marsavian wrote: You have not remotely proved me wrong, when you do to my intellectual satisfaction I will have no problem admitting it. Your sources are your biases, beliefs and anonymous websites, my sources are manufacturers statements about the RCS of their products.
I, as well as others have proven you wrong.
And, your sources are total and complete misinterpretation of manufacturers statements plus a completely unproven and illogical claim that a Radar Blocker is ineffective in reducing the aircraft's RCS. It's funny that you state "manufacturers statements" but none of them prove your post - actually they trend to indicate the opposite of your claims.
So. the biased one here is you and you alone.
marsavian wrote: I can add poor logic/comprehension skills too. You are the one that said the radar blocker is 0.01 sq m and probably lower. For Super Hornet's RCS to be 0.1+ sq m then the airframe must make up the difference i.e. 'be considerably greater than 0.01 sq m'.
This logically follows from your two statements of what the RCS of Super Hornet is and what the RCS of its engine blocker is. Yet F-22/F-35 which follow the same stealth methods you bleat about F-18 having have airframe RCS below 0.001 sq m. Your engine blocker RCS estimate must therefore be wrong or Super Hornet is a poor frontal stealth airframe implementation.
Of course it's the airframe that makes up the difference in terms of RCS and the same applies to ANY OTHER aircraft as well! Or do you think that airframe edges such as wings, tails, air intakes and the fuselage itself don't reflect radar/radio wave when the aircraft is faced frontally at the radar source??
While the Super Hornet has some interesting "stealthy features" such as sawtooth edges and planform alignment, this is not a Stealth or VLO aircraft! If the Super Hornet had DSI instead of Radar Blockers its RCS wouldn't be meaningfully lower.
The Super Hornet does have the most extensive "stealthy" features of any 4.5th gen fighter aircraft but this doesn't make it a VLO aircraft like the F-22 or F-35. Other aircraft namely the Gripen have far, far less "stealthy features" compared to the Super Hornet and this, like it or not is a FACT! - That's what I've been telling you and then you have the nerve to accuse me of poor logic/comprehension skills. Buy yourself a mirror, pal
marsavian wrote: Reduces it compared to having those stores in external pylons like Boeing state. Negligible in adding to the base clean RCS, yes. At no point did I say it was a negative contribution, again your lack of comprehension and vivid imagination.
Really??
You even said this:
which means that according to Boeing's own statements the clean Super Hornet RCS is no smaller than the RCS of two bombs, two fuel tanks and two missiles and all their pylons.
Anyone reading above (and don't get me with the poor logic/comprehension skills accusations!) you actually said that Boeing mentioned that the RCS of a clean Super Hornet is the same as the RCS of a Super Hornet with two bombs, two fuel tanks and two missiles and all their pylons which to start with is FALSE and disingenuous from your part!
marsavian wrote: But, but, it has those 'those trapezoidal-shaped air intakes which we can find in any true stealth fighter' ! 
But, but, it has sawtooth edges as well!
But, but, it has PLANFORM ALIGNMENT as well!
But, but, it does NOT have canards that increase RCS except if the radar source is directly in front (0 degrees) of the aircraft!
So those three (3) above that's FOUR (4) VERY IMPORTANT features for low RCS than your Gripen does NOT have! So who's the biased here??
marsavian wrote:
The only lack is on your side because you fundamentally fail to grasp that the 'stealthy' radar blocker is inherently suboptimal because it has to have gaps in its design so that air can pass through to feed the engine. The same gaps that can then let radar waves into and out of the engine.
And again you fail to grasp that in order for an aircraft to have a low RCS it needs:
- Trapezoidal-shaped air intakes
- Sawtooth edges
- Planform Alignment
- Canards don't help at all, actually by the contrary
So that's a 4-1 score in my favor!
And here is where you made another HUGE MISTAKE. Low RCS is attained using a combination of SEVERAL factors/features and NEVER due to a single factor/feature!
Moreover and for what's worth, I never said that a Radar Blocker is as effective or equally effective compared to DSI. Of course that DSI is more effective. But this effectiveness can only be taken full the advantage of on VLO aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 and NOT on non-stealth or LO aircraft like the Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon, Super Hornet or Su-57.
And here is where I retort you the "compliment" that you have poor logic/comprehension skills too since I believe I've explained you this quite well and logically so on past posts.
marsavian wrote: The only lack is on your side because you fundamentally fail to grasp that the 'stealthy' radar blocker is inherently suboptimal because it has to have gaps in its design so that air can pass through to feed the engine. The same gaps that can then let radar waves into and out of the engine.
You've been accusing my reasoning and my sources. Yet, I've asked you about sources why do you think that Stealth Blocker are ineffective and you haven't provided any!
marsavian wrote: Have you bothered to look at the EWP, its front is angled and shaped to deflect radar waves away pretty much like the F-35 gun pod which should also be quite less than 0.1 sq m.
Yes, I have. And have you??
Because if you look frontally at an EWP and despite being "angled and shaped" the general shape of the frontal EWP profile is still a rectangle or rectangular, here:

And trying to compare the above with this:

...is again disingenuous from your part! (but I should be used with this by now!)
Anyway, the images above clearly shows that the EWP has no resemblance in terms of shape profile (and therefore RCS) compared to the F-35 gun pod.
marsavian wrote: Unlike the super stealthy, follow all the stealth rules, Su-57
. Don't get hung up on the external shape of the inlets, it's what happens inside the inlet in terms of reflections and absorption that counts.
Oh really?? So the radio waves don't bounce on the surfaces (wings, tails, intakes, you name it) and fuselage?? So according to you the principles of planform alignment and sawtooth edges are totally and completely useless!
Really, those Americans are really dumb - they must have "poor logic/comprehension skills too" - why didn't they listen of the all mighty marsavian and they should simply have done this to their F-16's:
instead of building new F-35s since at least with this and according to "your highness's vast intellect" the frontal RCS of the F-16 would be the same as the frontal RCS of the F-35!
