F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread


Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
The main principles doesn't change whether the design is simple or complex. It is only that in complex design there is more calculation to be made so you require a computer. But that does not in any way mean the basics working principles of creeping wave and diffraction change.
If you add a small objects/detail with RCS of X to a model with a RCS of Y, the total value will not be equal X+Y, because we have to consider the effect of retro directive reflectors, as well as discontinuities, return. But that does not in any way mean the principles change.
Again, your post is a prime example about the importance ( or lack) of proper mathematics training in the higher education.

Try to use this simple mathematical methods to design a centreless grinding machine, car suspension, a multiple emitter single band radio network or a stealth airplane and you will realise that the brute force mathematical methods works up to a limit,and beyond that the differential functions and linear algebra is your friend , with massive computational help.

The simple design rules doesn't work on these field.

Try to calculate the proper counter/grinding wheel sizes/rpms with your methods for a given part size in centerless grinding . That is soooooo primitive and simple compared to the other problems : D


It is the same with real life experiment. The main difference between a simple model and a full-scale airplane is the fact that a full scale airplane have many small details and panel gaps. So, generally speaking, there are more discontinuities and scattered locations. But main principles remain the same, return in Mie region is ALWAYS and I really mean ALWAYS frequency dependence. Because in Mie region the creeping wave return curve around the object and interfered with the specular return. The end result depend on whether this interference is constructive or destructive. Whether the interference is instructive or destructive depend on whether the creeping return and specular return are in phase or out of phase. That why the wavelength is important in this region.
Mie calculation is for an ideal sphere, NOT for real aircraft and for polarised waves ( for an ideal sphere the polarisation doesn't matter, because (surprise,surprise) that is a sphere : P ).

This is the issue, the Mie is a simplified calculation to help the understanding the methods and the general principles, NOT a design rule.

From that point the rest of your post simple doesn't make sense ,you try to make from a simple calculation guess/gut dictated results for a complex problem.



Just because an aircraft has RAM applied on it doesn't mean it will have low RCS or will become a low observable aircraft. US also applied Iron ball RAM on F-15, but that doesn't mean F-15 will suddenly have the same RCS as F-16, .....
RAM important on the air intakes, the edge treatment is the second most important.
Tertiary important is the general painting : P

And it is fair to expect they using graphene as well, not iron balls.

The Russians re-designed the shape of the aircraft as well, so it is more than same fancy paining work an a F-15.
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
There is same fundamental difference between the Russian and USA philosophy.

It steam from the fact Russia lost more than 13% (mainly civilians ) of its population during the WWII, and the best part of the country was devastated.
It gave a lasting impression in the country, and in the population (and in the military procurement ) .

For the USA the WWII was a big profit opportunity for all industry and billionaire .


Now, the company and owners / workers at the Lockheed wants to make profit (big, preferably ) and extra bonuses on the F-35. The same group of people on the Russian projects want to make sure they daughters won't get killed by a bomb ,because example the S-300 didn't detected an F-35.

See the difference ?
This is the F-35 thread, you're far out in left field again with all your analytics my friend, in fact you have a very poor grasp of logic, so lets stick to the topic at hand and not your bull shit philosophy.... please.....
 

mig-31

New Member
Registered Member
Again, your post is a prime example about the importance ( or lack) of proper mathematics training in the higher education.

Try to use this simple mathematical methods to design a centreless grinding machine, car suspension, a multiple emitter single band radio network or a stealth airplane and you will realise that the brute force mathematical methods works up to a limit,and beyond that the differential functions and linear algebra is your friend , with massive computational help.

The simple design rules doesn't work on these field.

Try to calculate the proper counter/grinding wheel sizes/rpms with your methods for a given part size in centerless grinding . That is soooooo primitive and simple compared to the other problems : D
Oh I do have proper mathematic training in higher education. You are confusing between a simple definition and a simple equation. They do not neccesary go hand in hand. A phenomenon can have very simple definition yet need very complex equation to calculate. Take for example: the definition of gravity and black hole is very simple. The equation and calculation however aren't. The definition of stealth technology and general rules aren't actually complex. For example: Using serrations to break up surface wave return and redirect them toward less important direction is very simple concept to grasp. How long the edge should be, what direction it should face, what is the beam width of the backscatter are what you need computer to calculate. But the general principles can still be explained with words


Mie calculation is for an ideal sphere, NOT for real aircraft and for polarised waves ( for an ideal sphere the polarisation doesn't matter, because (surprise,surprise) that is a sphere : P ).

This is the issue, the Mie is a simplified calculation to help the understanding the methods and the general principles, NOT a design rule.

From that point the rest of your post simple doesn't make sense ,you try to make from a simple calculation guess/gut dictated results for a complex problem.
Well no. Mie scattering is a phenomenon happen when wavelength is a at a certain size vs the object. The sphere is used for illustration because it is simple object, same in all orientation, it doesn't have a secondary smaller part that could result in some parts in optical region and some parts in Mie region. In other words, Mie resonance is the phenomenon when wavelength reach a certain size vs object, it is not only the phenomenon with a sphere but all object. The sphere is used because it is the same in all orientation and doesn't have secondary interaction like normal object, which make the calculation a lot more simple. But the design principle doesn't change. From the sphere example, they can extrapolate that some parts of aircraft can cause Mie resonance with wave if they are small enough vs the wave, and Mie scattering is ALWAYS frequency dependence regardless whether you use simple sphere or a complex aircraft. Because it rely on the interaction between specular and creeping wave return.




RAM important on the air intakes, the edge treatment is the second most important.
Tertiary important is the general painting : P

And it is fair to expect they using graphene as well, not iron balls.

The Russians re-designed the shape of the aircraft as well, so it is more than same fancy paining work an a F-15.
The most important part for LO aircraft is avoiding 90 degrees corners which Su-34 have a bunch of. Su-34 also have zero edges treatment to know of: no serration in panel gap, no distinct magnetic absorber in panel gap and trailing edges. The inlet is literally a straight inlet that expose turbine blades. Heck even the B-1B and F-18E/F has engine blocker to shield the turbine fan blades from radar wave while Su-34 has none. It simply not stealthy in any shape or form.
B-1B inlet
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
For the USA the WWII was a big profit opportunity for all industry and billionaire .
Bull crap!! The US made no profit from the war. Was it devastated? No it was not, but that’s because the mainland of the US was never invaded. There were undeveloped territory invaded by Japan at a loss for them.

The US entered the war still in recession and ended the war still in recession. It took until the year 1951 to recover from the depression followed by the war. That was as the US really started kickstarting it’s economy.

The production of lend lease was done at a loss the British, European allies Soviets and Chinese were given arms at the promise that they would be “returned” after the war. In practice this never happened. Arms were built at cost not cost plus profit and in the war wars civilian production was virtually stopped across most industry for war production. End of war only liberty ships were returned everything else stayed where it was either has it was damaged or destroyed Or inducted in the rebuilt armed forces of the post war nations. That was in modern terms $980+ Billion that the US tax payers ate. That’s just lend lease alone. Then the US deployments and operations, the Manhattan program, the Marshal plan post war, the Occupations of Germany and Japan, POWs, Veterans care these weren’t a profit they were expenses. All passed to the American economy and taxpayers as bills not profits.

Your whole argument now is MIC Conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theory that works both ways in the Russian system that is notorious for kickbacks Skimming off the top and more.
 
Last edited:

Top