I do not have to 'admit' to being wrong since you have yet to prove where I am wrong. Your argument here is that LM was 'shortsighted' in focusing on the X-band. In order for the 'shortsighted' charge to stick, you have to prove that LM did not know about the fact that wavelength employed is a factor of RCS. But since you so far have been unable to prove that, and consistently also proved unable to understand the fact that an aircraft is a compromised product of competing demands, we can conclude that you did not understand my technical explanations as to why the X-band has been the focus, is the focus, and will continue to be the focus.
Again, I never said the problem was with X-Band, you're use of this false accusation is irritating. Review my messages, I said it like 10 times, it's the "narrowband" stealth weakness of the F-35 which is its weakness to the upper S-Band, L-Band, UHF...etc. You're continued wordplay is expected though.
This is nothing more than a great leap of faith on your own flawed assumption: Lockheed's focused on the X-band is proof of their ignorance that wavelength is part of the RCS creation.
Sigh! LOL
That is funny considering the Russians are still struggling and the Chinese have merely dabbled in 'stealth' but here you are proclaiming the world's leader in 'stealth' is making a 'mistake'.
Absolutely! LM blundered not because they didn't understand that they were creating an inferior "front line", jack-of-all-trades master of none, stealth fighter. Where they screwed up is that they didn't foresee the current military situation as it stands now and in the near future. LM analysts assumed foreign opponents were so far behind them that they could create the high-low fighter mix not with the same quality relationship as F-15/F-16 but of the widely disparaged F-35 and the prize winning F-22. Need I remind you again that the F-22 will not be sold to any allies, not even the British. Any allies buying into the F-35 fiasco will be in a precarious situation everytime they come up against non-American stealth jets.
No, what I said was very correct. This is not about the F-35 as a replacement for the current generation of 'jack-of-all-trades' fighters. Of course it is intended to be. Your entire argument so far is based upon the failure to understand that any product, from ships to tanks to aircrafts, are compromised products of competing demands. Your focus on the F-35 is not based upon rational thoughts but from an emotional investment in downplaying an American product. I do not expect anyone to heap praises upon our 'stuff', but if they are going to put forth criticisms, especially when the subject is technically loaded, I expect the criticisms to contain credible technical support. I have yet to see any from you. You have presented no credible technical arguments that such a 'band-aid' solution by the Russians is of any efficacy. You do know the meaning of 'efficacy', no? And there are only speculations that the Chinese will use their version of the same 'band-aid' solution.
We can agree with one thing here, as the wing-mounted L-Band radar stands now, it is a band-aid solution but it is a solution. The fact is, L-Band is the sweet spot weakness of the F-35, and that band-aid solutions exist for it NOW, means that when the F-35 is actually in full production and being sold to the allies, band-aid solutions will have likely evolved into full scale interlinked systems AEGIS style as I mentioned previously. Targeting is not as big a problem as you make it out to be because you're concentrating on singular L-Band radar systems working alone whereas we know that such radars when working together can have missiles guided close enough for the missiles to do the rest themselves even when LPI modes are used.
That is not what I asked. Both the J-20 and the T-50 are still more in the proof-of-concepts and developmental stages than they are of production ready. The T-50 is less so than the J-20. But if we grant the latitude that you are correct, by the time both aircrafts are ready for production, how do you know that tomorrow they will be as capable as they are hyped today?
Since when have I "hyped" either of these fighters? LOL I never claimed the PAK FA or J-20 had stealth performance on par with the F-22. The information required for that sort of analysis is far too detailed without more data. My contention concerning this topic has generally focused on your contention that the J-20 is not even a stealthy aircraft. You actually questioned whether it had an RCS of ~1 meter square when 4+ gen delta canard fighters like the Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen which are known to have RCS of less than this in clean configuration. Seriously, you have some balls to claim that repeatedly with a straight face.
You do not need to. Everyone understand how insinuations works: Let the readers' imagination take their course. All you have to do is point out the 'weakness' of one item without conceding that the same 'weakness' can exist in the comparables.
I already answered this, but you simply ignored it and replied exactly as I predicted, with a request for classified fighter data and analysis based on said classified data....clearly impossible at this time.
I never claimed anything about the J-20 or PAK FA "specifically" concerning their L-Band stealth performance. I mentioned the publically declared "narrowband" stealth weakness of the F-35 which Lockheed admitted. Your skepticism over J-20 stealth was concerning its overall stealth RCS figure which you doubted was under ~1 meter square, a figure that I find laughable considering all of your self proclaimed expertise. The J-20s dimensional size together with its general stealth shaping indicates it is stealthy from at least L-Band upwards from most angles except the aft quarter. Obviously I can't provide exact technical details since public access to this classified project is..."classified", but you can tell from the airframe
SIZE, alignment and continuous curvature shaping of the J-20 that its lambda figures would prevent EM signal returns and mostly disappate or guide EM away from the radar source for up to decimeter size waveforms. Same reasons why the huge B-2 is stealthy at lower-radar bands despite its size. If you understood what I just said, you would know this is
MORE THAN LIKELY! Of course I fully expect you to request classified anaechoic chamber data anyways.
I don't need to write a thesis or expand more than this, nor do I have the time or inclination to do so. Anybody with basic radar stealth knowledge would understand what I said here explains how specular reflections and EM wave propagation will be directed away from the radar source. You have claimed before that you are some sort of radar expert and worked in the business no? The only unknown is the required size of the aircraft which is obviously large enough to bleed EM away before some had a chance to return back to the radar source. Early on there was even speculation that the J-20 was a stealth bomber. Pictures alone can never give the full "picture", but claiming they are useless is wrong. Your desire for detailed anechoic chamber data is akin to wanting to know Pi to 100 decimal places, whereas I deem it necessary to only provide Pi to 1 decimal place since that is enough to prove the point.
Please...I understand that I would be treading the 'appeal to authority' style of debating, but the works of Skolnik, Knott, Jenn, Stone, and many others advocated the rule of targeting the threat frequency and not, in your vagueness, 'be stealthy against your opponent'.
If your opponent has the capability to detect you, you are not stealthy to that opponent. Thus...."Stealthy to your opponent". As I've said several times, out of context, using unrelated but factual minutiae.
More convenient evasions when pressed for details. Am willing to bet that you have never heard of the 10-lambda rule or such a thing as an anechoic chamber until now.
Next we're going to have a wind tunnel described to us. lol Radar has been a major topic on military forums for many years, think back to the 1990s. Radar at different wavelengths has always been a major discussion concerning stealth since the 1990s when it was mostly about optimal lambda against RAM coatings. You can't even decipher some of my English sentences without getting confused and using your misinterpretations of said sentences as part of your arguments. LOL
But I have no problems educating you further, of course I do not expect you to admit your ignorance and false perceptions, your pride will not allow you to put yourself at the same level as an American, but the more objective readers will make their own judgement...
All hail, all hail! I bow before your godly Americaness....
...Irregularity equals to irregular RCS contributorship by diverse smaller complex structures on the final body. The EM interactions between these smaller radiators make modeling and estimation a supercomputer level effort. In the above illustration, the single vertical stabilator is an example of such irregular contributorships when compared against other structures on the airliner.
There is no way for any one with any degree of intellectual honesty to say that based upon visuals alone he can say that an aircraft is more or less effective in so-and-such an EM region.
Well, first of all I said wayyyy back that there is no way to have a 100% accurate analysis without anechoic chamber data analyzed by a supercomputer. So thank you for finally admitting that, you are making progress. Your request for detailed J-20 technical details as I also said way back is a rhetorical question because it is still classified information. Here's what I said in message #441...
No analysis on appearance alone can be complete regardless of methodology unless you have every minute detail of the aircraft on hand as well full knowledge of the materials composition of the aircraft. Only with unfettered access to the aircraft could any complete study be performed using a supercomputer. If this is the track you are following, then your question has been rhetorical all along because it cannot be answered since the J-20 is a publicly known but still classified project. The whole point of military forums like this one are to discuss these issues, the what-ifs, new developments, tactical/strategic implications, etc....not rhetoric to shut down discussions until projects are completely declassified.
Concerning radar vulnerability estimation via visuals, irregular shaping will have detrimental stealth effects at all frequencies but
relatively more so the higher the frequency. The L-Band weakness is mostly the result of the F-35 size. L-Band radar illumination on the sides could exploit this and allows some EM to creep around the body before it is all bled off, that is something you can visually see if the aircraft dimensions can be reasonably estimated. In the case of the F-35, nothing was ever solely based on visuals, it was publicly declared by LM and had already been visually speculated from its size. In the case of both the J-20 and PAK FA, their size coupled with their shaping gives a "preliminary" speculation of having no such L-Band weakness. Although there are questions concerning the PAK FA irregularities, these are not specifically related to L-Band alone and will probably be addressed eventually since it's obvious the stealth aspect is not the main part of the current PAK FA flight test regime.
But here you are telling us that based upon looks alone, YOU can tell the world that an aircraft is better at one wavelength or another within a few centimeters.
Your exaggerations continue unabated. No, it is not by centimeters, it is gradual because EM is gradually bled off curved surfaces when creeping around the surface and no I never said anything about visuals "ALONE" are enough for analysis. That does not mean visual inspection is "useless" as you so badly want to proclaim. An EODAS like system is speculated from the visuals, LOAN nozzles are speculated from visuals, serpentine inlets are "confirmed" from visuals, planform alignment "confirmed" from visuals, continuous curvature "speculated" from visuals, titanium-oxide coated canopy speculated by visuals, glass cockpit "confirmed" by visuals, internal weapons bays "confirmed" by visuals, etc, etc....almost everything we know to date has been either directly or indirectly from the visuals. This merry go-round logic of yours is disingenuous.
What I said was an example of how different -- in dB -- that two complex bodies must be when one of them effected RCS control measures. The physical wavelengths between the X and L bands are of a few cm. I want to see credible data that showed that if a complex body, under radar bombardment, is changed from X to L band, there is a 10 dB difference. Without this data, your entirement argument that the F-35 has a 'weakness' in the L-band is shot.
The conditions that you created here is not an apples to apples study because the complex bodies you are trying to use as examples are not stealth bodies of the type we are talking about....stealth fighters...which minimize irregular structures as much as possible except where they destructively interfere with radar returns to the source. Irregular structures on non-stealth aircraft are the main contributor of radar, irregular structures on aircraft considered stealth are minor contributors of radar. The L-Band weaknesses of the sort we are talking about here, related to stealth fighters, are mainly a creeping wave phenomenon and less effective RAM performance. Your example is completely biased. You know, it's easy to jerry-rig a biased example. Here's one of my own...if a stealth fighter were under radar bombardment and the bands changed from X to HF, would there be a greater than 10dB difference. LOL
That was not what I asked. If an increase of a few cm is supposed to be a 'stealth killer', then certainly an increase to one meter wavelength is no longer speculative but assured, no? So what if they have poor target resolutions? As long as the 'stealth' aircraft is at least revealed in the general direction, why not use these meters length wavelengths?
Maybe you should propose your idea to the US Air Force. Then America can use your superior meter wave radars idea against everybody else inferior X-Band and L-Band radars. This is your chance to get back in the business!!! Godspeed!
The laugh is on you. Ground air defense radars are usually meters in dimensions, not because of the freqs but because of the wavelength versus antenna shape versus antenna dimensions IF they want to reach out as far as possible. So by the need for distance, yes, ground stations are quite forced by this need.
Whatever you say...
Millimeter Radars (ground based)
*
Raytheon Awards More Contracts for Mobile Centurion Subsystems | Defense Update
*
LD-2000 Close-In Weapons System (CIWS) - SinoDefence.com
Centimeter Radars (ground based)
*
MissileThreat :: Forward-Based X-Band Radar-Transportable
Decimeter Radars (ground based)
*
76N6 Clam Shell Low Altitude Acquisition Radar / 5N66/5N66M/76N6/76N6E/40V6M/MD Clam Shell
The reason why the L-band was used by the Russians is not because they have any credible data to back up their claim, but because the L-band was the best compromise they can come up with given the wavelength versus antenna shape versus antenna size demands. For the antenna, those demands came from the best locations the Russians can think of: Wing leading edges.
Unbelievable, something we finally agree on.
And you are telling me that tactical thinking is not my forte?
With the speed and accuracy of today's air-air missiles, especially the radar guided type, an F-35 would down several enemy fighters blasting away with their radars in trying to think like you. That is the weakness of 'non-stealth' fighters trying to go up against 'stealth' fighters. They have to use their radars to attempt to acquire a target they know is extremely difficult to locate. In doing so they give themselves away. But if they do not transmit, they run a very high risk of letting the F-35 get by.
No tactician would assume their opponent would make themselves easy targets like you nonchalantly assume. As I said earlier and have always maintained, the L-Band radar on fighters are supplements. They would and should only be used to do the final "flash" scan LPI style of an already detected F-35 found by the more distant L-Band AWACs and use the multiple L-Band signatures to triangulate target location to within a reasonable distance, say less than a mile. That is accurate enough for a firing solution because the missile could be guided via satellite and then do the rest once within that close range. Btw, Beidou-II, China's GPS system, has a unique feature that allows 2-way messaging. In other words, Beidou-II could do missile guidance by messaging real-time coordinates to missiles transmitted to it from datalink'ed military aircraft L-Band radars. Like I said....not your forte.
No wars have ever been won by financial speculators.
Financial speculation and financial abuse will bring down the American Empire once the USD$ loses world reserve currency status. If you know what happens next, then the collapse of the American Empire is the least you should worry about.
,well nothing wrong in copying & stealing technology,
but u should nt boast & humilate other countries who cant do that.
