J-20... The New Generation Fighter II

Status
Not open for further replies.

Martian

Senior Member
Microwaves, Avogadro's number, and RAM

Egads, no! Even an incredibly powerful radar is not vapourizing water droplets! Never mind that most of the water is already in the form of vapour anyway - you're not moving the water droplets either.

Photons interact with matter at the atomic level, and at that level even solid objects are mostly empty space. Shooting a photon through the atmosphere is sort of like shooting a spaceship through the solar system. You will occasionally hit something, but you have to be pretty unlucky.

I do not agree with you. You know that a glass of water is heated in a microwave oven by absorbing microwave radiation. Looking at the chart of radar bands in the microwave energy range, you can see that many radar bands lie at or near the frequency of 2.45 gigahertz (e.g. S-band) for microwave ovens. Aside from the dust particles, soot, hail, clouds, air molecules, etc., we know that water droplets in the air will absorb microwave energy.

fktWF.gif

Chart of radar bands in the microwave energy range

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"A microwave oven works by passing non-ionizing microwave radiation, usually at a frequency of 2.45 gigahertz (GHz)—a wavelength of 122 millimetres (4.80 in)—through the food. Microwave radiation is between common radio and infrared frequencies. Water, fat, and other substances in the food absorb energy from the microwaves in a process called dielectric heating."

----------

I do not agree with you on your analogy for photons. I just don't feel like going through a long analysis and discussing Avogadro's number (e.g. 6.022x10^23 molecules/mole). It should be obvious to you that the microwaves from a microwave oven are not having problems interacting with water molecules.

----------

No offense but when you apply the amount of EM reduction from the claimed RAM figure, then virtually no shape other than perhaps corner reflectors would amount to anything detectable.

E.g., to start it simple, a metal ball(1m radius) has an rcs of 1m^2, if you apply ram, taking away even 99.684% of the EM reflected energy, you'll get an RCS of 0.00316m^2, that is on par with the F-35, with a what is possibly the worst stealth shape anyone can make(sphere).

I do not agree with you. The Russian T-50 has exposed engine compressor blades. There are other items on an aircraft that cannot be covered with RAM. The Russian T-50 also has vents and gaps that cannot be covered with RAM. My point is that RAM is only one important aspect of stealth.

To rise to the exquisite level of F-22 or J-20 stealth, it requires a full-spectrum stealth design (e.g. continuous curvature, serpentine air-inlets, DSI, canted air-intakes, planform alignment, frameless cockpit canopy, smooth uncluttered surfaces, well-integrated air-inlet and fuselage junction, extensive saw-toothed doors, hatches, and engine-fuselage interfaces, etc.). Stealth is a lot more than just RAM.
 
Last edited:

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Sorry guys ... but can we move the discussions on Physics into a seperate tread ???

Deino
 

Quickie

Colonel
I have done link-budget calculation for satellites, and when I look at Martian's calculation, bells are ringing in my head that indicate something is wrong. I didn't have time to go through his steps in details, but the problem which stands out the most is the way he made assumption; it's too superficial. For example, the way he claims how canards reflect radar signal is only his assumption. Reality may be quite different and we have no way to verify his assumption. Another problem is the final result; we still don't have any estimate of the RCS, and we can't gauge whether Martian's methodology is correct because we can't say "oh, this is close to the publicly claimed RCS of the F-22, so the value is in the ballpark". Furthermore, so what if the returned signal is in nanowatts? If the noise is a few order of mangitudes lower, then the signal is still detectable, hence the plane is still detectable. What you actually want is the signal-to-noise ratio, because the absolute power of the return signal is completely meaningless.


I agree that there're many more variables that need to be considered to make the argument stronger. I personally think the radar scattering, those of the primary, secondary, etc, can be very much complicated than what has been described here, but nonetheless I think it's a good start.

Just want to commend that, other than the water vapour/droplets, dust particles or other airborne matter, the atmosphere itself is a source of attenuation to the radar signal. A denser atmosphere at low altitude gives larger attenuation to the signal than the rarified atmosphere at high altitude.
 

FarkTypeSoldier

Junior Member
Sorry guys ... but can we move the discussions on Physics into a seperate tread ???

Deino

Things are started to get interesting but to a newbie like me I suck in science :)

Could we get back to the J-20 discussion? Some speculated it would be a 'target plane' for a newer gen fighter. A reason could be since J-20 is a 'first gen stealth fighter' for PLAAF, it could be building or experimenting stealth, coming up with it's own way of fighting stealth fighters in the region. While also collecting the vital data to come up with a more refine J-20 or another version of stealth fighter.

It could be anything from an experimental to a really operational status for J-20.
 

alvarorivero

New Member
Registered Member
There are too many (unknowns) variables to calculate the RCS of a plane in a piece of paper .... my guess is that the best way to estimate this would be to create a model or sI'mulation of the airframe ... but even that would be a wild guess because of the RAM (stealth must be about 70% shape, 20% materials and 10% others)...

I read somewhere that the F-22, f-35 and J-20 use not only Radar Absorbent Materials (like a coating or layer of paint) but also Radar Absorbing Structure (Internal and structural pieces). The first tI'me i read about RAS was here:
f22fighter.com/AffordableStealth.pdf

I don't think canards are a big NO-NO for stealth, one of the early JSF proposal had canards (allegedly they got discarded for causing a negative lift on the VTOL).

Well I'm just guessing here (like everyone else) ... :p
 

FarkTypeSoldier

Junior Member
With F-35s and F-22s around it's region, it is vital for PLAAF to come up with more progress of aviation and weapon testings. So far, after President Hu's visit to US, the J-20 suddenly disappear again. But the US had announced it's successful testing of X-47B the 6th gen bomber which could oPerate of a CV.

Could / Might it be the PLAAF deliberately released the J-20's presence to force USAF's response so that PLAAF could start it's own version of X-47B, but since unmanned aircraft is still relatively new to PLA, they would have the capabilities to embark on the new unmanned aircraft era for PLA.
 

Anton Gregori

New Member
Re: Microwaves, Avogadro's number, and RAM

Ugh. Sorry for continuing this... I promise I'll stop after this. But it would be wrong to let people think that radar can be (realistically) used for frying stuff...

I do not agree with you. You know that a glass of water is heated in a microwave oven by absorbing microwave radiation. Looking at the chart of radar bands in the microwave energy range, you can see that many radar bands lie at or near the frequency of 2.45 gigahertz (e.g. S-band) for microwave ovens. Aside from the dust particles, soot, hail, clouds, air molecules, etc., we know that water droplets in the air will absorb microwave energy.

It's not that they can't absorb microwave energy. It's that 1/ the water molecules (as well as all the other molecules) in a gas are far apart, unlike a liquid. That's why you don't get hit with a blast of super-hot air when you open your microwave. 2/ the energy output of your microwave is concentrated in a very small space - say .25 cubic metres max. The radar is scanning hundreds of cubic km.

I don't know how to begin to do the math - I guess figure out how much water per cubic metre and multiply that by the specific heat of water - but I suspect that even a large land-based nuclear power generator couldn't vaporize that much water in a reasonable amount of time.

Googling around for anecdotal evidence about this, I came a across some forums where people asked whether or not you could use a radar antenna to heat food. Apparently you can heat things a little if you stick the food right in front of the antenna and are willing to wait for a very long time.
 
Last edited:

delft

Brigadier
Re: Microwaves, Avogadro's number, and RAM

The radar of F-22 has a power of about 8 kW, a typical kitchen microwave oven has about 1 kW. Your cup of soup, a quarter of a liter, gets heated in about 3 minutes some 70 deg Celsius, from 20 to 90. In the space searched by the radar, many cubic kilometers, only a small part of the 8 kW is absorbed, the remainder is absorbed further away, escapes to space or is absorbed at the earth surface. Perhaps this gives an impression of how little influence radar has on the atmosphere.
 

vesicles

Colonel
Re: Microwaves, Avogadro's number, and RAM

Googling around for anecdotal evidence about this, I came a across some forums where people asked whether or not you could use a radar antenna to heat food. Apparently you can heat things a little if you stick the food right in front of the antenna and are willing to wait for a very long time.

That myth has been tested and busted by the Mythbusters on The Discovery channel. they tested using all kinds of different radars and found absolutely no change in temperature of any food they tested...

Also, what's with the Avogodro's number?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top