F-22 Vs. Su-37

[Kruska]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Okay then please provide actual proof that the RS Tornado is just as capable or better than the F-22?

Please check my post 39 under Modern/F-14

No because I do not know much about Armour and that is not part of this discussion, so I would just tell you to keep it on topic.

It was just an example, and I think a good one

No because I actually believe that the Leopard 2 is a better tank than the Abrams.

You mix up something, it is not about Leo II against Abrams

But ofcourse I do not even know what this "Wiesel" is you are talking about...

small little 2.6 ton bugger, 2 pieces in a CH -53 - Airborne usage

Again though, this would have nothing to do with this discussion, and I would just tell you to get back on topic.

It was just an example, and I think a good one

I did not say that you were pretending to know what you were talking about, or that you were blowing smoke up peoples ass. I was making a general statement in reaction to you implying that I have non existing knowledge!

Okay, sorry I might have ignited the fuse

I can say the same of you, based off of your comment. Everything here is a two way street my friend.

on future good discussions

Regards
Kruska

[Matt308]

Kruska, I'm confused. Are you implying that Germany has a monopoly on open air RCS test facilities? What unique capabilities does RS bring to the table that other leading RCS test facilities do not? Your video and still shots of your RCS target fixture seemed less than extraordinary.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Kruska

on future good discussions

Regards
Kruska

Agreed

[Kruska]

Originally Posted by Matt308

Kruska, I'm confused. Are you implying that Germany has a monopoly on open air RCS test facilities? What unique capabilities does RS bring to the table that other leading RCS test facilities do not? Your video and still shots of your RCS target fixture seemed less than extraordinary.

Yes, presently (since 2000) Germany has a monopoly on an open air RCS turntable lift facility which enables clean 360 degree RCS analysis of full sized a/c's in contra to flatbed open air RCS or indoor measurments, which partially only enable segmentational scans. The second part would be the software, which enables to determine hotspots within a 0.3cm diameter, e.g. a bolt or even irregular coating thickness, analyse the antenna interacting (since 2003) and datacollect a homogenous RCS print (like fingerprint) which can be fed into an onboard IFF system or hologram visualised by Helmet mounted optics (range depending on weather conditions) and ident. the aircraft even down to weapon status.(since 2006/7).

If you think not, maybe you could provide some pictures and capability data from US open RCS facilities? The US try very hard to achieve similar possibilities but AFAIK they have not succeeded so far.

Regards
Kruska

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Matt308

Kruska, I'm confused. Are you implying that Germany has a monopoly on open air RCS test facilities? What unique capabilities does RS bring to the table that other leading RCS test facilities do not? Your video and still shots of your RCS target fixture seemed less than extraordinary.

I was wondering the same thing....

I used to live close by Edwards AFB - there's at least 10 RCS test facilities within a 50 mile radius. Here's 2 of them.

Northrop Tejon Ranch Radar Cross Section Facility

Gray Butte Radar Cross-Section Facility

[Kruska]

Hello FLYBOY,

please scroll down to page 12/13, what makes it unique to other open field RCS facilities is the ability to to combine clean radar signature verification and antenna installed performance capabilities due to the positioner (360 degree turn in Vertikal and Horizontal status) In addition, the extended frequency range now covers frequencies from 0.5 to 40 GHz. Not mentioned because only since 2006/7 is the hologram and RCS print for IFF.

Rasigma 70.pdf

Regards
Kruska

[FLYBOYJ]

Good info Kruska, the facility seems very capable. The ones I shown that are in California are for the most part classified and not much is known on what they test or their capabilities. I do know there are several compaines that do RCS tesing indoors as well.

RCS Test Facility, Lockheed Martin F-22 - The Howland Company

Etcheron Valley Junction Ranch Range RCS Facility

[Kruska]

Hello FLYBOY,

thanks for the Howland link. It varifies my knowledge status about the F-22 or present US standard of being measured only indoors on mockup or non operational (used) aircrafts without a 360 degree full encompassing scan and the segmentational (partial) outdoor scan.

Maybe they don't want to show the "secret" capability in regards to outdoor scan but I doubt that personaly.

Regards
Kruska

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Kruska

Maybe they don't want to show the "secret" capability in regards to outdoor scan but I doubt that personaly.

Regards
Kruska

Up till a few years ago there were no details about these facilities, as a matter of fact many of them been around sine the late 1970s.

[Matt308]

There are many ranges that are outdoors for far field measurements. Hell there is one no less than 12 miles from my house that Boeing uses for missile testing. Most of the RCS ranges that you are referring to are on Military reservations that are typically not available for the press to scrutinize. Sandia Laboratories owns two that I know of in support of the DoD. The Tonopah reservation contains multiple far field ranges. Their use? Beats the hell out of me, but they include quite a bit of large ground infrastructure. But perhaps you are right, probably just used for golf.

While I understand your statements about risk associated with calculating nearfield effects from far field radition, I am more than a little concerned that your conclusion that RaSigma addresses all of these shortcomings to a degree that indicates obsolescence. The US (and other countries for that matter) possess both near and far-field RCS test facilities that offer various cost vs benefits for the EMF being analyzed

You make a statement that US anechoic facilities provide results that are less than ideal. What makes you think that use of those facilities are inherently substandard in a typical multifaceted test regime that includes far field analysis for ANY DoD acquisition? Even RaSigma has inherent limitations associated with its mounting structure, multi-path reflections, dependency upon local geographic features and emitting equipment (ground or air based). I mean, how technically advanced over other facility's capabilities is use of a remote vehicle containing the emitting equipment whose EMC signature is influenced by wireless data link control and making use of high speed rotors/engines. There are always pros and cons to approaches and to date I am not aware that any one of them is by itself a silver bullet to RCS testing. The sheer fact is that the level of energy in terms of dBm is so low that virtually every aspect of a ranges construction is likely to influence test results.

So I find your position of RaSigma superiority a bit specious.

[Kruska]

Hello Matt308,

Germany or lets rather say EADS, before it was a DASAG facility, used the same kind of open field RCS facilities as the US or others. The results were found to be from non satisfying to good but not to the peak, and furthermore to time consuming and too costly.

Some trials or datacollections such as a 360 degree full encompassing scan, the ability to combine clean radar signature verification and antenna installed performance or the hologram and RCS print ID application could not be done before or on existing out door ranges.

Regarding deflections: yes starting in 1998 it took 2 1/2 years just to develop/design the angularity and define the material of the lifter booms to come to a clean verification of scans.

And all of the above factors plus the development of the software is what makes the EADS RaSigma unique till today - who knows about tomorrow or in a years time.

As you can see for yourself this topic is classified and obtained results are top secret, I think you retrieved more information from me on those couple of posts then what the US facilities are publicly documenting or even showing.

The main reason for the further development of an enhanced RCS facility was actually the shoot down of the F-117 in Serbia and a severely damaged 2nd one which showed-proved that the stealth verifications were not precise or could not be optained as such by former RCS technology. At the same time it opened up the possibility to use this technology to uprade - upstealth existing aircrafts.

There are as you know international symposiums on this topic and one of the leading German experts is internationally recognized as a person of capacity, it was him and another guy (imagine just 2 people) who came up with this idea, and I am very proud to say that I was involved in this (just a very little bit) from the day of developing the booms. And belief me I never expected this kind of rapid progress to develop and come up with such a unique system in such a short time.

Now in order not to be termed as a BS again: let me state very clearly - I have never been an employee at EADS or DASAG.

How do countries or companies verify their knowledge or state of the art? Well espionage could be one way - but no much simpler.

There is a country that just received brand new aircrafts from the US, from BMcDD to be exact. An RCS is picked up through different means and exactly these RCS patterns are analysed or compared to earlier ones and we (Germany) know very well from the other side about their lead or knowledge on the subject. Of course this works vise versa.

So I hope this helps a bit to rseolve your sceptical view: because through this verifications one knows exactly about the others state of art, there is no reason to speculate about actual existing RCS pickups or ones lead on the topic.

Regards
Kruska

[Matt308]

Originally Posted by Kruska

Hello Matt308,


There are as you know international symposiums on this topic and one of the leading German experts is internationally recognized as a person of capacity, it was him and another guy (imagine just 2 people) who came up with this idea, and I am very proud to say that I was involved in this (just a very little bit) from the day of developing the booms. And belief me I never expected this kind of rapid progress to develop and come up with such a unique system in such a short time.

Now in order not to be termed as a BS again: let me state very clearly - I have never been an employee at EADS or DASAG.


Regards
Kruska

Now we are getting somewhere, Kruska. Your post was excellent. I will not file this post in my BS bin.

What parts of the boom were your involved in? The structural aspects? The EMC aspects? Modelling?

[Kruska]

Hello Matt308,

No, my engineering knowledge would certainly be far too limited to grasp or interpret these calculations and factors regarding this topic. For the results I rely on the experts to forward these to me and others.
I did not say I was involved in the developing of the booms, but since the day of developing these.

My part is (was) more towards the promotion of this facility to the respective governments - since this system is also used for civil aviation (comp ability checks and verification of electronic and radio interferences) - or national defence – authorities, in order to prepare presentations to these authorities, after evaluating (gathering of relevant information) the existing national defense doctrine, air surveillance and state of the art in reference to air defense and aircraft purchasing programs.

Regards
Kruska

[Matt308]

Ah okay. Marketing/Sales. I gotcha.

[Kruska]

Originally Posted by Matt308

Ah okay. Marketing/Sales. I gotcha.

Yes, more or less sales.

Regards
Kruska