Russian Fifth-Generation Fighter to Exceed Rivals

[Chinaownseverything]

Creeping wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Creeping waves greatly extend the ground wave propagation of long wavelength (low frequency) radio. They also cause both of a person's ears to hear a sound, rather than only the ear on the side of the head facing the origin of the sound. In radar ranging, the creeping wave return appears to come from behind the target.

Look you clearly have no understanding of what creeping wave is.

I WILL EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY CREEPING WAVE APPEARS TO COME FROM BEHIND

Explanation for why spherical sends back more radiation.

first creeping wave ONLY EFFECTS the surface wave, in a real situation radiation will cover the sphere, a lot of them will make it back to the receiver. This is why a spherical shape is not ideal for stealth.

A sphere will send more radiation back to the source than an angled plate. CREEPING WAVE ONLY EFFECTS SURFACE RADIATION

See? creeping wave behavior only effects a small part. a spherical shape will still show up clear as day

 

[Chinaownseverything]

Look you clearly have no understanding of what creeping wave is.

I WILL EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY CREEPING WAVE APPEARS TO COME FROM BEHIND


Explanation for why spherical sends back more radiation.

first creeping wave ONLY EFFECTS the surface wave, in a real situation radiation will cover the sphere, a lot of them will make it back to the receiver. This is why a spherical shape is not ideal for stealth.



See? creeping wave behavior only effects a small part. a spherical shape will still show up clear as day

------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOW WHY DOES THAT RADAR THINK THAT SOURCE IS BEHIND THE OBJECT?

When a radar sends radiation it records the STRENGTH of the SIGNAL in this diagram that radar sends signal at 50 watts.

electromagnetic radiation loses energy over distance, so the close object will reflect back 40 while the far away object will reflect back 20.

By measuring the value that is returned the radar knows how far away the object is.

In creeping wave radiation the creeping wave that gets returned to the radar loses a lot of energy due to going around the object.

The NON SURFACE radiation waves will return back with 30, the surface wave will go around the object (creeping wave behavior) and return back to source. However the value is much lower due to going around the sphere the radar will read the value of 10 even though the distance should only read 30.

To the receiver the value of 10 corresponds to an object that is FAR AWAY

As a result from the radiation returned from surface wave it appears to come from behind the object. However surface wave is only a TINY PART of the wave. Creeping wave is just like how you fire radiation just right you will get a wave that skips along the surface of a sphere kind of like how if you throw a lot of rocks at the water you will get a rock that skips across the surface.

In a perfect sphere the Surface wave could possibly travel around INFINITELY till it loses all of its energy.

You clearly do not understand how creeping wave works, saying creeping wave, and then making a ludicrous claim that it is the best design because of it is just ignorance that you don't understand the basic concept of this

Now if you still do not believe that angled plate is better look at some of these designs for stealth heliocopters

How strange they look like stealth ships! apparently according to gambit, stealth ships only look angled because of water! and that spherical designs give ultimate stealth!

Why are these helicopters shaped like this? because it gives better stealth.

Why is F-22 spherical? because it provides a little bit of stealth and a lot of speed and manueverability

You must be either joking or incredibly gullible. The shapes of the illustrations are in no way to scale to each other with respect to their true dimensions. They are just to show the readers which graph belongs to which. This is 'Chinese physics' all over again.

If you read the entire paper, these were the sizes used in the simulation

Utter BS. There is nothing there that indicate those RCS figures can come from only 'pure steel'. What is 'pure' here is your BS.

The scientific experiment was to construct F-117 and F-22 replicas out of steel and then compare their RCS. That way the only difference in RCS will be from the shape. It will tell which design is stealthier,

Hey, pal...If it matters any, the forum's admin staff can tell you that one of my IPs when I post here come from Las Vegas. That mean Nellis AFB where the F-22 is stationed. I got friends on the flightline here. Friends I know from 10yrs in the USAF. I even touched the F-22, may be sat in its cockpit...??? For what it is worth, absorbers on the F-22 is scarce. They are on the leading edges of the intakes and on the FLCS surfaces. The F-22 is not made out of metamaterials. You are making an erroneous assumption based from a flawed understanding of basic radar detection and are too proud to admit you are wrong.


Do not care. I want to see a source that says the F-22 is made of metamaterials.

[/QUOTE]

You think that an average soldier actually knows or cares about the physics behind ANY of their guns other than the fact that they squeeze the trigger and it shoots?

I can say that I have PHD friends who worked on the F-22? Saying my friend told me as an argument just shows that you have lost.

 

[amalakas]

Hellicopters are shaped like this because they do not need to fly like the F22 does.
it's a compromise ..get it ?

if a chopper had to supercruise and hyper maneouvre at the same time whilst being stealth at 60^ AoA .. then maybe they would look like the F22.


Do you get it now ?

Your whole approach to stealth technology is wrong.

you are hanging on terms and missing the point.. please ...focus here..

The engineers who designed the F22 and the F35( I can't believe i am defending the F35) have a very clear understanding of how the EM wave is travelling on and around all the surfaces of the craft. Hence they do not need to follow the faceted approach anymore as they can deploy their entire arsenal of tricks against EM reflection being RAM coating, composites, or structural shape at individual areas of interest around the plane..

how much more specific should we get... ??

 

[Chinaownseverything]

Hellicopters are shaped like this because they do not need to fly like the F22 does.
it's a compromise ..get it ?

if a chopper had to supercruise and hyper maneouvre at the same time whilst being stealth at 60^ AoA .. then maybe they would look like the F22.


Do you get it now ?

Your whole approach to stealth technology is wrong.

you are hanging on terms and missing the point.. please ...focus here..

The engineers who designed the F22 and the F35( I can't believe i am defending the F35) have a very clear understanding of how the EM wave is travelling on and around all the surfaces of the craft. Hence they do not need to follow the faceted approach anymore as they can deploy their entire arsenal of tricks against EM reflection being RAM coating, composites, or structural shape at individual areas of interest around the plane..

how much more specific should we get... ??

My entire argument was that based on the airframes alone, if they were of identical size and made out of the same materials.

The F-117 would have a smaller RCS than the F-22.

Because flat plates have lower RCS than curved plates.

I stated long ago that the F-22's stealth was a compromise for better aerodynamics.

The only reason why the F-22 during wargames is smaller than the F-117 by a large margin is because of superior RAM which is based on nanotechnology. Hence why the doubt that Russia will be able to produce F-22 quality RAM due to their deficiency in nanotechnology while China is one of the world leaders.

You are agreeing with me.

Gambit said that the reason why the F-22 lacked flat plates was because curves were better, then he posted some scientific crap that wasn't even relevant.

I then brought up the fact that stealth ships did not have curves.

I even posted scientific experiments that compared the RCS of a flat plate as it became more and more spherical to each other.

He then argued that stealth ships had water, then posted some crap about radar effects on water (that in no way supported his argument)

I am now countering by posting stealth helicopters, which have no water. (I wonder what random unrelated scientific papers he is going to post now to explain why stealth helicopters aren't spherical like the superior F-22 stealth design)

I understand stealth clearly, Gambit is the one who is clearly confused, this stems from the fact that he lacks the basic scientific understanding to understand the scientific progress or to understand any of the scientific papers that he reads (Case in point he is a highschool/college dropout who couldn't find a job so he ran off of join the navy also look at his DF-21 thread where he pulls the same tactic). Case in point creeping wave behavior, apparently gambit thinks that making a sphere will cause the radiation to run around in circles around the object thus never allowing it to reach the target.

 

[dbc]

I understand stealth clearly

no you don't.

Case 1 Impinging wave is normal to the flat plate and sphere
Solve the above equation for a sphere and flat plat, assume cross section of 1m2 for both the flat plate and sphere also assume radar wavelength is 3 cm. The unmistakable conclusion is the RCS of a flat plate is four orders of magnitude larger than the sphere.

Case 2 Impinging wave is not normal to the flat plate

Waves incident upon the angled flat plate are reflected away from the radar. But, impinging waves incident upon the sharp edge are diffracted from the bottom edge in all directions. In addition, second-order diffraction will occur at the top edge further increasing the RCS of a flat plate.

In both cases, the RCS of a sphere is lower than a flat plate.
Of course, these are ideal conditions in the real world there are multiple hostile radars the flat plate will present full face to one or more probing radars.

 

[ptldM3]

If China leads in nanomaterials it is likely that they will have a good advantage in metamaterials since fields are so close I will show China leads in the lower post

Theory and reality are two different things. Again China's experience in metamaterials/material science isn't living up to all the hype when they struggle to master the basics of engine technology, which invlove both feilds.


I have already esstablished that nanomaterials are used in aircraft engines, the engine made up of the more advanced alloys will last longer. Material science is also a major part of aircraft engine technology, with that said the Chinese themselves say that the WS-13 has a life of 2200 hours, the RD-33MK has double the service life, the funny thing about this is that the WS-13 is still in development while the RD-33MK has been out for years, meaning by the time the WS-13 is ready, the RD-33 will widen the gap even further.

Engines are based on material science, nanotechnology, and engineering, China is ranked high on all of the above feilds. Consiquently, your argument is since China has more scientific journals in said subjects than China can do better than Russia.


In theory your argument makes sense but in reality it is nothing more than wishful thinking. The Chinese have thrown everything they have into engine manufacturing but have nothing to show for it.

I have no wish to continue this He said, she said, he meant, she meant argument.

Lets go back to computers, I have proven that China has better computers



Russia ranks 15th on the list of countries with the most powerful supercomputers, he noted, and 95 percent of the machines are manufactured in the U.S.

Why didn't you post sources that stated that Russia is/was ranked 9th, 10th, and 12th?

Clearly you're trying to twist things around to make Russia look as bad as possible.

And what are you trying to prove in regards to supercomputers? Perhaps that because we do not have the best supercomputer, we can not make an aircraft comparable to whatever China can make?

If that's the case we can alway buy supercomputers from the US.

And we have:

Russia buys world's most powerful supercomputer - Tech News - IBNLive

A Russian university has bought one of the world's most powerful supercomputers, the first time that such sophisticated technology has been exported to the former Soviet Union, makers IBM said on Thursday.

Chinese supercomputers are also said to be better than Japan's, but this means what?

Also compared to the figures you gave for Russia's nano tech industries

Again, you are either manipulating sources or neglecting to read the source carefully, the 10 billion dollar nanotechnology budget is from one russian company not "Russia's nano tech industries"

My goal was not meant to put China on a pedestal or make Russia look like crap. My goal was just to convince people that China had a fighting chance, My goal was to show that China had advantages other than MORE FUNDS.

When someone comes into a thread not at all related to China and starts boasting how China can do better and at the same time degrade Russia by saying things such as Russia doesn't have a stealth ship (which was wrong) and that Russia has not broken into metamaterials (also wrong) than i say it's more than just showing china has a fighting chance.

 

[Jigs]

My entire argument was that based on the airframes alone, if they were of identical size and made out of the same materials.

The F-117 would have a smaller RCS than the F-22.

Because flat plates have lower RCS than curved plates.

I stated long ago that the F-22's stealth was a compromise for better aerodynamics.

The only reason why the F-22 during wargames is smaller than the F-117 by a large margin is because of superior RAM which is based on nanotechnology. Hence why the doubt that Russia will be able to produce F-22 quality RAM due to their deficiency in nanotechnology while China is one of the world leaders.

You are agreeing with me.

Gambit said that the reason why the F-22 lacked flat plates was because curves were better, then he posted some scientific crap that wasn't even relevant.

I then brought up the fact that stealth ships did not have curves.

I even posted scientific experiments that compared the RCS of a flat plate as it became more and more spherical to each other.

He then argued that stealth ships had water, then posted some crap about radar effects on water (that in no way supported his argument)

I am now countering by posting stealth helicopters, which have no water. (I wonder what random unrelated scientific papers he is going to post now to explain why stealth helicopters aren't spherical like the superior F-22 stealth design)

I understand stealth clearly, Gambit is the one who is clearly confused, this stems from the fact that he lacks the basic scientific understanding to understand the scientific progress or to understand any of the scientific papers that he reads (Case in point he is a highschool/college dropout who couldn't find a job so he ran off of join the navy also look at his DF-21 thread where he pulls the same tactic). Case in point creeping wave behavior, apparently gambit thinks that making a sphere will cause the radiation to run around in circles around the object thus never allowing it to reach the target.

You do know that a B-2 has a smaller RCS then a F-117 and you do know the F-35s RCS is a bit smaller then the B-2s and the F-22 has a smaller RCS then the F-35. We agree on this ? Where exactly is the compromise being done here ?

Nov 2005: The U.S. Air Force, in it’s effort to get money to build more F-22s, has revealed just how “stealthy” the F-22 is. It’s RCS (Radar Cross Section) is the equivalent, for a radar, to a metal marble. The less stealthy (and much cheaper) F-35, is equal to a metal golf ball. The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber, which, in turn, was twice as good as that on the even older F-117. Much older aircraft, like the B-52, have a huge RCS, which makes them very easy to spot on radar. But with a smaller RCS, it's more likely that the aircraft won't be detected at all.

The air force revealed this information, which is usually kept secret, because it wants to make the case that it makes more sense to cut production of the F-35 (which cost $30-50 million each), so that more F-22s (that cost over $100 million each) can be bought. Most of the air force generals are former fighter pilots, and the F-22 is a much hotter fighter than the F-35 (which is basically a fighter-bomber, with emphasis on the latter function.) This is causing an international uproar, because of the many foreign countries that are buying the F-35. Some of these countries have contributed money for the development of the F-35. The F-22 will not be exported, because it uses so much top secret technology.

 

[gambit]

Look you clearly have no understanding of what creeping wave is.

Far better than you.

I WILL EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY CREEPING WAVE APPEARS TO COME FROM BEHIND

This is a sad example of your education. I made fun of 'Chinese physics' but...Good Heavens...This is truly sad. Radar signals do not have distinct lines. So in making a bunch of straight and parallel lines and pointing to ONE LINE that supposedly would create a creeping wave, you explained nothing and destroyed any credibility you have in this discussion. May God help China if her scientists and engineers are this gullible when they genuinely believe these sorry 2D images to be representative of the 3D world.

If it is possible to visualize a radar signal, it would be CONICAL in shape...

There are no lines, straight or wavy, inside this cone. The single arrowed line above is to illustrate a portion of the cone that will directly impact the sphere in this ideal situation. Any return from this portion is our 'specular' reflection and will be our initial energy level. The rest of the cone will become circumferential waves.

Explanation for why spherical sends back more radiation.

first creeping wave ONLY EFFECTS the surface wave, in a real situation radiation will cover the sphere, a lot of them will make it back to the receiver. This is why a spherical shape is not ideal for stealth.

A sphere will send more radiation back to the source than an angled plate. CREEPING WAVE ONLY EFFECTS SURFACE RADIATION

A sphere will send more radiation back to the source than an angled plate. CREEPING WAVE ONLY EFFECTS SURFACE RADIATION

Wrong...Utterly and embarrassingly wrong. More 'Chinese physics'.

First...On a sphere, surface and creeping waves are independent of each other and together, they are components of 'circumferential waves':

1- Surface (SW)
2- Creeping (CW)
3- Leaky (LW)

Second...Surface waves do not need a spherical body or even a curvature to exist. Surface waves are created even if the incident signal is perpendicular to the surface. In this situation, the wave is statistically insignificant. However, when the incident wave's angle, hereby refer to as 'incident angle' for clarity, departs from perpendicular (90 deg), the energy level of the surface wave increases. As the incident angle approaches parallel to the surface, the surface wave becomes increasingly statistically relevant. A flat plate has SW and LW but not CW. The sphere is considered a simple body. The cylinder is a complex body. Both will exhibit all three components.

On a much more complex body like an aircraft, if the incident angle is head-on, the body's frontal RCS is the lowest. But for this complex body...

Creeping wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Creeping waves greatly extend the ground wave propagation of long wavelength (low frequency) radio. They also cause both of a person's ears to hear a sound, rather than only the ear on the side of the head facing the origin of the sound. In radar ranging, the creeping wave return appears to come from behind the target.

...There are EDGE DIFFRACTION effects.

What happens is as the surface wave traverse the fuselage, wings, stabs, missiles, bombs, external fuel tanks, fins, and assorted antennas, whenever the wave reached the ends of these elements, it encounter...EDGES. Gaps on the aircrafts surfaces are also edges and edge diffraction effects will radiate some of the wave's energy into free space. Some of that radiation will be back towards the seeking radar. The echo's energy spread in a 3D graph is never uniform because of the many flat plates, cylinders and edges, aka reflective points, on this complex body but those points can be statistically grouped, resulting in a concentration of energy spikes that the system will alert as a 'valid target'. That is why even for complex and irregular (but symmetrical) bodies, in a straight head- or tail-on radar collision, the radar echo can still be behind the aircraft's spatial location.

So when you said this: '...creeping wave ONLY EFFECTS the surface wave...' You are absurdly wrong. Surface and creeping waves create 'leaky' waves, aka free space radiation, and it is this free space radiation that can give a false spatial location of our sphere. Free space radiation from edge diffraction and leaky wave (LW) effects can (not must) give a false spatial location of our complex body. This is why in radar detection no system is ever %100 precise in target spatial location.

For someone who has access to paywalled sources, you are pathetic in your research. If you are any good with it, you would have found plenty of research papers that will effectively debunk EVERYTHING you posted here. You would have found that there is a clear relationship between wavelength and sphere diameter and when the creeping wave WILL NOT complete a circumference.

 

[gambit]

You clearly do not understand how creeping wave works, saying creeping wave, and then making a ludicrous claim that it is the best design because of it is just ignorance that you don't understand the basic concept of this

Am willing to bet 100 bucks to every renminbi that before me you did not even know about the 'creeping wave' and its effects. Now you just learned that there are three MAJOR components to circumferential waves and I just explained far better than you ever could about their effects and why no radar system is ever %100 precise in target spatial location. I may had to simplify my explanations some but at least I used proper terminologies.

Now if you still do not believe that angled plate is better look at some of these designs for stealth heliocopters

Why are these helicopters shaped like this? because it gives better stealth.

So how many of these designs are in flight?

First...Helos do not have the fuselage aerodynamic necessities that fixed wing aircrafts do. Only the moving blades, aka rotors, have those necessities.

Second...Advances in Doppler processing make fuselage radar reflectivity nearly irrelevant and instead focused on those moving blades. There are two major components of interest: the large rotor hub and the individual blades. Stationary blade echoes can be lost in ground clutter but moving blade Doppler echoes are cyclical hence predictable. They can be 3D graphed to reveal movements centered around the hub's echo and even it rotate and create its own Doppler shifts. Not only that...

IEEE Xplore - RADAR Target Amplitude, Angle, and Doppler Scintillation from Analysis of the Echo Signal Propagating in Space

RADAR target scintillation is observed in every type of RADAR system and has generally been analyzed on the basis of the performance of specific types of RADAR systems. However, the target scintillation phenomenon, including Doppler scintillation, may be expressed as distortions of the RADAR echo signal propagating in space, independent of RADAR system parameters.

Take note of the highlighted and that it is from your paywalled source.

The rotor hub contains many small parts that moves with and as an assembly. Those small parts create 'Doppler scintillations' effects. This is how we also detect suborbital vehicles like a nuclear warhead bus. As the bus spins, its surface irregularities create the same Doppler scintilations effects. Anyway, now we have moving blades that each create a Doppler signature and with the rotor hub we have a concentration of smaller Doppler shifts (scintilations) in the middle of these moving blades. Who needs and cares about the fuselage? China can go right on building helos with very 'stealthy' fuselages. We STRONGLY encourage our adversaries to build helos with 'stealthy' bodies.

Third...The F-117 is retired. Do you see anyone building anything similar to it? Even China is Photochopping fantasy 'stealth' fighters that copy the curves of the F-22. So these helo designs has angled facets like the F-117. How many of them are flying?

How strange they look like stealth ships! apparently according to gambit, stealth ships only look angled because of water!

I have no problems explaining to everyone again how you are wrong. This is because of the sea's 2D environment.

Radar signals do not penetrate well into and under water. Realistically...Any radar signal that impact water surface will deflect back up, therefore it make sense to have faceted angles on the ship. The effect is called 'multipath propagation' and is most prominent when the approaching signal is parallel to the surface, even land. For water, temperature layers can create additional deflective surfaces for any radar signal that did penetrate the surface.

Assuming a parallel to the surface approaching signal, we have:

1) Direct-direct
This is where the signal and echo have their direct paths.

2) Direct-indirect
This is where the signal is direct, from seeker to target, but a portion of the echo deflects off the water surface before going back to the seeker radar.

3) Indirect-direct
This is where a portion of the signal deflects off the water surface, create an echo off the body, and a portion of the echo took the direct path back to the seeker radar.

4) Indirect-indirect
This is where portions of both signal and echo deflects off the water surface before reaching their destinations.

All four types have delays with each other. Ironically...The more sophisticated the seeking radar, the greater the negative effects from multipath propagation as this sophisticated radar is trying to process what it believes to be four targets or four ghosts, depending on the humidity level and temperature layers of the body of water.

So for ship, angling its side surfaces to deflect any echo signals upward make sense. Where else can we deflect but up anyway since this is a 2D environment?

and that spherical designs give ultimate stealth!

Not spherical but curves. I never said the F-22 was 'spherical'. I said the F-22 uses curves. You have a reading comprehension problem.

If you read the entire paper, these were the sizes used in the simulation

That is not the question. You claimed that the F-117 is 'much larger' dimensionally...

The design of the F-117 is obviously better for stealth as the F-117 is much larger than the F-22 yet the RCS cross sections are almost equivalent.

Here are their dimensions...

Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

# Length: 65 ft 11 in (20.09 m)
# Wingspan: 43 ft 4 in (13.20 m)
# Height: 12 ft 9.5 in (3.78 m)
# Wing area: 780 ft² (73 m²)

Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

# Length: 62 ft 1 in (18.90 m)
# Wingspan: 44 ft 6 in (13.56 m)
# Height: 16 ft 8 in (5.08 m)
# Wing area: 840 ft² (78.04 m²)

Their true RCS figures are unknown. At least to you anyway. Suffice for our discussion that they are very similar. So you are wrong, as usual, about their sizes.

The scientific experiment was to construct F-117 and F-22 replicas out of steel and then compare their RCS. That way the only difference in RCS will be from the shape. It will tell which design is stealthier,

Considering you are wrong about their dimensions, your assumptions about which method is 'stealthier' is meaningless.

You think that an average soldier actually knows or cares about the physics behind ANY of their guns other than the fact that they squeeze the trigger and it shoots?

I can say that I have PHD friends who worked on the F-22? Saying my friend told me as an argument just shows that you have lost.

Military aviation maintainers are not infantry. They do not carry weapons everywhere. Your lack of military experience embarrassed you here. Still...If the F-22 is laden with 'metamaterials' as you repeated claimed...

The only reason why the F-22 is possible is because of advances in metamaterials

...Then my active duty friends who work on the jet would know about it and I would know about it. The fact that you failed to provide a couple of sources to support this repeated claim make you dishonorable. Basically, you make a claim and demand that we prove you wrong. This mean you are asking for proof of a negative, which is illogical. This mean we should no longer take seriously any boast you make about yourself regarding your education or profession. YOU lost this debate, kid.

 

[Thomas]

This is a sad example of your education. I made fun of 'Chinese physics' but...Good Heavens...This is truly sad. Radar signals do not have distinct lines. So in making a bunch of straight and parallel lines and pointing to ONE LINE that supposedly would create a creeping wave, you explained nothing and destroyed any credibility you have in this discussion. May God help China if her scientists and engineers are this gullible when they genuinely believe these sorry 2D images to be representative of the 3D world.

Don't forget he has in the past claimed to live in Brooklyn. And uses the Chinese, and North Korean flags simply because he admires them. I am starting to think however he actually got his college education in North Korea. That would explain a lot!

 

[gambit]

Don't forget he has in the past claimed to live in Brooklyn. And uses the Chinese, and North Korean flags simply because he admires them. I am starting to think however he actually got his college education in North Korea. That would explain a lot!

There are four math equations that make possible the F-22 and -- believe it or not -- they are PUBLICLY available. They form the foundation of the complex CAD algorithms that virtually shaped the B-2, F-22 and F-35. This guy does not know what he is yabbering about.

 

[amalakas]

This guy does not know what he is yabbering about.

I kinda mentioned that already... I am not sure why the guy is so hung up on metamaterials .. the only metamaterial related to EM behaviour I have been within 10 feet of, was about 4mm in diameterx0.4mm ... that is about it.. not sure where all this is coming from....

 

[Chinaownseverything]

Far better than you.


This is a sad example of your education. I made fun of 'Chinese physics' but...Good Heavens...This is truly sad. Radar signals do not have distinct lines. So in making a bunch of straight and parallel lines and pointing to ONE LINE that supposedly would create a creeping wave, you explained nothing and destroyed any credibility you have in this discussion. May God help China if her scientists and engineers are this gullible when they genuinely believe these sorry 2D images to be representative of the 3D world.

If it is possible to visualize a radar signal, it would be CONICAL in shape...

There are no lines, straight or wavy, inside this cone. The single arrowed line above is to illustrate a portion of the cone that will directly impact the sphere in this ideal situation. Any return from this portion is our 'specular' reflection and will be our initial energy level. The rest of the cone will become circumferential waves.

I know that it is conical, but in reality that cone is extremely large compared to the object that it is locating. So relative to the object the waves will be straight lines. Just like how relative to the size of a human the face of the earth is flat.

Wrong...Utterly and embarrassingly wrong. More 'Chinese physics'.

First...On a sphere, surface and creeping waves are independent of each other and together, they are components of 'circumferential waves':

1- Surface (SW)
2- Creeping (CW)
3- Leaky (LW)

Second...Surface waves do not need a spherical body or even a curvature to exist. Surface waves are created even if the incident signal is perpendicular to the surface. In this situation, the wave is statistically insignificant. However, when the incident wave's angle, hereby refer to as 'incident angle' for clarity, departs from perpendicular (90 deg), the energy level of the surface wave increases. As the incident angle approaches parallel to the surface, the surface wave becomes increasingly statistically relevant. A flat plate has SW and LW but not CW. The sphere is considered a simple body. The cylinder is a complex body. Both will exhibit all three components.

Attacking strawman again are we? I never claimed that creeping wave only existed on spherical bodies.

Creeping wave only applies to surface waves, they are not independent of each other

On a much more complex body like an aircraft, if the incident angle is head-on, the body's frontal RCS is the lowest. But for this complex body...

Creeping wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...There are EDGE DIFFRACTION effects.

What happens is as the surface wave traverse the fuselage, wings, stabs, missiles, bombs, external fuel tanks, fins, and assorted antennas, whenever the wave reached the ends of these elements, it encounter...EDGES. Gaps on the aircrafts surfaces are also edges and edge diffraction effects will radiate some of the wave's energy into free space. Some of that radiation will be back towards the seeking radar. The echo's energy spread in a 3D graph is never uniform because of the many flat plates, cylinders and edges, aka reflective points, on this complex body but those points can be statistically grouped, resulting in a concentration of energy spikes that the system will alert as a 'valid target'. That is why even for complex and irregular (but symmetrical) bodies, in a straight head- or tail-on radar collision, the radar echo can still be behind the aircraft's spatial location.

So when you said this: '...creeping wave ONLY EFFECTS the surface wave...' You are absurdly wrong. Surface and creeping waves create 'leaky' waves, aka free space radiation, and it is this free space radiation that can give a false spatial location of our sphere. Free space radiation from edge diffraction and leaky wave (LW) effects can (not must) give a false spatial location of our complex body. This is why in radar detection no system is ever %100 precise in target spatial location.

Again you don't seem to realize how radars work, the radar only sees the waves that comes back to it. I have stated before that when a surface wave creeps around the object that it loses most of its energy, this energy is conserved by leaky waves. These leaky waves will never make it back to the receptor due to low energy and wrong orientation.

I already explained to you in my nicely drawn pictures why creeping wave appears to come from behind the actual object. Because the wave that ends up making it back to the receptor due to having the proper orientation having traversed around the object and thus reversing its direction the lower energy signature that it carries implies that the object is further away.

For someone who has access to paywalled sources, you are pathetic in your research. If you are any good with it, you would have found plenty of research papers that will effectively debunk EVERYTHING you posted here. You would have found that there is a clear relationship between wavelength and sphere diameter and when the creeping wave WILL NOT complete a circumference.

I found plenty of resources that disproved ALL OF YOUR POSTS. The only things that you have disproved were set up strawmen

Valid scientific evidence that you just ignored?

F-117 vs F-22 RCS? IGNORED

RCS of slightly curved plate vs spherical plate? IGNORED

Saying that Stealth ships had angled plates because of RADAR DOESN'T WORK UNDERWATER when I pointed out that every experimental stealth helicopter design look similar to stealth ships and F-117?

I have debunked all of your arguments, while you spout gibberish to waste my time digging through sources to disprove you and making nice little MS paint diagrams to try and educate you. And ignoring the arguments that you can't disprove.


Not once have you posted a source, this entire conversation has been one sided. You make CRAZY CLAIM, I pull up a paper telling you wrong. You ignore it, strawman by stating things and claiming that I said them just to debunk them yourself (most of the time getting many theories completely wrong).

According to your crazy pseudoscience theories (WITHOUT ANY SOURCES) stealth helicopters and stealth ships should all be spherical. Obviously you know more than all the engineers at Raytheon,Northrop etc...

And this is why some people in life work designing machines while others (similar to you) are working cleaning toilets. I bet that you are one of those scum that go around telling girls that they are engineers when really they are "sanitation engineers"

 

[gambit]

I kinda mentioned that already... I am not sure why the guy is so hung up on metamaterials .. the only metamaterial related to EM behaviour I have been within 10 feet of, was about 4mm in diameterx0.4mm ... that is about it.. not sure where all this is coming from....

He has no choice. He made a foolish claim and could not support it. His reasoning about it was from faulty logic. His demand for us to prove a negative, meaning show everyone that the F-22 is NOT of this 'metamaterial', is proof of that illogical thinking. No one can prove a negative. That should have been part of his education. He was wrong about the size differences -- 'much larger' -- whatever that mean. Could not even do basic research before making that assertion before easily debunked. He publicly painted himself into a corner with this 'metamaterial' nonsense.

 

[amalakas]

Valid scientific evidence that you just ignored?

F-117 vs F-22 RCS? IGNORED

I don't know how valid the scientific evidence you talk about are, but to be honest, I have sat in 4 LM presentations were the F35 has been discussed and NO number for the RCS was given !!

You have a number on the RCS of the F117 or the F22 ?

I am no genious but I am pretty sure both are classified and only approximations or comparative figures are given to interested parties, like potential customers and these are not even about the F22...