F-22, stuff you should know

**lurker** · 23 Jan 06, 22:47

Uh, BS? Please read the source. Its pretty credible

Why are you sure that pilots (the source was a pilot, right?) will know the exact RCS number? They are seeing it on a radar or thay don't.
Are they measuring it?
Is there a special mark on a radar screen that says "size of a marble?" or "bird?"

They are saying what they have been told. And in my understanding all this is pretty foggy.

**The_Burning_Kid** · 23 Jan 06, 23:00

Originally Posted by highsea

Maybe you should re-read my original comment to you. I was addressing this Try to keep up here, BK. I was not discussing the effect of an open bomb door- I was pointing out that you do not know whether or not that was a contributing factor in the shootdown, just as you cannot know if water was involved (or what effect it would have).

What you were doing was repeating an unfounded rumor about the incident.

I admit that but in the next reply after yours, I didn't mention anything about wetness affecting that because I did realise that is just a rumor and there's no real credible source on that.

Why are you sure that pilots (the source was a pilot, right?) will know the exact RCS number? They are seeing it on a radar or thay don't.
Are they measuring it?
Is there a special mark on a radar screen that says "size of a marble?" or "bird?"

They are saying what they have been told. And in my understanding all this is pretty foggy.

No it was an Air Force officer. I'm going to believe him more than you. Also he could be flying the F-15s just to let you know. Hell, it could be a statement that is gained from the stealth tests by Lockheed.

**Garry** · 24 Jan 06, 08:16

Originally Posted by The_Burning_Kid

I admit that but in the next reply after yours, I didn't mention anything about wetness affecting that because I did realise that is just a rumor and there's no real credible source on that.

No it was an Air Force officer. I'm going to believe him more than you. Also he could be flying the F-15s just to let you know. Hell, it could be a statement that is gained from the stealth tests by Lockheed.

Hi The Burning Kid, many sources which I met can be wrong despite their high intelligence. The people may be wrong and that is why it is important to check them with other sources. For examply I like meeting people who are involved in the aeropace business.... and I hear from them views which are countrary to previous.... both are intelligent. Both know their field.... who is right?

In my life it happened that even 3 independent sources were wrong in their estimations while an investment decision had been made based on them. These people were intelligent in their field (geology) .... but wrong. It happens.

**Defcon 6** · 24 Jan 06, 19:23

Originally Posted by lurker

RCS of a Bird? Or a Bee? Well, that precise

)

How about "I dont' know, but I will BS as much as I can"?

Actually yes they do have the typical RCS of the typical bird or bee. You see, in your ignorance you don't understand how radar systems actually work. You see, birds and bee's show up on radars, because they are detectable. The problem is they are so small that they are more like background noise because they drift in and out of radar contact. And with millions of bird and billions of flying insects buzzing all over you understand that all of the sudden we have a huge problem.

So what happens is the software operating the radar filters all that crap out, so that you don't end up with a radar screen covered in bajillions of dots that blink in and out of contact. So stealth aircraft sometimes are totally filtered off the radar screen. The only way to counter this is with newer software which distignuishes between birds, bees and actual stealth aircraft by monitoring the speed. Because obviously these birds flying 500+ kts aren't your average seagull. However, because their RCS's are so small and unstable (in terms of plottable to radar) they often drift in and out of radar contact like the birds and bee's that they resemble on radar. Which basically means that they are extremely difficult to shoot down. That my friend is stealth warfare in a nutshell.

Also, first of all the USAF claims that the F-22 does indeed have the RCS of a bird. They even assert this in one of their commercials. But then again it's just recruting propaganda, but nevertheless it is true.

You see Lurker, all stealth planes show up on radar. There is no such thing as absolute stealth because there simply is no such animal. Next time you want to have a little debate, pick your battle more wisely so you don't get thrashed and trashed like you did here.

**Defcon 6** · 24 Jan 06, 19:30

Originally Posted by lurker

Why are you sure that pilots (the source was a pilot, right?) will know the exact RCS number? They are seeing it on a radar or thay don't.
Are they measuring it?
Is there a special mark on a radar screen that says "size of a marble?" or "bird?"

They are saying what they have been told. And in my understanding all this is pretty foggy.

Actually yes they do know what the RCS of a bird or bee is. RCS's aren't so exact that there is much of a difference between a pigeon and a eagle, or a bumble bee and a locust.
Radar's operate on software which is capable of recognizing aircraft through their RCS signature which is a point decimal number. So as you can understand a B-52 will have a certain RCS, an F-14 will have a certain RCS. So it isn't hard to expand your brain enough to figure out that radars are capable of taking measurements of the radar pings they receive.

**lurker** · 24 Jan 06, 19:31

Lol, Deafcon, you continue to amuse me.

I am not saying that stealth is bad, or it's useless. If you spend so much money on a thing it's better be something.

I am just saying that there is a lot of unanswered questions. For example RCS - I am thinking that not a lot of people actually saw F-22 on a radar.
AFAIR they also use special deflectors that increase their signal in normal airspace (so the operators can see them on a radar). But everybody seems to be just repeating the same line about birds and bees that was "released" to the public.

Of course, people who know the real thing are afraid to get their asses busted.

There are other interesting questions, that I dont' even want to put up on this board. Just because I will hear not the real answer, but a name calling bark all along.

**Defcon 6** · 24 Jan 06, 19:34

Originally Posted by lurker

Lol, Deafcon, you continue to amuse me.

I am not saying that stealth is bad, or it's useless. If you spend so much money on a thing it's better be something.

I am just saying that there is a lot of unanswered questions. For example RCS - I am thinking that not a lot of people actually saw F-22 on a radar.
AFAIR they also use special deflectors that increase their signal in normal airspace (so the operators can see them on a radar). But everybody seems to be just repeating the same line about birds and bees that was "released" to the public.

Of course, people who know the real thing are afraid to get their asses busted.

There are other interesting questions, that I dont' even want to put up on this board. Just because I will hear not the real answer, but a name calling bark all along.

Thats because the F-22's RCS is roughly the size of a bird. So an exact RCS in this arguement is not needed. You made fun of the little fact that stealth aircraft have an RCS the size of a bird or bee, and I simply explained why you were incorrect.

**lurker** · 24 Jan 06, 19:42

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Thats because the F-22's RCS is roughly the size of a bird. So an exact RCS in this arguement is not needed. You made fun of the little fact that stealth aircraft have an RCS the size of a bird or bee, and I simply explained why you were incorrect.

Okay, how about this.

We know that the biggest contributor to the airplane RCS is a reflection from the radar antennae. Does not matter if it's a old style mirror, or phased array - it got to reflect radio signals ... by design.

So the radar antennae of F-22 is covered with some wunder matherial, that reflects only "IT'S" waves in a narrow band. But there is no "made in" signs on radiowaves, afaik they havent still managed to put them there

So... wide band signal will still STRONGLY reflect in some narrow band. Right?
I understand how Russians wanted to manage to get around it, but something does not add up in a F-22 "poster picture".

**Defcon 6** · 24 Jan 06, 19:57

Originally Posted by lurker

Okay, how about this.

We know that the biggest contributor to the airplane RCS is a reflection from the radar antennae. Does not matter if it's a old style mirror, or phased array - it got to reflect radio signals ... by design.

So the radar antennae of F-22 is covered with some wunder matherial, that reflects only "IT'S" waves in a narrow band. But there is no "made in" signs on radiowaves, afaik they havent still managed to put them there

So... wide band signal will still STRONGLY reflect in some narrow band. Right?
I understand how Russians wanted to manage to get around it, but something does not add up in a F-22 "poster picture".

Broad and narrow bands? Your talking about the frequency in which the radar waves travel. And yes in general a phased radar can operate on a very narrow band of waves if it is sensitive enough and sophisticated enough. Nevertheless the B-2 uses phased radar so your arguement is already irrelevant and invalid.

So yes I imagine the radar on the F-22 is highly sophisticated to take advantage of this effect. But nevertheless it won't help anyone shoot the F-22 down. The B-2 actually does have radar aside from what you might think, so why should we believe that the F-22 doesn't.

**Bill** · 24 Jan 06, 19:57

Originally Posted by The_Burning_Kid

That's awesome! I would be interested in hearing what he said.

You could always ask him yourself(lol, i completely forgot):

www.a-10.org

**lurker** · 24 Jan 06, 20:01

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

No, radar doesn't add to the RCS at all.

Learn the basics, really. It's not my task here to teach you in them.

I an big aircraft you can use mechanical devices to manipulate antennae, for example turn it facing down when you are not using it.

All that story about super-puper composite that allows only very narrow band exists only because of the thing I said above.

All aircraft radars function approximately in the same band diapazone.

**Defcon 6** · 24 Jan 06, 20:20

You don't seem to be getting the picture here. The B-2 uses radar. In other words your arguement is pointless.

**Defcon 6** · 24 Jan 06, 20:23

Originally Posted by lurker

Learn the basics, really. It's not my task here to teach you in them.

I an big aircraft you can use mechanical devices to manipulate antennae, for example turn it facing down when you are not using it.

All that story about super-puper composite that allows only very narrow band exists only because of the thing I said above.

All aircraft radars function approximately in the same band diapazone.

I took that out of my statement because I thought you were trying to make a different point. But now I see that you don't know the basics like you think you do.

Radar does not add to the RCS of the aircraft. To say it does it a stupid arguement. It would almost be like trying to say that the heat signature of a plane adds to its RCS.

No, radar may add to the detectability of an aircraft, but it won't add to the RCS. Apples and oranges.

**highsea** · 24 Jan 06, 20:56

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

No, radar may add to the detectability of an aircraft, but it won't add to the RCS. Apples and oranges.

Semantics, but misleading in content.

One of the biggest reflectors on any (radar equipped) AC is the radar antenna. You can rationalize however it pleases you, but the fact remains, and it's not a secret. So of course the antenna does allow for a stronger return at certain angles. This is the main reason the F-117 didn't use on board radar.

One way to deal with this is to orient the antenna so the returns do not reflect back to the emitter. This is a common technique, used on the F-22 and other AC. Other techniques exist, in the form of various screens, etc. and are used in combination with more basic geometric methods.

**lurker** · 24 Jan 06, 21:02

Nothing to add, since I don't want to make any personal comments about Deafcon.

I think I saw a picture of the disassembled F-22 showing exposed radar, It was not looking movable. I'll look for it.

Thread: F-22, stuff you should know

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Stuff that'll make you laugh!

Your Thoughts on David Icke?

The Stuff of Life

Soviet guns in Afghanistan (interview)

Whatever This Guys Is "high" On, Its Good Stuff!

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions