RAM coatings only reduced the Tornado RCS by ~20% but it wasn’t fully coated. Only the intakes and leading edge were coated. I’d imagine a full coating could reduce the RCS much more.
I like when Rafale is considered 2 M^2
Meanwhile in Libya, Rafale made pinpoint low altitude strike on fortified turkish/russian position
Undetected, unscathed and with obtainned objectives ^^"
Ah the MBB Lampyridae sadly it wasnt finished would be a cool German steath jet
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Foexhzn7fxsf21.jpg
Are there air defenses and Russian troops in Libya?
There was russian made AA defence in there.
Where? and when?
So you meant to say a person; in 1 G, unassisted cannot jump above their own head?
High jump world record holders beg to differ. Neither of which were accused of doping.
Nevertheless, this off topic discussion while amusing, is irrelevant.
Does the diagram comparing the F-117, B-2 and F-22 take RAM coating into account?
RAM coating and different materials for construction, as per your first image is capable of reducing the B-1B RCS to below the size of a small fighter. B-1B is shaped very unlike a computer shaped low observable design.
Rafale, with minor additions of RAM coating to a traditional shaped aircraft also presents a reduced RCS to smaller non “stealth” aircraft.
F-22 and B-2 may have larger RCS if shape is the sole comparison, your chart shows F-117 only boasts smaller RCS in the front and rear quarter. Side RCS is roughly equal between the three.
Is it impossible that improved RAM coating is making up the difference to allow B-2 and F-22 to present a further reduced RCS? You yourself agree that RAM is capable of significant RCS reduction.
I did not say that RAM does not reduce visibility, it certainly reduces, but not by tens or even hundreds of times
The Tu-160 is huge, but its RCS is estimated at 15 m2. and this is without coatings.A lot depends on the shape of the object.RAM coverage is already as an additional option
I was moreso getting at that the generation discussion typically leads to questionable conclusions since it’s a subjective term that’s defined differently depending on who you ask.
Therefore it isn’t relevant in determining what an aircraft can or can’t do, doubly so in relation to other aircraft, because even two planes with similar pieces of technology, or are put into service within a similar timeframe, can have wildly different combat effectiveness against other aircraft.
But you do agree that RAM is capable of making up the difference in RCS between F-117 and other low observable aircraft that have sacrificed less for the sake of ‘stealth’?
0.0001m² or whatever for F-22 is most likely an exaggeration. That should be obvious.
no
You somehow tendentiously got into politics for some reason that you don’t understand… and wrote Russian-Turkish troops…You might as well write Ukrainian-NATO troops…There are no Russian troops in Libya, only instructors…just as there are many NATO instructors in Ukraine, including from France …
- But the most important thing is that you have confused Turkey and Russia -they support the opposite sides of the Conflict…By the way, Haftar is a US citizen…
Now briefly about the strike on the Al-Watiya base …
- The Pantsir air defense system belongs to the UAE, it was destroyed in a Hangar a month earlier (May 2020) …
- After that, Turkish troops occupied the Al-Watiya airbase and deployed F-16/ Air defense and electronic warfare systems there…Approximately July 1-2, 2020 …
- When the base was hit (July 4, 2020), -2 Hawk air defense systems and the Turkish Coral electronic warfare system were destroyed…
Nice larp mutt. Lay off the fent, it’s bad for your health
1 Like
Additionally, the U.S. Navy, under the Navalized Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF) program, eventually announced that it would use an ATF derivative to replace its F-14 Tomcat.[9] In July 1986, proposals were provided by Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed, Northrop, and McDonnell Douglas.[1] Two contractors, Lockheed and Northrop were selected in October 1986 to undertake a 50-month demonstration/validation phase, culminating in the flight test of two technology demonstrator prototypes, the YF-22 and the YF-23
Care to explain why? Your own admission gives the Tu-160 RCS at 15m^2, your own source gives B-1B RCS at 0.75m^2. Yet Tu-160 is 20~30% larger and boasts 20x the RCS. Both have similar shapes, the primary difference should be construction and RAM coating.
The difference is in the design. Perhaps the RAM coating of the B-1 hides the compressor as the main source of RCS. RAM coating is able to reduce the RСS of the air intake by a hundred times
A hundred times? You claimed RAM is incapable of reducing RCS more than ten times. Which is it?
you read it carefully.An airplane, not an air intake.The plane is a geometrically complex figure.Unlike the air intake where most of the round