Iran Military Forum

the explanation she gives out makes more sense than any of the other theories. The same stealth coatings that has given them the edge, has pushed a broom stick up their ass.

I for one never really believed in all the stealth BS..From my little knowledge in physics, any object will bounce or reflect back whatever wave if throw at it..The question here is how much much of that wave energy if bounced back..If stealth aircrafts absorbs most of the energy, wouldn't the pilot fry inside like you would in a microwave as the energy will agitate the particles that make up the coating? I could be wrong but kinda makes sense to me..

Truth is, any country with a decent set of radars can track and intercept stealth fighter jets..so what's point in all these stealth tech? makes senses for drones but not big jets..

yes you right that radar wave will reflect back no matter what but in this case it absorbs more than regular plane. so if there are two planes with same radar and plane A has stealth coating while plane B does not then plane A will detect plane B at the range both the radars work but plane B will not detect plane A at the same moment but will detect later since the wave being reflected back from plane A is less and weaker as compared to what plane B reflects...so in such a scenatio plane A will be able to detect plane B and fire BVR missile before plane B detects plane A.

did you understand ?

Thank God, believing or not believing proves nothing.

Only a fraction of "stealthiness" is based on RAM which is generally applied to areas which are otherwise hard to get reduced RCS.  Applied RAM (paint, taping, paste) can be used or it can be material that is RAM itself (certain composites). Stealth is mostly based on form that greatly reduces reflections back to the radar. And your "frying" theory is wrong. The power of modern radars is relatively low and it is spread in large area.. modern radars are better than the old ones because of the better signal processing. Thus, for the best results you need RAM coated and very slim aircraft like B-2 while some are not stealthy from all aspects, eg. F-117 was not really stealthy if the radar was below it while JSF has allegedly excellent frontal arc RCS reduction but much more modest when "light up" by radar from other arcs, but still very small RCS when comparing to previous generation. But the whole 5th generation package is much more than just stealthiness
 

I for one never really believed in all the stealth BS..From my little knowledge in physics, any object will bounce or reflect back whatever wave if throw at it..The question here is how much much of that wave energy if bounced back..If stealth aircrafts absorbs most of the energy, wouldn't the pilot fry inside like you would in a microwave as the energy will agitate the particles that make up the coating? I could be wrong but kinda makes sense to me..

Truth is, any country with a decent set of radars can track and intercept stealth fighter jets..so what's point in all these stealth tech? makes senses for drones but not big jets..

Listened less than 10 minutes before realizing that I am wasting my time and continued to listen to Tom Waits.

This radar issue is ancient. Low-frequency radars have always been known to be better against small RCS targets than other radars- but they have their own limitations due to laws of physic and for example they are not accurate enough to be used with weapons nor typically not reliable enough to be used in heavy ECM situation under constant anti-radar missile threat. They are essential for systems like S-300/400 but they are no miracle radars that make reduced RCS obsolete.

And they got one problem...




they tend to be huge.