'>>61477731
AESA radar isn't magic. It's just a more efficient, advanced and versatile type of radar. It doesn't break the laws of physics.';

'>>61477753
So how does it work? What physical magic lets the f35 slip through? Dumb it down for me.';

'>>61477739
Hello sirs';

'>>61477759
Obsolete slavshit.';

'>he thinks the F-35 had anything to do with it
Anon, they fired literal test ballistic missiles from F-15s over Syria. A problem you run into when planning an actual strike package on targets in Iran is that you have to get your jets through at least Syrian air space and maybe Iraqi air space to even have a chance, and they didn't even bother doing that. They fired an unironic test missile used to check Patriot and shit and the Iranians failed to intercept it.';

'>>61477759
tiny radar signature = the radar won't tell the difference between your plane or a bird
the F-35 achieves this by absorbing radio energy and minimizing the reflection of what it can't absorb';

'>>61477799
So they use an outdated version that the F35 exploits? Was it engineered to specifically take advantage of this vulnerability or was it coincidental?';

'>>61477807
I didn’t know that lol
>>61477812
Magic invisible paint';

'>>61477759
Radar signals follow a doubled inverse square law. First going out, then coming back.
Stealth reduces the reflectivity of a plane several orders of magnitude.
Then to 'hear' the signal, after all that, it has to be louder than the noise floor (the ambient noise of existence and your own electronics inside the radar).
You can't 'look for a hole in the sky' or 'identify a bird going 500mph' if the signal is lower than the noise floor because you can't id any signal at all. Imagine trying to hear your brain cells over the sound of your heartbeat.';

'>>61477824
Yeah the use of the F-15 was by far the funniest thing about it. The Israelis like the F-35 in part because you can refuel it just over Syria (with your big, unstealthy, vulnerable tanker) and then fly on internal fuel in full stealth mode directly to Iran and back. That's why you don't see external tanks on their F-35s (even though they talk about it). They didn't even bother using the F-35.';

'>>61477838
He makes this thread every week. Don't waste your time. https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/61441943';

'>>61477838
Is there some magic box inside that reduces rcs? I understand inverse square but I don’t know what further physical principles act as ‘stealth’? It’s there some sort of funky emission or vibration that disrupts signal noise?';

'>>61477807
What's the evidence of this? I would truly like to know.
>>61477818
What I mean is that slavshit tracking radar sucks (see the last two years in Ukraine), and it's no problem for an F-35 to evade (assuming they were used).';

'>>61477854
I didn’t know about that thread. I’m a different OP.';

'>>61477866
Is this a slide thread? It came out the moment they did it, the Israelis admitted the F-15 part and they found parts of the ballistic missile in the Iraqi desert. Search it on twitter.';

'>>61477759
F-35's shape is made to look really tiny on radar. Like 10000x as tiny as it is in reality. That's why you need 100 stronger better radars to see it, or be 100 closer to it. AESA is just a type of radar that can be more or less poweful than the other ones, just more modern and efficient. If a regular radar is too weak to see it then a less poweful AESA is likely to not see it either.';

'>>61477865
> It’s there some sort of funky emission or vibration that disrupts signal noise?
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_floor
You can think of it that way if you must. Imagine a noise coming from inside the house - the noise of your own radar's operations, or your tinnitus.
The goal of stealth is getting quieter than that.';

'>>61477898
I'm off Twitter because it's brain poison, so there's a lot of shit I don't know. Thank you though.';

'>>61477920
Get a burner account, follow some good OSINT accounts and avoid the For You page. That's what I do.';

'I thought they said that they didn't fly through Iran or Jordan. So I was guessing they were fired from Iraq?';

'>>61477812
>the radar won't tell the difference between your plane or a bird
When people say "it has the radar cross section of a bird" it doesn't mean that radar operators see a flock of birds in their screen. It just causes the returns to fall below the noise floor of the receiver. At some point when the aircraft are close enough to the point that the returns start to get picked up above the background noise, they're already well enough inside the range to drop a glide bomb or send a high Pk HARM of the upcoming G variant that will fit in the internal bay.
If you look at a map with threat rings, you'll see that they have overlap as countries set up their defenses to cover the widest perimeter possible around their strategically valuable areas. What stealth does is reduce the effective radius of this threat rings so you can fly between SAMs or get close enough to attack SAM sites to make way for non-stealth aircraft to bring in more payload.
>>61477865
RCS reduction is achieved by two main methods: reducing effective reflector area and surface absorption.
What happens when a very flat and thin object, like a sheet of paper, is laid with the edge facing you? You can barely see it. Beyond a certain distance the sheet of paper basically disappears. But turn it so that it faces you, and suddenly you see it again. That's how stealth shaping works. The airframe is optimized so that from the good angles, the radar is bounced off into the great nothing rather than back at the radar receiver. Is gives almost no effective area for radar to be reflected off. But if you catch the F-35 on a bad angle, it will be detected.
The second method is painting and filling gaps on the skin of the aircraft with a special paint. One of the known materials is iron spheres mixed into the paint, the microwave energy is turned into heat to further reduce the energy. Early stealth coatings were extremely fragile and toxic so re-applying was a chore and a half but the F-35 has newer coatings.';

'>>61478822
So it’s really thin and pointy';

'>>61477739
bongbroken';

'>>61478842
Thanks to modern computing, it's not even thin relative to other fighters. The nickname given to it is the "Fat Amy" because the F-22 is longer and thus sleeker while the F-35 looks chubbier.
It just "appears" thin by making sure that the angles bounce the radar off instead of reflecting it. The trickery in stealth is artificially making it "look" thin without having to pancake the airframe to the point it can't carry fuel or weapons. Even the nose has an edge, which in addition to creating lift it also breaks the radar returns while 4th gen fighter noses are typically rounded and reflect more radar.';

'>>61477739
>Mogs US air defence twice in low level nuclear strike exercises';

'It was an F-117 you dolt.
F-35s are just for show';

'>>61478954
>The nickname given to it is the "Fat Amy"
The nickname was made up by journos btw, no pilot ever used it';

'>>61478954
>Even the nose has an edge, which in addition to creating lift it also breaks the radar returns while 4th gen fighter noses are typically rounded and reflect more radar.
That's not technically the case, the nosecones are typically made to be transparent to most radar bands, at least the ones that the aircraft radars use because that's how they don't block them. So it's partially the radar dish itself that increases the rcs, not the nosecone. That's why on 5th gens and some 4.5th gens like the Super Hornet the radar dish is angled upwards a bit - to reduce its radar reflection.

The nosecone isn't entirely transparent and i assume that it might intentionally be made less transparent for the ground radar bandwidths since it can be shaped easier than the radar dish and reduce the rcs further but it's not really its primary purpose.';

'>>61477903
> a less poweful AESA is likely to not see it either.
Not really, the AESA beamforms a very narrow column of radiated energy and scans the horizons waiting for return. The very narrow column of beam has much more power content concentrated in it than a classic radar pattern emitted in a spherical wavefront.
In addition, the multiple transmit receive units mean reduced noise by the square root of the number of receive units, so it can be more sensitive. Add to that that the received signal between units is correlated and noise is uncorrelated (since it is random) thus with some mathematical processing you can extract very weak signals out of a sea of noise.';

'>>61479060
A discontinuity in the curve will reduce creeping wave return.';

'>>61479293
This is also why the fifth gens all look pretty much the same.';

'>>61477731
AESA is aimed at better survivability and jamming resistance rather than superior detection capabilities. The advantage of AESA is you spread your energy across many different frequencies, so it becomes harder to detect the emission source and is more difficult to jam. It does not increase the probability of detection such at it counters stealth.';

'>>61477898
it's a warriorturd thread';

'>>61478954
Most radar returns come from the engine inlets. They are giant reflectors so they have to hide them inside the airframe. Inside the inlets are a bunch of complicated geometric shapes meant to bounce radar waves around inside them and try to trap the waves. The f-18 and f-15 are just large open holes while the f35 is a weird shaped tunnel.';

'>>61477945
Syria';

'Iran uses Soviet-era and Russian radar systems which are pretty behind the times. These systems can’t track an F-35 because they lack the sensitivity and signal processing power to do so. Not until the F-35 very nearby, anyway. The way Russians try and cope with this is by using long-wavelength radar systems which have the sensitivity to spot a stealth aircraft from further away — but that type of radar doesn’t actually help you because they don’t have the resolution to accurately fix the position of the threat, just a general direction and wide area of possibility. You could then focus other radars, send planes, etc to search the area. But, if Israel shows up in an F-35 and smacks the radar with an anti-radiation missile, then that’s that.

AESA enables LPIR (Low-Probability of Intercept Radar) which basically means "stealth radar". It can use radar without itself being seen. Now, IF Iran had a sufficiently advanced AESA radar with LPIR features, they could have continued to search for the F-35 without being detected and hit with an anti-radiation missile, which may have eventually resulted in the F-35 stumbling into detection range. So, contrary to the responses in this thread AESA can indeed help against stealth aircraft.

Without LPIR, though, all anyone can do is set up a lot of redundant, converging / overlapping early-warning radar and have constant air patrols on station ready to investigate contacts.';

'Another anti-stealth option is — AWACS. But only if it’s flying high enough to catch the reflection off the F-35’s radar antenna array which is fixed angled upwards in order to protect it against being seen by ground-based radar. If I were China I’d be developing HALE UAV with a high-end AESA set to patrol for stealth threats. The opponent will see them, of course, and evade being detected, but that alone would help narrow down the threat vector.';

'>>61477731
AESA only is more resilient to jamming and can track more targets. 'Stealth' works against the fundamental principle of radars.';

'>>61477731
Just send some fucking Foxbats at them like Iraq did in the Gulf War where literally 1 Foxbat disrupted an entire strike package all on his own and was painting the fuck out of various planes in the package before finally shooting down some cocksucker named "Spike" that failed to doge the missile! And he got away too, the Foxbat!';

'>>61480518
Oh and the Navy fucking lied for years and claimed he got shot down by a SAM and not in an air to air kill because they were fucking embarrassed. But then when they got fucking BUSTED they blamed the Air Force and said the AWAC wasn't doing it's job and didn't give them firing clearance or some bullshit.

I mean you are getting the fuck painted out of you and your cockbit alarms are blaring with missile locks, but yeah sure you are waiting for "Firing clearance". Right.';

'>>61477759
>>61477731

It didnt slip through any radar, Israel launched a blue sparrow (test ballistic missile) from an f-15 in syria. They literally found the rocket booster in iraq

By all accounts there were also several small drones launched from northern iraq as well. Im not sure what their purpose was, possibly to provide targeting data, or maybe as a distraction';

'>>61479035
Most journalists only ever see it on the ground with landing gear out. It's a bad angle for her.';

'>>61480537
Link?';

'>>61477838
>You can't 'look for a hole in the sky'
I'll take "Passive Coherent Radar" for 200$';

'>>61480518
This post convinced me that the Iraqi Air Force was not pathetic but in fact very strong';

'>>61479035
>The nickname was made up by journos btw, no pilot ever used it
Plenty of 4th gen guys do';

'>>61479330
>look pretty much the same
only in ways that don't matter
employing every principle of stealth design at once is onerous, but there are still multiple approaches and some are better than others, this goes far beyond merely minimizing RCS
The J-20 is an infinitely better attempt at mimicking stealth than the Su-57, which has basically nothing in common with the F-22 or F-35s, but even a cursory glance at what the J-20 looks like from below should dispell any notion that it has comprehensive stealth';

'>>61480700
The answer. Shit that isn't used by anyone.';

'>>61480043
Even radar can be built to minimize its returns.';

'>>61480913
The underside is clearly full of reflective surfaces, even without the actuator housings the gap between the engine would act as a retroreflector I suppose. So have they optimized stealth for head on and on the dorsal plane, the latter for limiting high flying awacs detection?
Also sillhouette wise the su-57 looks way closer to the f-22 than the j-20 viewed from the top, do you mean the design choices were wrong with the su-57 on the underbelly side or was it the execution (the wood screw lol cow construction in the earlier models etc)?';

'>>61483060
It might just be that making the design significantly better would have been too expensive and difficult to be worth it.
On one hand this seems like a less likely place for China to cut corners than in other things because they’ll get compared to American planes but maybe they were smart enough to remember that quote about perfection being the enemy of good enough. If they had tried to make it as stealthy as an f35 they would probably have ended up with a worse air force than they have now.';

'>>61483182
>they had tried to make it as stealthy as an f35 they would probably have ended up with a worse air force than they have now.
I suppose the j-31 vaporware would be covering that part while the j-20 will be the LO missile truck provided they come up with a western equivalent to link 22 (chink-22?)';

'>>61480644
It's in the same place as all those US armoured divisions that ran out of fuel because of peal oil';

'>>61483182
>If they had tried to make it as stealthy as an f35 they would probably have
completely screwed the pooch
chink "stealth" is gimped, simple as';

'>>61483356
>screwed the pooch
Before eating it, presumably';

'>>61480644
>Link?
Its just some shitskin tankie scizo ramblings, just ignore unless you want to dive into commieboo conspiracy theories.';

'>>61477731
Would they charge me with treason for breaking into a military base and fucking an F35?';

'>>61483466
Show them your reddit noncredible defense post history and you'll be let off on the grounds for severe retardation';

'>>61483466
>another day standing as gate guard at Nellis AFB. everyone keeps asking me if they can fuck the F-35. buddy they won't even let me fuck it';

'>>61477759

Attenuation and refraction. The jet will attenuation the signal instead of reflect it back to the array also the shape of the jet will reflect the signals in a direction that radar will not detect it';

'>>61477838

The type of material the jet is made of is important. Some super alloys such as titanium and nickel (obviously engineered with other materials) attenuates ultrasound';

'>>61483695
This is an AI post isn't it';

'>>61483852

No just my 2nd post from the previous before it

Paranoid ass dude';

'>>61477731
AESA's big thing is it's high cycle rate. Because it's a phased array the antenna doesn't need to turn to face the target, it just needs to alter the timing on the array. This doesn't do much against Stealth.
>>61477759
So much of the Radar Waves are absorbed or deflected in weird ways that the F-35 seems to be part of the background noise. Remember, radar doesn't just pick up planes, it can pick up clouds, birds, trees, random dust particles, and even cosmic radio noise from distant stars. Normally, we just tell the software to ignore that shit but when the F-35 is so tiny on radar it gets caught up with the noise.';

'>>61483466
Well, not Treason. Unauthorized use of Millitary Equipment, probably. Degeneracy, certainly. Possibly even Conduct Unbecoming.';

'>>61477739
Yeah no.';

'>>61477739
Rent free.';

'>>61484572
What is this';

'>>61485602
Buccaneer, a 1960s aircraft, which is the last time the british military was relevant.';

'>>61480844
It unironically was, dude. That's why we talk about Desert Storm. We weren't bullying some backwater excuse for a military. They were arguably the 3rd strongest military in the world at the time. It was like a boxing match between Mike Tyson and fucking Superman.';

'>>61484483
>Normally, we just tell the software to ignore that shit but when the F-35 is so tiny on radar it gets caught up with the noise.
Well, there's two concepts at play here.
Raising the sensitivity of the radar to the point it will detect birds at a tactically relevant distance will cause the electronics inside the radar itself to overpower whatever useful signal you could get out. Also would make enemy jamming extremely effective. So a noise floor has to be built in to reject the worthless signal.
However, brids and trees (clutter) are removed out of the picture due to something called Doppler filtering. Just like a car's sound increases in pitch when it approaches you, and decreases when it goes away, radar waves also suffer a frequency shift. You can use this frequency shift compared to your original signal to tell which objects are flying at aircraft speeds and reject everything that's not flying fast enough. That's why if you notch a radar (flying perpendicular) with terrain in your background, the radar loses track because you are not getting closer or further away from the radar and thus you get rejected as ground clutter.';

'>>61483466
Unlawful sexual contact with a minor.
She's only 17 you sick fuck!';

'>>61486220
So there's actually a level of skill required to fly stealthy.';

'>>61486735
Somewhat. You want your approach to use your "good side" so that your stealthiest aspects are facing the enemy radar.
But in regards to stuff like notching, that's the bread and butter of non-stealth flying. Stealth pilots will be trained on it but they'll rely on it a lot less since they can get closer without radar seeing them at all. Pilots who have flown against F-22s and F-35s have said that even when they managed to get a lock, they'd lose it spontaneously. This also happened to the Serb crew who shot down the F-117, they lost the lock twice before they managed to get a good track the third time. Then they fired two missiles, and the first also lost the lock. The F-117 pilot had no RWR so he wasn't even evading, the plane simply moving in a straight line modified the angles of the returns.
So yeah you still need to be responsible because you can't just go around flying inverted or do huge bank angles without thinking because you may expose a reflecting surface to radar, but the tech works even against threats you aren't aware of.';

'>>61477731
Iran needs plane spotters on the ground. That is how they detected that stealth drone the US lost years ago.';

'>>61486042
Literally no one believes this.';

'>>61486042
>3rd strongest military in the world at the time
Delusional';

'>>61480644
>>61483253
>>61483450
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/who-shot-down-u-s-navy-pilot-scott-speicher-6455bb966df5

That just fucking happened bro!';

'>>61477731';

'>>61477759
if an F-35 flew directly at a SAM close enough for the pilot to spit on it (maybe like 20 miles), it would be detected and shot down - but all you have to do, is avoid that SAM. if you are given a map of where all the SAMs and ground radars are and it's accurate, you can just chart a route around them that's comfortably far enough away to not be spotted. no country can afford to put a conga line of SAMs 20 miles apart all the way around a border to try to counter this (especially not Iran) and the F-35s can do whatever they want.

I think maybe their only chance would have been finding them using IRSTs on their mig-29s, as I think that is the only plane Iran has that uses them, but IRST also works generally only at very short range vs radar, like strictly visual range only so it would have to be extremely lucky and randomly fly into an F-35 by dumb luck. yet the F-35 would know the MiG was there maybe 150 miles away first. it doesn't even have to down it to nullify the threat, if the F-35 shot at the mig from far away the mig would have try to evade instead of close in on it to get IRST lock.';