ptldM3
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2009
- Messages
- 5,586
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
My discussion with Blitzo on the Russian radar blocker ended a while ago. I am not resurrecting the debate. However, while my mind is clear, I want to write down and share a few new observations.
1. Based on physics, the Russian radar blocker won't work. The specular reflection from the mostly perpendicular surfaces will be enormous and easily detectable.
You mean to say that a teams of engineers/designers with PHD's/Masters/bachlors got it wrong! Dearly respected sir, thank you for you enlightening and groundbreaking information. I am truly humbled and honored to be in your presents, you are like a messiah.
2. The idea of using micro-ducts is patently silly.
More like you're silly, I take it you are not aware of the F-117's intakes. Lets take a look. Check this out, I will post a source, amazing isn't? You should try it sometimes instead of making assumptions that backfire on you.
Source:
The Radar Game - Understanding Stealth and Aircraft Survivability
A screen covered the engine ducts and the canopy was shielded. Diffusers and baffling prevented radar waves entering the engine intake from hitting the engine itself and reflect-ing back to the receiver. Diffusers covered the front of the intake and screened out radar waves by using a wire mesht hat was smaller than the wavelength of the radar, similar to the screen on a microwave oven’s glass that preventmicrowaves from leaving the interior of the appliance. The intake on the F-117 was covered with a fine grill mesh whose gaps were smaller than the wavelengths of enemy radar
The principle of stealth behind the F-22, J-20, and F-35 is to use a large cavity (e.g. the long "S" air duct) to reflect an incoming radar wave multiple times towards the inside of the long S-duct. With each bounce inward, the RAM coating converts some of the radar energy into heat energy. The process is the same with the radar-wave bounce back out of the interior of the long S-duct.
And what makes you think that an S-duct, literally causes EM energy to 'bounce'?
With micro-ducts, it is impossible to have multiple bounces to attenuate an incoming radar wave. The cavity is too small.
Than explain this:
RAM-coated cockpit glass, removing exposed rivets, removing all those gaps, vents, and protrusions......
So on one hand you claim that something as large as a radar blocker with 'gaps' large enough to place a fist in is too small to achieve EM energy to bounce around while on the other hand you loudly shout that rivets are 'poor for stealth', so apparently pin-hole sized rivets can cause EM energy to cause returns but a radar blocker's vents are too small to cause any bounces.
You really need to keep track of your post you consistently contradict yourself. You have the worst case of double standards I have ever seen, you twist and manipulate everything in favor of the J-20 while all the while putting down the pak-fa based on bias opinions. Sad how some of the same rules you set for the pak-fa do not apply to your J-20.
3. A micro-duct design will create a broad and diffuse specular radar return. Based on physics, the cavity has to be large and smooth to reflect an incoming radar wave[/B]. With a micro-duct, the surface will not appear to be smooth, because it is curved on a small-scale (which is noticeable to the wavelength of S/C/L/X band radar).[/B]
Has to be large and smooth?
In conclusion, due to physics problems, the Russian radar blocker won't work and it's a fantasy.
I doubt you have ever taken any physics classes.
An "engine blocker" will not save the T-50 from detection. When all that radar energy enter the jet engine cavity, there are only two outcomes. The energy is either reflected or absorbed. The fan blades of the "engine blocker" are roughly perpendicular. Whatever radar energy that is not absorbed will all be mostly reflected back to the enemy fighter's detector. Also, due to the spinning blades, the enemy radar detector will notice a modulating reflected signal.
Lets clear a few thing up, the picture of that radar blocker is not meant for the pak-fa. Even if we assume some EM energy will exit the blocker we have several things happening at once. Firstly, the EM energy that escapes the radar blocker will bounce around wildly and second it will bounce around in a cavity that is treated with obsorbers, with each bounce EM becomes weaker and weaker, than comes complex scatter, it is not known how much of this complex scatter will make it back to the receiver. So essentially you are making claims without examining all aspects. If we assume some EM energy will escape, (we have no definitive answer as to how much will escape) it could be 1%-5% or 10%-20%, there is no way to know, than as mentioned a loss of energy will occur, for all we know the inner walls of the intake can absorb all the excess EM energy but if the energy is not completely lost by the time it exits the intake it will than scatter, the important thing is that only some (if any) of the EM energy will actually travel back to its source.
So what makes you think that whatever EM energy (if any) will have enough strength to return to its source?
If that is an engine blocker, it is poorly designed. To a radar beam moving at the speed of light, the spinning engine blocker blades are basically standing still. Looking at the picture, we can see that 90% of the radar beams will impact and reflect off the engine fan blades behind the engine blocker. The engine blocker will have minimal effect on lowering the radar reflection from the metallic engine fan blades.
It isn't.
I will explain point #3 in greater detail to make it easily understandable.
Imagine that photons (which include radar waves) are a group of ping pong balls. If you throw a group of ping pong balls against the wall in a long hallway, they'll just bounce down the hallway/cavity.
Now, try throwing a group of ping pong balls into a Mythical Russian radar blocker with micro-ducts, which are roughly the size of the ping pong balls. Most of the ping pong balls will bounce back out. There is your "broad and diffuse specular radar return."
Gaps, cracks, seams, protrusions, surface discontinuities, sudden changes in shape, changes in material are everywhere!
The coward is back. I asked you to point out these defects, you have failed, I asked you to post a source, you failed to do that as well. I asked you to explained what phenomenon some of this falls into, you failed.
And now you make wild claims of 'cracks', where are these cracks? Show everyone, I for one would love to see these mysterious cracks.
I can also see that you have zero understanding in this subject so I will try to say this in an easy to understand manner that even a child can understand.
Seams--every aircraft has these, even the J-20, the J-20's weapons bays, canopy and access panels all have seams genius.
Protrusions--the J-20 has far more than the pak-fa, sorry it's the truth. The J-20's under wing actuators are by far larger than the pak-fa's actuators, the pak-fa also has no DSI's. The whole is larger than its parts, and the J-20 has a whole lot of 'bumps' that are large.
surface discontinuities--from the picture you posted it showed an aileron, are you telling me that the J-20 has no ailerons? And thus no surface discontinuities? It would be nice to think these things through before publicly embarrassing yourself.
This isn't a stealth aircraft. I don't know what it is, perhaps a normal 4th generation fighter.
You don't know many things. what's new?