It isn’t even that it bounces off better. It is that it is reflected further from the emission point from the higher angle. A lot of the angles in J20, as an example, do serve to reflect things well away from the emission source (more, good enough than well, but still okay). With the exception of the canards, but then comes in material science to comment on how badly this impacts the aircraft’s RCS overall.
i thought he said bounces off as in reflects away and doesnt return to the emmision point
yes surprisingly radar goes through wood.
Are you deliberately being obtuse, or are you truly lacking when it comes to familiarity with the topic?
Dunno.
This is painfully apparent.
Yeah, mate commented as I finished writing and I wasn’t going to rewrite it for this git.
really? Wood and cloth (such as portions of airplanes and balloons used to be commonly made) or plastic and fibreglass are less reflective or indeed transparent to radar making them suitable for radomes. Even a very thin layer of metal can make an object strongly radar reflective.
Killed an F-117 with AIM-9B last night, another got crit’ed with cannon before I decided not to let the airfield AA take another shot at me…
Stealth won’t make poor players any better!! :)
Well yes there is always a level of skill needed.
We all knew of these facets of material science, your comment regarding wood more serves to suggest the aircraft is a wooden mockup, more so than its radar transparency. As much as I loathe the J20, it has flown and does exist. It also has features relevant to stealth, and the only facet we do not have documentation on is the radar absorbancy of the materials used in it.
This thread is peak propaganda posting
3 Likes
Nah my Asian brother I just proving a Point I can’t trust what Chain says.
fun fact, if you used a material invisable to radio waves, there is alot of stuff in the aircraft radio waves can reflect off of, its why things like S duct intakes exist.
1 Like
This thread is a cause of a headache on how someone fails to grasp basic facets of stealth then proceeds to pretend they’re the font of all knowledge. I’ve a headache from this muppet.
I personally have only passing familiarity with the material science aspects, know basic material interactions with radio waves, but not composites and other advanced implementation, so I try to ignore it in my assessment. But the physical aspects of the design and reflectivity of radio waves, I am more familiar with, so I’m happy to argue on it.
1 Like
well yes not saying to build a plane out of it unless it’s a drone then maybe it would work. huh theres and idea.
Tankskis calling the J-20 “not stealth” is entirely wrong. Are you a high ranking PLAAF Employee? This is just like saying “oh the Su-57 isn’t stealth” and “the Su-57 can beat the F-22” and so on. Many claims like this are entirely wrong until proven IRL.
Well to be honest I do not specilize in radar I just remember everyhting I heard and read about I and better with engines and explosives if I am honest.
X-32
thats what you get me on?