STEALTH 103 | The important bits that nobody explains

[@luislealsantos]

Few days ago Greg's aeroplanes and automobiles was referring you as a great source for difficult issues not easily found in Internet. Keep with excellent work. Grazie tanta.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

I should really thank Greg

[@P90F55]

Forget that 7%. 93% of us like it. That opening is one of the things that hooked me.

[@XimCines]

Agreed

[@kathrynck]

A really superb video. Probably one of a kind on the internet. I like the animations as well. A minor correction: the canopy coating is ITO (Indium-Tin Oxide), rather than gold. Although a very thin layer of gold could be used, ITO is preferable for a number of reasons. There's other aspects to this issue (related to both RCS reduction and 'other' issues) which go off publicly available info pretty quickly. A couple minor omissions that might be worth discussing: The aft turbine of a jet engine is also an RCS issue related to rear-aspect stealth. The air flow diverter common to most conventional intakes is another area of concern (though you've mentioned that in other videos). And the unavoidable geometry involved is having mobile control surfaces as well. I know you brought up tighter fittings between gaps before, but things like horizontal stabilizers have some rather unfortunate characteristics. In particular the need for an all moving panel to have a flat surface to move against is "unhelpful" when you consider that these flat areas are perpendicular to the horizontal stabilizer, so they're flat-vertical. And a little known detail is how a circular reflective surface (like a bearing ring) which is hidden only by a largely radar translucent material, can be a very serious issue. As for the geometry of a compressor affecting stealth, it's pretty difficult to curtail that aspect with compressor geometry, since the blades rotate through 360 degrees, and their AoA is variable if the engine is to have any sort of decent performance. Plus they are going to be pretty straight (no matter what) in order to survive the centripetal force involved. So compressor geometry is not a "high priority" aspect of the RCS mitigation, and doesn't "significantly" affect engine geometry in ways which would compromise efficiency, power, etc. There's a lot of opportunity to mitigate the radio frequency emissions while inside the intake channel. Use of highly 'radar-translucent' materials to guide the air, while more reflective surfaces are shaped instead to trap RF waves within the engine area, are pretty effective. Basically 2 overlapping geometries, one an open pathway to air, the other an open ended Faraday "chinese finger trap" to RF waves. It's much more about how RF signals get to and from the engine, than about the engine geometry itself. Actually, the old cone-style intakes have fairly favorable RCS characteristics, though it's better to more freely allow RF into the RF trap. Considering how multiple bounces off of a radar reflective surface do tend to disperse and ablate RF "to an extent", I wouldn't underestimate the raw value of blocking compressor blades from direct view. Or perhaps put another way, yes, it's not JUST about blocking the compressor from view, but you can't even get to the point where you're discussing the mitigation of wave-guide behavior until after you've blocked the compressor from direct view. Using plasma as an on/off RAM material is interesting, but it effectively blinds PESA mode if you're actively using plasma in a radome. That said, AESA/PESA array shapes are rather unhelpful to stealth, particularly at mm wavelengths, which ricochet around the tines of an array like a pinball machine. Also, the usefulness of RAM with a radome/radar is pretty limited, if you want the radar to work. So it's kind of a stealth engineering topic unto itself. There is probably a sound argument for a stealth aircraft which lacks an AESA array (the F-117 for example, simply skipped this engineering issue entirely). A fairly short video suggestion (if you're looking for ideas): "LIDAR & Stealth" (I always watch the whole thing with your channel. I skip ahead with a few youtubers who take 5-10 minutes to get to the point, but yours are not problematic at all. It's possible that some people are simply too used to other channels which waste a really large amount of time, which kinda trains viewers to be very quick to skip ahead.)

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

On point as usual. Thank you!

[@darkofc]

Thank you !

[@unclejoeoakland]

I long suspected that the various air forces and manufacturers had no interest in making really good explanations of stealth available to the public, verging on deliberate lies- and they might have good reason but I can't get into that. Your videos are a delight to people who want to understand these matters!

[@saltyroe3179]

We don't like to advertise how to defeat stealth. Defeating stealth requires knowing what stealth techniques are used. Most of the basics is just physics, implementation however is very expensive. How to defeat stealth should be an interesting episode! Some techniques: - use different wave lengths - increase radar power - use bistatic radar - get close

[@MajinOthinus]

One really doesn't find such insights anywhere else on YT. Another great video!

[@WJV9]

I love your 'side conversations' with your 'AI Enhanced' Roomba. I am an Electrical/Electronic Engineer whose first job was working on F-4B/C/D/E for McDonnell Aircraft back in 1965-1968. You cover advanced aerospace Mechanical/Electronic topics better than any other KZbin creator. Keep up the good work.

[@magnitskyact8154]

JF-17 is the 7th generation stealth technology. It is the master of disguise because it shows itself as a large passenger jet on enemy radar.😉🤪

[@jonnekallu1627]

But if you haven't been paying attention the most likely potential enemies have a tendency to shoot down passenger jets...

[@randomuser5443]

@@jonnekallu1627 Iran would likely be china friendly

[@herrfugbaum8978]

actually not such a bad approach. one could also use a real "civilian" aircraft, armed with cruise missiles. that would also be a kind of "stealth". maybe not exactly legal, but who cares in a war situation ...

[@AttiliusRex]

@@herrfugbaum8978 the geneva convention protects the individual soldier and pilot. By flying under false flag you lose all your rights to be protected fairly as a POW and can lawfully be executed as an insurgent. So the answer the question of "who cares" in a war situation: the individual airman cares.

[@herrfugbaum8978]

@@AttiliusRex all of this is certainly true. but think about the situation in the middle east. has anyone there been interested in the geneva convention so far? there will always be enough willing pilots to be found there. in addition, this aircraft would not even have to enter the airspace of the country to be attacked. before the first missiles are hitting miami, the plane might already be at the airport in caracas. just as an example. the "criminal" would probably not be caught at all.

[@v0id683]

Hey millennium! I really like the format of your videos and you always explain them so clearly. Is there any chance you could talk about flying wing drones like X-47B, X-45C, Dassault neuron, S-70 okhotnik and the techniques they use to reduce their radar cross section? This would be an very interesting topic

[@wildhomemediaplayer5299]

If nobody explains these why did I talk about them in my class the other week? 😋 Love your content, beats reading some textbooks before teaching a topic. The good case for inlet changes is the B-1. Was also an issue for the X-32.

[@ArreatPLvro]

Canopy in F35 is mounted backwards because B (VTOL) version has fan behind the cockpit so they had to install hinge in front

[@kristiankalani8474]

Found this channel only recently, but I’ve been binging all of these videos. Keep up the great content! :)

[@mvd4436]

Funny how some ppl argue that the su 57 isn't stealth when in reality, it is featured along with the F-22 and 35 in these videos.

[@shirazzmataz]

This is so good. More equations/ worked examples would be awesome! May be how frequency switching/ jamming works next?

[@AttiliusRex]

Ooh yes im also wating for a jamming and ECM episode

[@paullomax4038]

I really appreciate your channel, you deserve far more subs

[@swaziboy9953]

Love this series!!

[@cannonfodder4376]

2:29 OTIS again asserting his dominance in the relationship. 😂😂 Yet another informative video on the topic of intake RCS reduction. It's definitely more complicated than what virtually all defense news sites make them out to be.

[@geraldstokes5661]

Nice to meetyou, informative Channel u have , I'm x air force Lockheed SR71during Nam, it was a honor to work on this aircraft,still flying today, thanks for your sharing.... 12:41

[@gearloose703]

I like the editing much better in these videos than the old ones.

[@hansdorschdk2]

Firstly: I have rarely seen better, technically well-founded presentations than yours. I salute you. I am a researcher specializing in history seen from a social scientific pov, combined with cultural and cross-cultural psychology. Your presentations provide a competent view on the current world of air power, and I would LOVE to co-op with you in the field of strategic analysis. Secondly: My name is Hans Dorsch. Although there is a certain German touch to it, I am from Denmark with a Swedish-Finnish heritage. You?

[@williamscoggin1509]

Very interesting stop. Never really thought about radar bouncing back out getting tanks.

[@solarfinder]

Man. That beginning was awesome! Good video!

[@stevefriswell5422]

Another great video. Thank you.

[@vincentmarchetti6388]

Very interesting, showing the limit of technology in real world. It would be nice to add subtitles btw

[@philorkill]

The attention to detail is what makes this channel worthwhile. Thank you for sharing.

[@brianlove6506]

I've only just begun to watch this channel and I must shout out the praise for you videos that may be the most professional and balanced that I have seen! Your humour, (including the robot) are just perfect and provide enough comic relief to help me swallow the advanced technical explanations easier. I especially love your music and how it is not so loud or over used, as often is the case. Your teaching ability is great; I can understand difficult topics because you provide the right amount of relevant context and comparisons, etc. Keep up the great work!!

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Way too kind!

[@N330AA]

Why do you only have 33k subscribers? This is one of the best military channels on KZbin!

[@disturbedfan545]

Stealth planes look so cool, the SU-57 is one of the best planes I've seen.

[@SeedOfElijah]

Hello. Coatings like what was designed for the F-117 can even be used on a flat surface facing right back at the radar. The reason is because the radar energy causes an alignment of the Bohr Magnetons* in the direction of the radar energy*. When the energy gets strong enough to hit something in the aircraft it bounces back with less energy and now cannot overcome the Bohr Magnetons aligned against it. It's called " switched spins". The material has lines of forces arranged haphazardly until radar energy hits it then it lines up. That bunch of different metallic oxides you said is in the Russian aircraft might not work cumulatively like you expect. This all I have said elsewhere and is almost the maximum except the Fe50 if the F-117 is Iron Oxide Titanium Dioxide and a semi-precious gemstone. Oh and a composite below the coating helps much more than yet another substrate because of temperatures and energies needed to cause the materials to go " active". Ok thanks.

[@thetrolle]

Great video as always! Could you do a video on angle of attack, wing loading, instantaneous turn rate and sustained turn rate and which fighters has the better or worse overall compromise between the different turn rates. And please use the Gripen as an example😉 Looking forward to whatever comes up next on your channel

[@formateuramzal1567]

this channel is fantastic, Greetings

[@kastallion]

Algorithms bless this man

[@arthus-itak3712]

🇨🇵. Thx for all your videos. Very impressive, interesting, complete ...and with most issues unfund anywhere else. ... So let go and ...as system voice said " Yes lets do it sir ."

[@XimCines]

By the way, the opening music is necessary to establish an own personality to the channel. Makes it more unforgetful. The intro music is short and catchy. I would say there is a 92% that still hears the intro despite hearing it a thousand times. That tells a lot too. Everytime we hear the music, you are working on brand recordation and brand asociation. I would suggest to include it again. That 7% is probably impatient people that skips any part that they feel uneasy, you are risking 92% of loyalty for 7% of highly unloyal "Skippers". The music is part of this brand as the yellow pictures. I love your channel and I give these suggestions with the love and the expertice of a 9 years brand manager experience.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

On YT it is normal to lose around 30% of viewers in the first 30 seconds, then the viewership stabilizes and still decays but a lower rate. What I have seen is that there is dip and a rise after I have done the intro, of 5 to 7 % points. For example, there is a drop to 68% before starting the content, than a rise to 75% when the content start. I want to see what happens with an intro structured like today as a test. Yes the music, the round logo the yellow color, Arial used everywhere is a sort of home baked art/brand design.

[@XimCines]

@@Millennium7HistoryTech Nice. In fact everrything must be tested. If you don't try it, you may never know. This is the type of things you must test in YT. I agree your decition.

[@jimmycummings8164]

Thanks for the info.

[@surajbiradar9827]

The thumbnail game is really on top in recent videos🔥

[@ettorefassina356]

introduzione abbreviata: APPROVED!

[@benwelch4076]

I like the intro, keep it don't change a thing. Reminds me of Top Gear. Really enjoyed the video, love it when I learn something new.

[@timmurphy5541]

That was very informative, thank you! :-)

[@LtSpiteful]

Excellent video. Would especially like to hear more about how the radome is (presumably) optimised for outgoing waves while mitigating incoming waves.

[@schweizerluchs7146]

Sir i did not skip the intro sir!

[@schweizerluchs7146]

12:27 😳🤭😂

[@peterruiz6117]

Every great man has a "Jarvis" monitoring his every word..

[@paulfollo9470]

Great video!

[@citizenblue]

Yours is an underrated channel. I appreciate your work!

[@EdFrench_uk]

When the f35 flies over our house, at very low altitude, it is remarkably quiet. I'd be interested to understand how much that is a side effect of the measures to reduce radar and thermal visibility, vs. how much that's deliberate, and how it's achieved.

[@Meldonator]

I've seen the movie, I know everything we need to know! (great video as always!)

[@XimCines]

I can feel my neurons waking up with your videos. Excellent work... as always. I felt improved audio. Nice!

[@keirfarnum6811]

You have neurons? What do you feed them? 😁

[@sagarkarvande]

Was searching for an explanation on this topic.. for a long time.... Found it here... As ofcourse information found on this channel is not easily found anywhere else....

[@ranua9327]

Could you compare how F-22 and Su-57 diferent aproach in engines in relation with stealth, please?

[@rickcalbert8814]

Both should still ionize the exhaust, diffusing and Doppler-shifting the return as just noise, even on IR to a lesser degree. Side effects of r&d trying to reduce contrails.

[@Make-Asylums-Great-Again]

I just found your channel and wish I had found it earlier. You do an amazing job with the narration.

[@physicsonline8853]

Thank you for a massive educational effort.I learnt a lot. Thanks again.

[@Muhamed662]

what a shame , you have been around for 3 years and I only discovered your channel today !

[@chrv2956]

Again this interesting man told me something interesting in a way that I understand and it gave me some more knowledge that I like to get. Thanks a lot! I shall appreciate a video about the antenna issue that you mentioned. An in one of the next videos about aerodynamic I shall be happy if you can explain the purpose of the very small canard fins on the Concorde and how they are working. I am still a great fan of your channel!!

[@kathrynck]

Hey, just noticed some bits of news which might catch your eye Millennium 7, knowing your interests ;) There's an interesting material which was announced at North Carolina state university. (honestly the announcement itself seems very fishy to me, I would tend to think it's not really something the lab's USAF funding would like to see rushed into newspapers) And also there was a recent press release from GE on the XA100 engine (bear in mind GE's claimed margins of benefit are relative to their own YF120 engine, not the F135 engine, but still, it appears to have bettered PW's F135 engine in a number of ways) I wonder if the coating from NCU could be made to be flexible.

[@rikulappi9664]

The 100nm layer of gold found on cockipit windows definately does not reflect radar waves. A gold (metal) plating thinner than half of the wavelenght of radiation does not reflect the radiation. Radar EM waves have several orders of magmitude longer wavelenghts than visible light. The gold layers probably just create multiple layers of matrices enbedded with radar aborbing compunds. Gold acts as a transparent glue for the aborbing material. Just speculating, of course...

[@JainZar1]

I would definitely like a more indepth video about radar reflection on SA-Radars.

[@ghostindamachine]

Super interesting! Would love to get some in-depth info on the radio / radar lobe emissions

[@Rospajother]

Wow great channel, robot gig is good too

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

The non-intentionally stealthy Hawk trainer doubles its RCS when it carries its 30mm cannon pod. It also carried a radar signal enhance when used for ACM training.

[@darkofc]

👍😊 Thank you ! P.S. Please, offer Otis one free defragmentation - he deserved it this time ..😉

[@alexscarbro796]

I guess the intake blades would also cause a Doppler shift in the reflection that would be identifiable as a jet engine.

[@Ni999]

I think Otis did a great job on shaped intakes. 👍🙂

[@vytisagafonovas3887]

He has a friend! Whats his name? And thank you for sharing you knowladge! The difference between your chanel and a good chanel is that good chanel does his research on a topic. You sir HAVE knowledge on and beyond the topic. To be be clear you better than a good channel, your unique!

[@MihzvolWuriar]

Going into the Sci-Fi area, the ADF-01 Falken solves the canopy issue by simply removing it, and adding cameras on the outside, and screens on the inside, pretty neat, but what I love the most is the COFFIN system (COnnection For Flight INterface System), it's basically the same cameras on the outside, but a VR system on your helmet, why no one thought about this yet? The XFA-27 Scarface have a different configuration, but is similar to the Falken, it has a standard canopy, but also cameras and screens on the lower side, so the pilots can see everything under them. I love sci-fi that doesn't exaggerate, and Ace Combat is one of the best sci-fi out there.

[@jameson1239]

We have glass cockpits that are similar to what your talking about

[@ahmedkamel3862]

What about the pilot's helmet. An old story I heard during the gulf war was from Oerlikon, that they were able to detect the stealthy F117 by detecting the pilot's helmet!

[@sorennilsson9742]

This was as alwayes an excellent program.

[@bjjace1]

Good Stuff

[@thelovertunisia]

I think that in this case, if the plane gets dirty with dust like when operating in a desert environment, this will reduce its stealth, compelling it to fly high where the air is cleaner and reducing its possible tactical usability.

[@alvaropenen2118]

Hi: On minute 7:01 you mentioned that an antenna beam is closer to the reflected signal when it is illuminated from another radar, I think about the linear antenna works on a phase array antenna and i don´t see the fact you talk about, however i understand that common radars are designed to detect and not for avoid being detected, moving the tilt upward can reduce the total RCS but i am not sure how much it can be reduced. I always thought that stealth planes have a improved stealth of a usual wave length, if the radar transmit in a different frequency the stealth is no such efective.

[@sarcasmo57]

I need to know all of this

[@wilsonli5642]

Re: low observable pylons: wouldn't it be possible to create pylons that taper as they meet the wing? That should eliminate some right angles!

[@hbtv6356]

Thanks for another informative video. I would like to ask, can't you make weapon pylons from the same materials as radome, thus transparent to radar and no corner reflections?

[@carniv0rous]

Great stuff!

[@ghostindamachine]

@Millennium7: can you do an episode on the 1987 MBB Lampyridae German Stealth Fighter?

[@user-zt5kj3yc8e]

Please tell more about how radar antenna reflecting waves. How about if future SAMs will have, for example 1(working at the moment) emitter and lot of receivers, located far from each other(around the target airplane)? In this case stealth shape will be not so effective, reflected radiation still reaches receiver. Also this solution have big tactical advantages.

[@crescenzopersico6907]

dear sir , ihave a question for you .on the f35 why not to mount rhe rail on the tip of wing ?so you have only a rail and no pylon

[@shi01]

Because the Rail is meant for more or less universal loadouts and especially weapons which cannot launched from an internal bay. Either because they are to large or need their own optics to track the target. Which means they can be quite heavy and heavy loads and wingtip rails are a no go.

[@sohrabroozbahani4700]

Dear Otis, you have yet to learn a lot... about humans...

[@Pincer88]

Enjoyed it again. I have one question if I may. The Chinese J-20 has these large canards and you use to say, that canards are detrimental if you want to maintain a low radar cross section. That got me thinking. Could it be possible to disable the canards in cruise flight (so no aerodynamic function other than that of a strake or fin in this regime) and to enable it when required (when sustained maneuverablity is necessary in combat)? I got to that question looking at the Swiss Mirage IIIs, Israeli Kfirs/South Adrican Cheetahs and the Swedish Saab J(A)-37 Viggen, where the cnards seem to move either not at all or only have the aft end parts of the canard moving. I thought then: what if the PLAAF pilots have a switch that enables/disables the canards (activating a different mode in the fly by wire software?). Would it in theory be possible to have similar frontal aspect low observability if the canards do onot move as an aft placed tail plane? Or ore canards detrimental to LO regardless?

[@chefchaudard3580]

To my knowledge, canards add very few to the RCS if there are properly made, using "radar transparent" composite materials and absorbant coatings among other things. It is not as good as no canards, but it can be an acceptable compromise.

[@froggle611]

With regards to intakes, why are they still not placed on top of the aircraft as far back as viable to outright hide the intakes from the ground? I am aware of the downside of potentially limiting pilot visibility but with all the other tradeoffs to performance made I'm surprised this one was not taken. Planes like the YF-23 look perfect for this arrangement already having two humps on the back for the engines while the intakes still end up below the aircraft. Does this arrangement negatively effect the aircraft in other ways like at low speed causing engine stalls? If that is the case would it still not be better to have closable louvers like on the mig 29 only on the bottom instead of the top for low speed intake? arrangementisn'tadvantageous

[@edwardfinch171]

I have a question for you to look into. In all the videos that I have watched that show Russian fighter pilots and have never seen them wearing G-suits like our pilots. Why is that. Thanks for your videos.

[@RandomnessIncoming]

please do a video on the ufo videos the pentagon is confirming

[@fastmover45]

More please

[@marklowden5054]

This is a stupid question. Radar waves are energy can you not use this energy therefore reducing returns. Please be gentle im not rf expert

[@Ni999]

Not a stupid question. Radar absorbing material (RAM) is a family of technologies, not a simple thing like a sponge absorbing water. Some RAM is designed to convert the radio energy into heat. Some is designed to reflect the radar back but _out of phase_ at some frequencies. That means that the radar signal is sent back with the peaks of energy converted to low points and the low points converted into the peaks - kind of like the same waves upside down. The reflection meets the signal and to the degree that the flipping has occurred, will cancel out the radar signal being sent to the airplane. Another form can turn some of the radio frequency energy into a series of stored and discharged electrical energy on the skin of the plane. So from a certain point of view, it's ok to think of RAM as a family of passive electrical machinery powered by radar signals whose job is to oppose those signals. Today examples like that are at the limit of our technology and hopefully we'll continue to improve on the concept. Personally I salute you for your question. Weird questions are often weird but really good solutions often begin with someone having the courage to ask the weird questions that go somewhere. Well done. (Note to others - yes I did use Wikipedia to make sure that I was giving public domain examples, and no, I am not pretending to represent everything about RAM. Just hopefully giving a positive answer.)

[@marklowden5054]

Thank you so much. It fills a lot of the gaps of my understanding. It is much appreciated. This whole channel and post is so interesting

[@200cheytacm]

I'm not sure if you already did but can you please do a video comparing air defence systems around the world similar to iron dome? Thanks!

[@oceanic8424]

More graphics would be very helpful.

[@iamscoutstfu]

What happens if you release a continuous flow of plasma over the canopy?

[@sohrabroozbahani4700]

Have you ever seen the iranian F313? Fair warning, when you see that little monstrosity you cannot unsee it but, regardless of how wrong it is, these days they are trying to sell it as a ground effect vehicle and yet it fails miserably. When I was at high-school at the end of last ice age, I presented a paper, with as little as I knew, well back then in the late 90s, we all outsiders of the industry generally knew so little about stealth technology, I put all my ( I'm being extremely generousto to myselfhere) "aircraft design" knowledge and finished it with a proposal on how to stealth up the F5E, I ended up with a lovechild of F5E and F117, but I had ergonomic interface design for my cockpit, and a list of systems to be included, I was so stupid thinking that was worth anything but, the point is, 20 years later, the entire propaganda machine of the government failed to do at least as much as what a high-school kid could put together to maybe somehow look right in front of a camera, anyone with one eye and half brain can see that F313 is a @#$% (really sloppy design)... and know we learn this many things about stealth and I can just go 🤦 you don't know anything, John Snow me...

[@dieterhalbwidl4667]

Fascinating!

[@DheerajBhaskar]

Those Otis bits are cringey or just me?

[@animapulcra9205]

OTIS changing someone's mind by data and reasoning is unheard of. Couldn't sleep all night! 🤪

[@sohomchatterjee]

Hey but I thought the f 35 canopy was coated in titanium tin oxide?

[@jwadaow]

Interested.

[@robtheelectric]

Where can you buy such a smart robot cleaner?

[@jannegrey593]

Yes I would love to see the even more detailed video on this topic. As far as I know F-35 isn't particularly stealthy in L band. Which means you can detect the plane. But with L band you won't be able to find firing solution - that is my understanding. Cheers from Poland. Stay Safe!

[@mickeyg7219]

Technically any radar band can detect a stealth aircraft, but the distance in which a reliable detection can happen is different. And yes, any bands that have a frequency lower than C-band doesn't have a sufficient resolution for a precision targeting. A good S-band radar can guide a missile in a general direction, but not during the terminal phase, which is a big problem for missiles that use a semi-active radar seeker. And stealth aircraft is still going to reduce the effectiveness of the L-band, just not to the extent if it were against higher-frequency bands.

[@jannegrey593]

@@mickeyg7219 Yeah - I understand that stealth doesn't mean "invisible to radars" as some people think. It is just that from what I've seen F-35 RCS in L-band isn't reduced as much as it should be to call the plane stealthy (at least not as advertised). Because you still know that something is flying up there - you can't target it from ground, but you can get interceptors in the air or steer CAP to the target. And if they happen to be close enough they will detect and lock on F-35 (also IRST exist, so that can make it more deadly). Stealth is to reduce the range of detection and make harder to have firing solution. And to be fair - almost all stealth planes have a problem with countering L band. From what I hear (and see the RCS diagrams) F-35 is just having more problems than other stealth planes in that particular band.

[@mickeyg7219]

@@jannegrey593 The F-35's exact RCS figure is not publicly available, so any claims made by a layperson should be taken with grain of salt. "Stealth" is not a solidly defined term, there's no consensus on how effective the aircraft must be against a certain radar bands to be considered "stealth." However, all stealth aircraft are best against X-band. IRST is effective against stealth in some case, but it's worth knowing that all stealth aircraft, including the F-35, were designed to have a low infrared signature. And infrared-guided missiles usually don't have a good range. And yes, while you can relay to the interceptors to the target, it's unlikely that the F-35 will find itself in that situation in the first place, because in a real war, no competent military relied only on one equipment. Basically, the F-35 is a force multiplier, not a silver bullet. Like tanks, while it's powerful on its own, it's a deathtrap without an infantry support. In a modern offensive war, the first thing you should do is to find a way to suppress or destroy low-frequency radars and shut down the airfield with cruise/ballistic missiles before you send any jet fighters deep behind the enemy's line. One thing though, general Mike Hostage stated that the F-35's RCS is smaller than the F-22's. This make sense considering that the F-35 used a newer composites and RAM coating built on the knowledge of the F-117, B-2, and F-22. And according to a patent US20100271253A1, the materials used to build the F-35 "is capable of absorbing radar in a frequency range from between about 0.10 Megahertz to about 60 Gigahertz." That implies that it can reduce the effectiveness of the band that's even lower than L-band. While the effectiveness is not equal for every radar bands, some reduction is still achieved. Also, the F-35 also have some RCS-reducing features that is not present in the F-22, such as diverterless supersonic inlet.

[@jannegrey593]

​@@mickeyg7219 Thanks for the info. I did know the X band thing and that L band isn't a priority, but if they can they still try to protect against that. The problem is that I considered what I've read on specialists sites and then I looked at what our politicians have to say about F-35. And they think it is a silver bullet. Your analogy to unsupported tank is very good and obviously, you won't go over enemy territory without first running SEAD/DEAD missions. Though in case of Poland - we have practically 0 possibility of running such missions, so if we would fly - it would be after our allies clear the defenses out. So sorry about that - too many interviews with people who think that if we buy F-35 - all of our military problems will be solved. Also technically Rafale in Libya were flying "before" SEAD/DEAD missions were complete - but they have way different doctrine and I suppose that they were 1. against weak opponent 2. running some very good EW to make it less dangerous. Do you know any good sources on stealth? This is a good site: www.radartutorial.eu/index.en.html but I don't know if it isn't a bit outdated.

[@mickeyg7219]

@@jannegrey593 I agree, if your doctrine is mostly about defending, it's better to invest in other things. But stealth aircraft will most likely become just another "basic" feature in the future, so buying a few might not be a complete waste of money. What I'm saying is that stealth will probably become like fly-by-wire or automatic transmission - it wouldn't be a "special" feature in the future, but not having them will put you at a disadvantage. Radar Tutorial is a very good site about radars in general, I have it on my bookmark. It doesn't really cover about that much about stealth though, but many radar lessons on KZbin made by university professors will give you a good insight on stealth technology.

[@abcbca431]

I stubled across your channel by accident my gosh its beautiful but the only problem is that i have had a bit difficulty in following what you are saying

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Sorry about that, English is not my first language, unfortunately.

[@abcbca431]

@@Millennium7HistoryTech Could u include subtitles I know I am asking too much but sometimes auto generated subtitles aren't that accurate

[@iddqd339]

Why not put diamond-shaped plastic covers (with a metallic coat, obviously) around externally-mounted weapons to make them stealthy? The cover can be jettisoned before a missile launch. E: I guess you'd also have to get rid of the pylon shortly after

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

The F-35 has LO pylons. About the casing... honestly I wouldn't know, they would probably come with a lot of drag.

[@abhishekkulkarni9700]

If the radome is radio transparent then what in the point of having the chine continued on it from thr fuse, wouldn't it be better if the aircraft had a conical nose(aerodynamically speaking).

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

PROBABLY continuity, it is just a meter or 2 max and the abrupt change of section would probably be worse.

[@kenfelix8703]

As I have stated before the greatest thing about this you’re station no political BS, just facts. Thank you 👍🏿

[@Stormrider-Flight]

Is it me or does the camera seem a little out of focus?

[@bat2293]

So, when Otis misbehaves what do you do with him? Make him vacuum floors?

[@alephkasai9384]

He makes Otis calculate Pi

[@RogerJL]

I would be VERY suprised if the antenna on a AESA repositioner continously rotate... I think it is steared to the rotation wanted in every situation. Looking down when targeting ground and ship targets. Looking sideways when turning away. There would never be a reason to show a flat surface toward a radar you know about.

[@mickeyg7219]

Most AESA radar on the jet fighter is fixed, but some can be rotated, like the one used in Typhoon and Rafale. The main reason why rotating AESA radar is not common among jet fighters is because it added more moving parts to the aircraft. Fixed array is positioned in such a way that even if you dive an aircraft nose-down, the reflected radar wave from the ground will be reflected into the sky.

[@RogerJL]

@@mickeyg7219 Typhoon and Gripen The only thing needed is one stepper motor, not that much more complex than a current mechanical PESA but another reason for rotation to not be continoys but rather back and forth on demand. With a rotating AESA you can choose to tilt it slightly sideways to minimise the risk of a radar in front of you ever getting a direct reflection. A stuck radar tilted upward, fly high, and you would get quite bad ground radar coverage.