a homogenous medium, no scattering, and thus, loosely speaking, no diffraction/reflection will happen.
Why I say it loosely speaking? Because any other phenomena (reflection, diffraction, etc.) are part of scattering. Reflection is specular scattering, diffraction is interference among (in general) forward scattering waves. Diffusion is non-specular scattering. Strictly speaking, when waves move to next position in a medium, it is a result of diffraction (or interference) of all waves from their previous position(s). Thus, we can say all earlier waves are primary sources of next waves, and next waves are secondary sources to yet the third waves. This is how the snapshots are when we strictly and correctly visualized the EM propagation.
If you have a sense of quantum mechanics, those perturbations (inhomogeneity ) to the medium function like potential wells that cause waves to scatter (reflection/scattering/diffraction, what ever you name it.)
What the hell is this inhomogeity of the medium when the medium itself is empty space, or air, in a bi-static configuration? A deflected signal off a surface, in a bi-static configuration, travels in empty space. You cannot even keep track of your own argument.
Fine...Now all you have to do is how the readers a credible source that says diffraction field energy are NOT relevant in RCS calculations. Everything you posted above sounds like a copy/paste job off a textbook. But all it does is explain the energy differences between types of scattering modes, or points. I want to see a credible source that says in RCS calculations, diffraction fields are irrelevant.
ya the photoshop guys are working hard, we shall see the jet soon
