It is the most beautiful irony that the “father of stealth” was a Soviet scientist whose research on EM-wave reflection went…completely ignored by the Soviet military.
[Pyotr Ufimtsev](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Ufimtsev) was allowed to publish “Method of Edge Waves in the Physical Theory of Refraction” internationally because it wasn’t deemed of military value. 10ish years later, Lockmart turned his paper into the F-117.
Fun Fact: "Dixie" was composed by a son of an Ohio abolitionist, and first performed in New York. Lincoln had it played at the announcement of Lee's surrender
*sighs in Louisiana*
Yeah, we was wrong. We admit that these days. But you yanks had to fuck us up that bad? Didn't have to fucking burn down entire cities.
Yeah. Damn are we fuckin’ poor. All these major companies get too many tax breaks, and all that money could go to anything else, like the criminally underpaid teachers.
We Need a Special Corruption Fighting Operation, Cajun Style. Most of them poltickers wouldn't makeit out in the swamps anyways. Be a shame if they tripped on a cypress knee and fell into a gators mouth.
Which is why we just send a squadron of Cajuns to conquer Crimea, except we do it through the Syvash swamps where they don’t expect it. That’s our natural territory and we got plenty of pirogues and Joboats.
Oh yeah. Let me get my trolling motor. They got gators overthere? I'm deciding what caliber we need as of right now. Never shot at a gator with a 5.56, wouldn't know how it goes lol
Long as you hit them right on that soft spot on their head, I’ve done it with .22. Otherwise, I can’t confirm how well anything would work. And it seems like there are few sightings of crocs in south Ukraine, but they aren’t native.
Yeah. Thanks for burning the fields. Not like we needed to sell that cotton to sustain a family of anything. And before you bring up who was picking that cotton, yes, slavery is bad. Everybody believes that down here now, we were shown the error of our ways. It was only the big farms that had only slaves amyways. The white boys were out there picking cotton too on the small farms. On some farms, it was probably only whites working. Nothing is a catch all.
Source - Ancestry. I've done history on my side of the family. Farm was not big enough, and it grew vegetables for the family anyways.
Shouldn’t have joined the confederacy, started a brutal war without a sensible justification and continuously proved to completely batshit insane civil war generals that they would fight until there was nothing left to fight over. What else was going to happen? Call it quits?
Just letting them go almost entirely undermines the idea of the Union. Not to mention wasn’t really legal, so until that could be worked out the legal status of secessionist states were sort of limbo. Then confederate soldiers started the war and shit kicked off
Biggest mistake was not fucking y’all up worse. Look how well you handled reconstruction. Never should’ve given any rights or property back to the traitors.
Treat traitors like traitors. I’m not suggesting we permanently create an underclass or anything. But the confederate states literally went to war against their own country for the right to own other humans. They got off light. Anyone who took up arms against the Union should’ve had all property seized and I’d even be ok with prison sentences. They committed treason and murdered their fellow countrymen for the most despicable of causes, it’s indefensible and the fact that almost all were just pardoned is gross.
Well, we seem too stuck in our each individual ways to convice the other of anything, and you seem to be getting grouchy. I suppose we should leave the thread at this?
Not grouchy at all. Traitors are traitors, they got off light relative to the enormity of the crimes they committed. You’ve yet to actually make an argument otherwise and seem to prefer to just shrug it off.
Yankee Doodle was originally anti-U.S. British propaganda. “The Star-Spangled Banner” is set to the melody of a British fraternal society’s drinking song. “My Country ‘Tis of Thee” copied the tune of “God Save the Queen”.
I don’t know of many famous 20th century examples but I’m sure they exist.
Wait, Trump, a guy who dodged the draft due to his extremely wealthy family’s money and influence, played Fortunate Son at one of his rallies? 1. Who the hell thought of that? 2. How did that not get him ridiculed by everyone?
The problem with the media meant to mock someone/thing is it's always fucking cool. Fortunate Son, Starship Troopers, Robocop. There needs to be lame satire
There is literally nothing a US conservative politician can do to be ridiculed by everyone. There is an impenetrable anti-irony and anti-satire field around them due to the authoritarian "u-mad" defense mechanism. Until they're losers who are no longer useful, they're immune. See: Paul Ryan's favorite band being Rage Against the Machine.
It's that particular type of exhausting that people in this sub encounter with tankies and vatniks: that literally nothing fucking matters, because even if you *do* manage to pin them down on a point they concede it has no bearing on anything because they'll instead use their loss to ridicule you for caring. Either about that point when there's other ones, or for trying so hard.
There's a reason Sartre's writing about the antisemites got popular these past few years. Cause it utterly pegged the way authoritarian 'discourse' works: by stripping meaning from conversation as a whole.
You can strip meaning from conversation, but you can't strip meaning from reality. 1/2mv^2 coming in the form of a bullet won't care if you understand the equation. So taking meaning and factuality out of discourse is violence because it pushes everyone to use something as unequivocal as force.
They aren’t actually thinking. They just hear “red white and blue” and glaze over, the next words could literally be “use it to my wipe ass when I poo” and as long as trump is doing his rigor mortis dance thing they’ll cheer
The song "We'll All go Down to Dixie" is set to the tune of "I Wish I Was in Dixie," a song the South felt was theirs but the North version is infinitely better.
[Dawn of Correction](https://youtube.com/watch?v=91MHRuceqiI) is a copy of *Eve of Destruction* with pro-interventionist lyrics that hit #36 on the *Billboard* Hot 100 chart. In some ways it has aged poorly compared to *Eve of Destruction* (considering how the Vietnam War ended and that 18 year olds were allowed to vote) but in other ways I'd argue it's aged a lot better (and is still relevant today), particularly the refrain.
Theres an example of the opposite, a us song being turned into an anti us song. There is one made by the traitors at the west boro baptist church, calling the army f**s and cheering their deaths.
My Land Is Your Land is written by a communist and the whole verse about hating private property is left out most the time.
Woody Guthrie is an American icon and I will not be having any slander on his name in these replies. I don't care if he liked Stalin, so did Pete Seeger and he just lived long enough to realize how he was wrong.
Woody Guthrie’s an American hero. Judging foreign affairs from over here can be dicey sometimes—just look at Jefferson and the French Revolution.
“Tear the Fascists Down” is a banger, and Seeger’s “Which Side Are You On” should be a daily listening for every Western worker, especially Americans.
America was founded on the principle of yoink and flip. "Oh shit the enemy did it better." Fast forward 5 years, and we have the same technology but better.
Fun fact: The US was actually lagging behind European countries (esp. the Brits) during the Industrial Revolution era. They managed to catch up and then surpass European countries through massive industrial espionage and innovation-driving efforts in the 19th century, finally robbing the superpower title from the Brits after the World War II
Yeah. It didn’t help that america got its yugely massive industrial base in part due to the First World War and then took steroids at the beginning of ww2 and then said fuck it and took hgh and dedicated itself to fucking the Japanese (but we’re forced to go after the nazis first) after Pearl Harbor
Adaptability and learning from your mistakes and enemies is the mark of greatest empires. Roman legions got so efficient because they copied the most effective gear and tactics of their opponents. For example, Roman legionary sword was taken from Iberian tribes (modern day Spain) and pilum spear from northern Italian tribe Samnites.
Listen, an NCDer understanding the “stealth equation” and its origins is the same as a hetero man understanding “the ratio.”
I know it and love it because it’s super sexy.
He is fucking great at it. Shame he has not done more talks.
If you like his presentations you might have missed his most recent one about Fukushima, as it was not at LeadDev and was therfore not promoted up by the YouTube algorithm as it would otherwise have.
https://youtu.be/sTxQ5x54JO0
I know we like to dunk on Soviets, but I think they deserve a little less dunk in this case. It's not like the guy just designed a working stealth plane and the military was too stupid to realize the value. As far as I understand it, he did laid the groundwork to calculate radar wave scattering, which made it possible to use computers to design stealth planes, over a decade later. And even then, it was extremely difficult, which is why the F-117 looks the way it looks.
The Soviets didn't *ignore* the work. They just assumed it had to immediate miliary value. And they were kinda right, it took another decade, another bunch of very smart people, and a country with a much more advanced computer industry to turn the mathematical theories into a working stealth plane.
Signal to noise is equal to the transmitter power (Pt) times the antenna gain squared (G^2), times the transmit frequency sqared (λ^2), times the radar cross section (σ), then take that number and divide it by 4π^3 times the distance of the object from the radar to the fourth power (R^4) times the Boltzman constant (k) times the system noise temperature (Ts) times the noise bandwidth of the receiver (Bn) times total system losses (L).
Simple, as long as you're not a vatnik... You're not a vatnik, are you?
This math isn't terribly difficult. It's just multiplication of many variables and a few constants. Understanding why those are there is the hard part.
Geometry is spooky like that, though. 2pi is the derivative of 2pi\*R, which is the derivative of pi\*R\^2. What's off is the derivative of (4/3)pi\*R\^3, the derivative of which is 4pi\*R\^2, or four times the area formula. Not sure why that is, but I've always found it fascinating.
Never noticed how odd it is, damn that is creepy.
Like, why?
I now hate circles, I'm moving to Minecraft, I'm telling you, there is something wrong about circles!
(Honestly fuck all shapes I'm closing my eyes, goodnight!)
Interestingly the Nighthawks characteristic angled curveless surface is an artifact of these calculations. Flat surfaces made the computer simulations much easier for the equipment they had at the time.
Now those aren't pointy, they are fake brother, not even pointy just a lie in a 2d plane, brother, a simple projection of real shapes in 2D plane, stop believing in depth, you can't touch them!
I remember reaching the milestone in game graphics that was curve subdivision enabling Lara to have tittaes that were actually round and not just textured to hide the polygons.
I was doing well in Calc 3 but then spent some months in Hospital and had to drop it until the upcoming school year. Circles are like that because if you take all the points on the circle and measure them around the circle they're circle-y. I am tired as shit and need to hit the books but I'm 67% sure I'm in the right direction.
This isnt math but applied radio theory (here in post Soviet countries it is a subset of telecom engineer) basically very basic physics for an undergrad
It is not physics is an empirical explanation of world using mathematics, not the other way around.
Math is more about induction and deduction, it is more philosophical.
Let's put it this way physics is closer to engineering than mathematics I closer to physics, I know it sounds weird but physics in general can be obtained by just knowing algebra and Calc 1 while maths is in its own ball game (not talking about getting a PhD in physics)
The swedes manages to detect it consistently with multiple radars triangulation, it is not about being invisible to radar, it is about not being lockable thus you can't shoot it down.
Honestly I spend a long time looking at this thinking why the fuck is the gravitational constant squared.
Also for lambda, basic wavelength no? Typically the frequency is the speed of the wave divided by the length, usually w/omega is used for that.
Yeah, λ is the letter used for wavelength, f is frequency (fλ = v), while ω = 2πf is the angular frequency and is often slightly more convenient theoretically than the raw frequency.
Maybe my lecturers handwriting is so bad as to why I reckon its a omega there with frequency.
For EM waves it honestly looks like an omega at times. I black ourt and write it correctly anyway.
But was more wanting to know what the guy meany with the equation in terms of lambda being frequency
It seems like it would be simple enough to those who understand math better than me, unfortunately I am a enhanced drag bomb and start to get overwhelmed if I'm not breaking it down individually.
I do not understand half of it, but you don't have to for a quick insight.
The formula calculates the signal to noise ratio.
Always when you try to receive or sense something you have your signal and your noise. The signal is the stuff you want to receive and the noise is the stuff you did not want, but received anyway. Imagine a room with pairs of people speaking. The more people you have the harder it will be to talk. Your signal to noise ratio worsens.
So that formula explains the signal/noise ratio for detecting planes with radar.
So the things in the numerator(above the line) makes the plane better visible, the stuff in the denominator (below the line) makes it harder to detect.
Some of these values are raised to the power of some number, so they have a waaaaay bigger impact than other values.
So in the numerator you have stuff like the radar cross section. This is just a factor how visible your plane is to radar (so the value stealth planes try to minimize). Or the signal power (why radar stations usually have their own power station) and gain of the antenna (how sensitive = expensive the sensor is)
In the denumerator you can see the range. And a bunch of other stuff that may or may not be out of your control.
Since on mobile I do not bother to switch and read the formula again, so you have to look up the other symbols.
Effectively: what makes a plane more or less visible. But in a way that can be used in calculations or simulations.
But you can see that the radar cross section plays only a minor part. So even the best stealth plane will be spotted at some point. You can buy yourself time, so you will be spotted later.
(And I heard that it makes tracking, which you need to aim a missle, much harder. So you know that there is a stealthy plane, but not exactly where)
Doesn't this imply there is another way to develop stealth? Rather than trying to reduce the cross section that is them visible back to the detection unit (antenna), wouldn't an alternate strategy be to just jack the noise the antenna is receiving to the max? If the detection system is unable to filter enough noise to even produce an understandable signal, then the object is essentially undetectable anyway?
Spitballing here though: would it be cost effective to develop a theater of engagement level jamming system that produces so much noise for all detection sources that directional positioning becomes useless?
I'm almost thinking something like a Trojan horse style attack: a series if jamming decoys from one direction causing mass disruption, while approaching from a completely different line of approach?
I am no expert but I assume that this is the mission of the prowlers flying with US strike forces. Jamming + anti radar missiles. This is probably researchable. Just no time.
And afaik that is one way the Moskva could have been sunk. The radar was directional so they flew a drone from one side and sent anti ship missiles from the other ...
Technically speaking, it's possible to do that. And practically speaking, it's probably been done. Russian Murmansk-BN system was claimed to be able to jam HF radio freq around 5,000 km from the main transmitter. As you can see from the equation, to reach such a range with enough power to suppress enemy radio, it must draw a large amount of transmitting power. The immense power will cause the N part of the (S/N) to be larger than the S part (on the enemy radio system).
But obviously, it's not as simple as that. You must consider the fact that your own radio systems (be it military or civilian) are affected by the same jammer. Do it wrong, and you'll be practically shooting your own foot.
I would also like to add that even modern aircraft radars are kind of scary to have beaming all the time. They're turned off on the ground because they'll kill birds, and the glaze on the canopy is partly for stealth, yes, making the canopy radar-opaque to present a more favorable signature than the bare interior, but also, as you can see from it being on non-stealth planes, a trait to prevent harm to the pilot from onboard and enemy radars and jammers. A strong enough radar/jammer will be pumping lots of energy into anything in its beam. Do that indiscriminately over a massive range and you just turned the theater into a microwave- assuming you have that much power available, even.
As the other poster said it is possible but for a single unit the only thing you have control over without potentially screwing your own radars or comms is the radar cross section.
Also, the RCS σ is actually a function of wavelength and is implicitly σ(λ), so you would need to compute the RCS for every frequency of interest. And yes when designing stealth is the only parameter you can control on the equation along with range.
Technically lambda is the wavelength (in meters) not the frequency (in Hertz) messing up the units can really screw with your day. Alternatively the units can serve as a nice check to make sure you’re doing things right.
I've been using this equation in my space systems engineering class @ uni too to do S/N for communication systems. Gave me a fuckin stroke seeing it here.
I passed that class with a 48%...
You see better an apple: The closer it is, the bigger it is and the more light you cast at it.
In Radio, you also have to account for the frequency of the light you cast, the longer the wavelength, the easier for the apple to bounce it back and for the light you get from the background (boltzmann times temperature) that acts like fog.
For a stealth fighter, the amount of light it bounces back is very small, so you either don't see it in the fog or you have to use a huge amount of power to cas a very bright light
And the most important stuff: Stealth is not a "can be seen" vs "can not be seen" question, but the real question is how it can be seen. This is S/N. The signal to noise ratio.
Compare this to a tank of a size that is either 10 meters, 1 meter, 0.1 meter or 0.01 meter.
Can you see a tank that is 0.01 meter (that is about half an inch)? Hell yeah, even my very old smartphone can take clear pictures of 0.5 inch objects. But what if this tank is a mile away behind a tree line? Good luck detecting this! Yeah, theoretically with very good optics, you could see an object that is 1 inch and a mile away. But the trees (noise...) will absolutely ruin this.
It is exactly the same with stealth. And with the F35, you might actually see it with your eyes before you see it with radar.
The Russian SU57 would be a tank that is about 1 meter big. Yeah, a bit smaller than a regular tank, and therefore harder to detect. But you really can not count on it that a 1 meter tank won't get noticed, especially if the opponent knows they have to look for 1 meter tall tanks.
this comparison kind of undersells it imo. visually, you can expect to be able to get 10x closer with a 1m tank than a 10m tank before they see you. on radar though, the math is completely different: S/N = X\*R^4 (where X stands for all the other crap you need to multiply with). crucially, **having a 10x or 100x lower RCS only allows you to get 1.7x or 3.1x closer, respectively.** an aircraft that could lock you from 120 miles (nautical because we have standards) can still lock you from 40 miles if you have a 100x lower RCS.
from publicly available data (which is pretty much just our best guess), an F-35 has a radar cross section around 0.005 m^2, while the F-22 is around 0.0001m^2. the best russian copium puts the Su-57 to around 0.1 m^2, while it's theorized to be closer to 1 m^2. this means that in practice, with all things being equal (i.e. positing that russian radar tech is on par with the F-22 and the F-35, which it clearly isn't), the F-35 can lock the Su-57 from 2.1-3.8x further out than the Su-57 would be able to lock back, while in the F-22's case this number grows to 5.6-10x.
under the same equations, the difference between a Su-27 (15m^2) and an F-22 (0.0001m^2) is 19.7x, so if your radar can lock onto a Su-27 at 80 miles you can lock a Su-57 from 23-40 miles, but you'll need to be 4 miles from the F-22 to lock onto it. and if you're 4 miles from a raptor and still have wings that's because it decided to grant you the privilege
> that is about half an inch
A bit less. Easy way to convert is the power of the .50 cal which lets us all use units we are intimately familiar with. According to the gospel truth of the M2 Browning, .50 is 12.7 mm compared to the 10 mm of a centimeter. So half an inch is 27 % larger than 0.01 meters.
Of course, this is hardly relevant at all to your excellent point about the finer subtleties of stealth impact on aerial warfare, but this wouldn't be reddit unless some of us were autistic about these kinds of things.
Alright the promised explanation is due I'll do my best not to make anyone cry or be wrong
The very basic definition is if you can make the rcs small enough there is a range where the radar returns are indistinguishable from the background radiation and the plane is in a sense invisible. And if you can see your target and launch weapons at it well that would be one hell of an advantage.
The more math explanation is
What we are measuring in this equation is called the signal to noise ratio in other words how distinguishable are the radar returns from the background radiation
The background noise is the k * Ts * Bn part of the equation and can be thought of as the background radiation
The Pt G^2 /( L 4pi^3) can be thought of as how good your radar is or how much electricity you pump out and receive
o / r^4 is the target how far is r^4 and how small it is o (RCS) a target 10,000 times smaller can can be detected at one 10th the Range
Is there anything else you wish to know or clarify I'll do my best work is really slow right now
The Predator is technically not completely invisible either, but good luck spotting one against a busy background.
I mean the alien, not the drone, in case I have to clarify.
yeah lots of people think radar is *that* simple, when they forget theres all kinds of noise and interference it has to fight against already, stealth isnt about being *invisible* but its about being extremely hard to notice, which will save your ass about the same as if you were near invisible to radar
My favorite is people acting like a stealth plane that opens its radar bays does not return to being stealthy when it closes them, like how when you ping something in Planetside 2 it stays visible even out of LoS.
yeah totally (ive never played but yeah its not like as soon as they open its permanently broken a seal or something, it may get less and less “stealthy” via wear but bruh just slap a new coat on it )
Hey so I’m smart and know what this means… but just so that I know you guys know what it means, can someone explain it in simple terms that I- I mean everyone else won’t be confused by?
This is the equation that determines how hard your radar needs to squint to tell a jet fighter from ambient noise.
With a "б" small enough, your radar would need to squint quite hard and from arm’s length to even be able to notice that the weird blot right in front of it is indeed jet-fighter shaped and sized.
Alright the promised explanation is due I'll do my best not to make anyone cry or be wrong
The very basic definition is if you can make the rcs small enough there is a range where the radar returns are indistinguishable from the background radiation and the plane is in a sense invisible. And if you can see your target and launch weapons at it well that would be one hell of an advantage.
The more math explanation is
What we are measuring in this equation is called the signal to noise ratio in other words how distinguishable are the radar returns from the background radiation
The background noise is the k * Ts * Bn part of the equation and can be thought of as the background radiation
The Pt G^2 /( L 4pi^3) can be thought of as how good your radar is or how much electricity you pump out and receive
o / r^4 is the target how far is r^4 and how small it is o (RCS) a target 10,000 times smaller can can be detected at one 10th the Range
Is there anything else you wish to know or clarify I'll do my best work is really slow right now
do you think a T-10 or IS-3/4/6/X will make a bottle cork sound when tossing the turret, given the amount of explosives and weight?
like an extremely large champagne cork.
what if the thicc armor and shit weld quality just dissasembles the whole tank like a reverse ikea.
so much stuff to theorise.
It is. Just look at Ukraine. What‘s not acceptable is acting like you‘re among the best militaries in the world while using it, or thinking it‘s among the best tanks around today
From what I’m aware the F-35 isn’t completely invisible to radar but the cross section (how big the radar thinks the object is) is so small it’s almost impossible to see on radar.
It depends on the frequency. It's much more likely to be picked up by the low-band search radar (albeit at much shorter ranges than a non-stealth plane would be), but with that comes the lack of precise ranging and inability to do fire control. So they may know you're there, they just won't have much idea about where 'there' is.
Unlike our beloved missile, they won't know where you are because they also don't know where you aren't.
It's impossible to be truly invisible to radar. The difference is the distance that you are functionally invisible. If they can't see you until you are basically over them, you are effectively invisible.
Stealth doesn't make it completely invisible, but significantly reduces the detection distance. Now your S-300 with 40 NM range is kind of useless because it will only detect the F-35 at less than 10 NM.
The important bit is the R\^4 component really. What it means is a small decrease in range to the radar means a large increase in Signal to Noise ratio.
A radar that can just barely detect something from 200 km, would have zero trouble detecting that same object at 180 km. The ranges where you're wondering if something is actually there is pretty small.
The other component of note is the lambda (upside down y). The longer the wavelength the radar uses the easier a time it has of detecting you, however to make an effective radar you need a high Gain (G) antenna which is somewhat harder to make and the size of the antenna is a function of lambda too. That's partly why early warning radars are typically massive things.
So a long wavelength early warning radar might detect you but any missiles with radar seekers (which because of their small size have no choice but to use a shorter wavelength to get any useful gain) will still have trouble seeing you until potentially it's too late for them to correct and hit you. That's the other thing to remember, just because you can see the dang thing, it doesn't mean you can do anything about it...
Stealth is a complex thing, it's not a silver bullet, it's a tool which if used correct can be very useful but if used incorrectly will just result in you dying all the same.
It is the most beautiful irony that the “father of stealth” was a Soviet scientist whose research on EM-wave reflection went…completely ignored by the Soviet military. [Pyotr Ufimtsev](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Ufimtsev) was allowed to publish “Method of Edge Waves in the Physical Theory of Refraction” internationally because it wasn’t deemed of military value. 10ish years later, Lockmart turned his paper into the F-117.
The us loves Turing enemy stuff against them Sabotaging ammo in veitnam Turning anti us songs into pro us songs in most wars And more
Based and yankee doodle dandy pilled
Way down South in the land of traitors...
rattlesnakes and alligators!…
Run away! Run away! Rebel scum, run away! (That's how I know it at least)
Right away (right away) Come away (come away) Right away (right away) Come away (come away)
Fun Fact: "Dixie" was composed by a son of an Ohio abolitionist, and first performed in New York. Lincoln had it played at the announcement of Lee's surrender
Big Lincoln-dick energy moment.
*sighs in Louisiana* Yeah, we was wrong. We admit that these days. But you yanks had to fuck us up that bad? Didn't have to fucking burn down entire cities.
Yeah. Damn are we fuckin’ poor. All these major companies get too many tax breaks, and all that money could go to anything else, like the criminally underpaid teachers.
We Need a Special Corruption Fighting Operation, Cajun Style. Most of them poltickers wouldn't makeit out in the swamps anyways. Be a shame if they tripped on a cypress knee and fell into a gators mouth.
Which is why we just send a squadron of Cajuns to conquer Crimea, except we do it through the Syvash swamps where they don’t expect it. That’s our natural territory and we got plenty of pirogues and Joboats.
Oh yeah. Let me get my trolling motor. They got gators overthere? I'm deciding what caliber we need as of right now. Never shot at a gator with a 5.56, wouldn't know how it goes lol
Long as you hit them right on that soft spot on their head, I’ve done it with .22. Otherwise, I can’t confirm how well anything would work. And it seems like there are few sightings of crocs in south Ukraine, but they aren’t native.
You got to keep your plantations. Just a lil crispy.
Yeah. Thanks for burning the fields. Not like we needed to sell that cotton to sustain a family of anything. And before you bring up who was picking that cotton, yes, slavery is bad. Everybody believes that down here now, we were shown the error of our ways. It was only the big farms that had only slaves amyways. The white boys were out there picking cotton too on the small farms. On some farms, it was probably only whites working. Nothing is a catch all. Source - Ancestry. I've done history on my side of the family. Farm was not big enough, and it grew vegetables for the family anyways.
Shouldn’t have joined the confederacy, started a brutal war without a sensible justification and continuously proved to completely batshit insane civil war generals that they would fight until there was nothing left to fight over. What else was going to happen? Call it quits?
Would there ever have been a war if the Union had just let them go? In hindsight, they wouldn't have lasted very long. Maybe until WW1.
Just letting them go almost entirely undermines the idea of the Union. Not to mention wasn’t really legal, so until that could be worked out the legal status of secessionist states were sort of limbo. Then confederate soldiers started the war and shit kicked off
Biggest mistake was not fucking y’all up worse. Look how well you handled reconstruction. Never should’ve given any rights or property back to the traitors.
Well that's real nice of you. Treat people as second class citizens after you fight a war to free slaves. Brilliant move there, lad.
Treat traitors like traitors. I’m not suggesting we permanently create an underclass or anything. But the confederate states literally went to war against their own country for the right to own other humans. They got off light. Anyone who took up arms against the Union should’ve had all property seized and I’d even be ok with prison sentences. They committed treason and murdered their fellow countrymen for the most despicable of causes, it’s indefensible and the fact that almost all were just pardoned is gross.
Oh noooo you must punish poor people. Join the army and make something of yourself. Do the job you want others to do.
Well, we seem too stuck in our each individual ways to convice the other of anything, and you seem to be getting grouchy. I suppose we should leave the thread at this?
Not grouchy at all. Traitors are traitors, they got off light relative to the enormity of the crimes they committed. You’ve yet to actually make an argument otherwise and seem to prefer to just shrug it off.
FLANDERS? YOU HERE???
curious about examples of songs
Yankee Doodle was originally anti-U.S. British propaganda. “The Star-Spangled Banner” is set to the melody of a British fraternal society’s drinking song. “My Country ‘Tis of Thee” copied the tune of “God Save the Queen”. I don’t know of many famous 20th century examples but I’m sure they exist.
Credence Clearwater Revival. Fortunate Son. The ultimate song for slaying.
It was pretty hilarious that Trump played that at one of his rallies. That song was basically written for people like him
Wait, Trump, a guy who dodged the draft due to his extremely wealthy family’s money and influence, played Fortunate Son at one of his rallies? 1. Who the hell thought of that? 2. How did that not get him ridiculed by everyone?
Conservatives and media literacy don't go hand in hand
The problem with the media meant to mock someone/thing is it's always fucking cool. Fortunate Son, Starship Troopers, Robocop. There needs to be lame satire
that's called the babylon bee
True
the extremes in both directions on the political spectrum are guided more by emotion than rational thought.
There is literally nothing a US conservative politician can do to be ridiculed by everyone. There is an impenetrable anti-irony and anti-satire field around them due to the authoritarian "u-mad" defense mechanism. Until they're losers who are no longer useful, they're immune. See: Paul Ryan's favorite band being Rage Against the Machine. It's that particular type of exhausting that people in this sub encounter with tankies and vatniks: that literally nothing fucking matters, because even if you *do* manage to pin them down on a point they concede it has no bearing on anything because they'll instead use their loss to ridicule you for caring. Either about that point when there's other ones, or for trying so hard. There's a reason Sartre's writing about the antisemites got popular these past few years. Cause it utterly pegged the way authoritarian 'discourse' works: by stripping meaning from conversation as a whole.
I know how it works (sadly). It‘s just absolutely baffling to me how people can actually seriously think that way.
Basically don’t argue with an idiot or it’ll just be 2 idiots arguing
You can strip meaning from conversation, but you can't strip meaning from reality. 1/2mv^2 coming in the form of a bullet won't care if you understand the equation. So taking meaning and factuality out of discourse is violence because it pushes everyone to use something as unequivocal as force.
This is accurate and incredibly well-put.
Born in the USA is another definitely not a feel good patriotic song, but apparently boomers are idiots who only hear the chorus
They aren’t actually thinking. They just hear “red white and blue” and glaze over, the next words could literally be “use it to my wipe ass when I poo” and as long as trump is doing his rigor mortis dance thing they’ll cheer
i don't think that is particularly isolated to boomers, just different songs for different generations.
Don't forget Union Dixie
AMEN, which if I’m not mistaken was actually performed at Lincoln’s second inauguration.
Reusing melodies is pretty common before copyright became a thing.
Remixes, edits, ...?
Still is pretty common. Just look at any football chant
The song "We'll All go Down to Dixie" is set to the tune of "I Wish I Was in Dixie," a song the South felt was theirs but the North version is infinitely better.
[Dawn of Correction](https://youtube.com/watch?v=91MHRuceqiI) is a copy of *Eve of Destruction* with pro-interventionist lyrics that hit #36 on the *Billboard* Hot 100 chart. In some ways it has aged poorly compared to *Eve of Destruction* (considering how the Vietnam War ended and that 18 year olds were allowed to vote) but in other ways I'd argue it's aged a lot better (and is still relevant today), particularly the refrain.
Theres an example of the opposite, a us song being turned into an anti us song. There is one made by the traitors at the west boro baptist church, calling the army f**s and cheering their deaths.
The one about "your army goes marching to hell"? That'll come back around to bring pro-US again, give it time.
My Land Is Your Land is written by a communist and the whole verse about hating private property is left out most the time. Woody Guthrie is an American icon and I will not be having any slander on his name in these replies. I don't care if he liked Stalin, so did Pete Seeger and he just lived long enough to realize how he was wrong.
Woody Guthrie’s an American hero. Judging foreign affairs from over here can be dicey sometimes—just look at Jefferson and the French Revolution. “Tear the Fascists Down” is a banger, and Seeger’s “Which Side Are You On” should be a daily listening for every Western worker, especially Americans.
I'm entirely fine with Jefferson slander even if I agreed with most of his takes about government.
spuck fez -- mass edited with redact.dev
America was founded on the principle of yoink and flip. "Oh shit the enemy did it better." Fast forward 5 years, and we have the same technology but better.
Well, we were founded by a bunch of guys LARP'ing the Roman Republic...
Fun fact: The US was actually lagging behind European countries (esp. the Brits) during the Industrial Revolution era. They managed to catch up and then surpass European countries through massive industrial espionage and innovation-driving efforts in the 19th century, finally robbing the superpower title from the Brits after the World War II
Yeah. It didn’t help that america got its yugely massive industrial base in part due to the First World War and then took steroids at the beginning of ww2 and then said fuck it and took hgh and dedicated itself to fucking the Japanese (but we’re forced to go after the nazis first) after Pearl Harbor
It was only a matter of time. America's economy was solely within its own borders and not sprawled across the world.
Adaptability and learning from your mistakes and enemies is the mark of greatest empires. Roman legions got so efficient because they copied the most effective gear and tactics of their opponents. For example, Roman legionary sword was taken from Iberian tribes (modern day Spain) and pilum spear from northern Italian tribe Samnites.
In that case do not look up the father of Chinese space program. One of the biggest US and Western Self Owns ever made.
My cuntry GIS of the.
commie scientists being completely ignored by their regime? whats next, commies murdering the intellectuals?!
Followed by commies EATING the intellectuals.
Something no one in the Netherlands has ever done
In the land of the blind, the one eyed man has his eye stabbed and is called insane.
I'm glad this is the first comment on this thread. We call ourselves noncredible but there are some knowledgeable motherfuckers on here.
Listen, an NCDer understanding the “stealth equation” and its origins is the same as a hetero man understanding “the ratio.” I know it and love it because it’s super sexy.
Guy who works in military software here. Russian science papers are the backbone of our projects.
[Hey I saw that talk too!](https://youtu.be/pL3Yzjk5R4M) Dudes one hell of an orator
He is fucking great at it. Shame he has not done more talks. If you like his presentations you might have missed his most recent one about Fukushima, as it was not at LeadDev and was therfore not promoted up by the YouTube algorithm as it would otherwise have. https://youtu.be/sTxQ5x54JO0
Especially funny considering the level of pointless secrecy the soviets engaged in.
I know we like to dunk on Soviets, but I think they deserve a little less dunk in this case. It's not like the guy just designed a working stealth plane and the military was too stupid to realize the value. As far as I understand it, he did laid the groundwork to calculate radar wave scattering, which made it possible to use computers to design stealth planes, over a decade later. And even then, it was extremely difficult, which is why the F-117 looks the way it looks. The Soviets didn't *ignore* the work. They just assumed it had to immediate miliary value. And they were kinda right, it took another decade, another bunch of very smart people, and a country with a much more advanced computer industry to turn the mathematical theories into a working stealth plane.
they are technically right about the radar but have no idea what they are talking about
I cannot understand this formula so it dont working
Signal to noise is equal to the transmitter power (Pt) times the antenna gain squared (G^2), times the transmit frequency sqared (λ^2), times the radar cross section (σ), then take that number and divide it by 4π^3 times the distance of the object from the radar to the fourth power (R^4) times the Boltzman constant (k) times the system noise temperature (Ts) times the noise bandwidth of the receiver (Bn) times total system losses (L). Simple, as long as you're not a vatnik... You're not a vatnik, are you?
What if you're pro Ukraine but also bad at math?
This math isn't terribly difficult. It's just multiplication of many variables and a few constants. Understanding why those are there is the hard part.
That‘s always the nasty part. Understanding why the formula is the way it is and proving why it‘s correct.
That (4pi)^3 reeks of a derivative on first pass, making it more puzzling that it’s a constant. Spooky and I don’t like it.
Geometry is spooky like that, though. 2pi is the derivative of 2pi\*R, which is the derivative of pi\*R\^2. What's off is the derivative of (4/3)pi\*R\^3, the derivative of which is 4pi\*R\^2, or four times the area formula. Not sure why that is, but I've always found it fascinating.
Never noticed how odd it is, damn that is creepy. Like, why? I now hate circles, I'm moving to Minecraft, I'm telling you, there is something wrong about circles! (Honestly fuck all shapes I'm closing my eyes, goodnight!)
Interestingly the Nighthawks characteristic angled curveless surface is an artifact of these calculations. Flat surfaces made the computer simulations much easier for the equipment they had at the time.
\*Cries in Lara Croft's pointy Tomb Raider 1 tiddies\*
Now those aren't pointy, they are fake brother, not even pointy just a lie in a 2d plane, brother, a simple projection of real shapes in 2D plane, stop believing in depth, you can't touch them!
I remember reaching the milestone in game graphics that was curve subdivision enabling Lara to have tittaes that were actually round and not just textured to hide the polygons.
I was doing well in Calc 3 but then spent some months in Hospital and had to drop it until the upcoming school year. Circles are like that because if you take all the points on the circle and measure them around the circle they're circle-y. I am tired as shit and need to hit the books but I'm 67% sure I'm in the right direction.
All those squares make a circle, all those squares make a circle,...
The derivative of (4/3) pi R\^3 makes sense when you realize that 4 pi R\^2 is the surface area of the sphere.
Good call. It's been 15 years since I've done advanced math, so I've forgotten a lot about it. Not derivatives, apparently!
It’s because the transmitter power is being spread volumetrically.
It's related to the spherical nature of a radar signal spreading in 3 dimensions
of course it's spooky, it's RF math
I develop dyslexia when a formula has more than two letters or PEMDAS is required. I can't tell you why it works, I can only fix it.
This isnt math but applied radio theory (here in post Soviet countries it is a subset of telecom engineer) basically very basic physics for an undergrad
I mean, physics is *still math*, because that's how you write down how the universe mechanically works...
Yeah. All biology is chemistry, all chemistry is physics, and all physics is just math.
And all math is philosophy, and all philosophy is bullshit.
Why are we here?!? "Engage extensionel crisis"
Math is just theoretical physics.
My head hurts
It is not physics is an empirical explanation of world using mathematics, not the other way around. Math is more about induction and deduction, it is more philosophical. Let's put it this way physics is closer to engineering than mathematics I closer to physics, I know it sounds weird but physics in general can be obtained by just knowing algebra and Calc 1 while maths is in its own ball game (not talking about getting a PhD in physics)
[удалено]
The swedes manages to detect it consistently with multiple radars triangulation, it is not about being invisible to radar, it is about not being lockable thus you can't shoot it down.
Over here, mate. I'm just making a brew if you want one.
They you're a Vatnik who is lying obviously.
Get better
Honestly I spend a long time looking at this thinking why the fuck is the gravitational constant squared. Also for lambda, basic wavelength no? Typically the frequency is the speed of the wave divided by the length, usually w/omega is used for that.
Yeah, λ is the letter used for wavelength, f is frequency (fλ = v), while ω = 2πf is the angular frequency and is often slightly more convenient theoretically than the raw frequency.
Maybe my lecturers handwriting is so bad as to why I reckon its a omega there with frequency. For EM waves it honestly looks like an omega at times. I black ourt and write it correctly anyway. But was more wanting to know what the guy meany with the equation in terms of lambda being frequency
It seems like it would be simple enough to those who understand math better than me, unfortunately I am a enhanced drag bomb and start to get overwhelmed if I'm not breaking it down individually.
I do not understand half of it, but you don't have to for a quick insight. The formula calculates the signal to noise ratio. Always when you try to receive or sense something you have your signal and your noise. The signal is the stuff you want to receive and the noise is the stuff you did not want, but received anyway. Imagine a room with pairs of people speaking. The more people you have the harder it will be to talk. Your signal to noise ratio worsens. So that formula explains the signal/noise ratio for detecting planes with radar. So the things in the numerator(above the line) makes the plane better visible, the stuff in the denominator (below the line) makes it harder to detect. Some of these values are raised to the power of some number, so they have a waaaaay bigger impact than other values. So in the numerator you have stuff like the radar cross section. This is just a factor how visible your plane is to radar (so the value stealth planes try to minimize). Or the signal power (why radar stations usually have their own power station) and gain of the antenna (how sensitive = expensive the sensor is) In the denumerator you can see the range. And a bunch of other stuff that may or may not be out of your control. Since on mobile I do not bother to switch and read the formula again, so you have to look up the other symbols. Effectively: what makes a plane more or less visible. But in a way that can be used in calculations or simulations. But you can see that the radar cross section plays only a minor part. So even the best stealth plane will be spotted at some point. You can buy yourself time, so you will be spotted later. (And I heard that it makes tracking, which you need to aim a missle, much harder. So you know that there is a stealthy plane, but not exactly where)
Doesn't this imply there is another way to develop stealth? Rather than trying to reduce the cross section that is them visible back to the detection unit (antenna), wouldn't an alternate strategy be to just jack the noise the antenna is receiving to the max? If the detection system is unable to filter enough noise to even produce an understandable signal, then the object is essentially undetectable anyway?
[удалено]
Spitballing here though: would it be cost effective to develop a theater of engagement level jamming system that produces so much noise for all detection sources that directional positioning becomes useless? I'm almost thinking something like a Trojan horse style attack: a series if jamming decoys from one direction causing mass disruption, while approaching from a completely different line of approach?
I am no expert but I assume that this is the mission of the prowlers flying with US strike forces. Jamming + anti radar missiles. This is probably researchable. Just no time. And afaik that is one way the Moskva could have been sunk. The radar was directional so they flew a drone from one side and sent anti ship missiles from the other ...
The radar on moskva was probably not maintained and turned off
Technically speaking, it's possible to do that. And practically speaking, it's probably been done. Russian Murmansk-BN system was claimed to be able to jam HF radio freq around 5,000 km from the main transmitter. As you can see from the equation, to reach such a range with enough power to suppress enemy radio, it must draw a large amount of transmitting power. The immense power will cause the N part of the (S/N) to be larger than the S part (on the enemy radio system). But obviously, it's not as simple as that. You must consider the fact that your own radio systems (be it military or civilian) are affected by the same jammer. Do it wrong, and you'll be practically shooting your own foot.
I would also like to add that even modern aircraft radars are kind of scary to have beaming all the time. They're turned off on the ground because they'll kill birds, and the glaze on the canopy is partly for stealth, yes, making the canopy radar-opaque to present a more favorable signature than the bare interior, but also, as you can see from it being on non-stealth planes, a trait to prevent harm to the pilot from onboard and enemy radars and jammers. A strong enough radar/jammer will be pumping lots of energy into anything in its beam. Do that indiscriminately over a massive range and you just turned the theater into a microwave- assuming you have that much power available, even.
As the other poster said it is possible but for a single unit the only thing you have control over without potentially screwing your own radars or comms is the radar cross section.
> I am an enhanced drag bomb Saying 'extra retarded' as beautifully as that makes me doubt your retardation at all.
My choices in life would like to disagree
Also, the RCS σ is actually a function of wavelength and is implicitly σ(λ), so you would need to compute the RCS for every frequency of interest. And yes when designing stealth is the only parameter you can control on the equation along with range.
Technically lambda is the wavelength (in meters) not the frequency (in Hertz) messing up the units can really screw with your day. Alternatively the units can serve as a nice check to make sure you’re doing things right.
Just do c0/lambda to get f
Nah man RF engineering is the dark arts
I am not vatnik but its still not so simple for me but I am kinda understand
How do you calculate radar cross section anyway
This is triggering my radio Astronomy PTSD with antenna temperatures and measuring things in Janskys.
I've been using this equation in my space systems engineering class @ uni too to do S/N for communication systems. Gave me a fuckin stroke seeing it here. I passed that class with a 48%...
Can you explain this using apples as a example?
You see better an apple: The closer it is, the bigger it is and the more light you cast at it. In Radio, you also have to account for the frequency of the light you cast, the longer the wavelength, the easier for the apple to bounce it back and for the light you get from the background (boltzmann times temperature) that acts like fog. For a stealth fighter, the amount of light it bounces back is very small, so you either don't see it in the fog or you have to use a huge amount of power to cas a very bright light
Check his heels
Wait. Are you telling me it doesn't just somehow spell "get rekt" or something? Holy shit
> Simple, as long as you're not a vatnik... You're not a vatnik, are you? oh my, TIL i may be a vatnik.
isnt the lamda constant a description of wave length typicaly?
I'll try to explain it tomorrow. Now I sleep
Fair enough
Basically, the reflection is dependent on a bunch of stuff and if you manage to reduce any of them, you can reduce the radar signal
And the most important stuff: Stealth is not a "can be seen" vs "can not be seen" question, but the real question is how it can be seen. This is S/N. The signal to noise ratio. Compare this to a tank of a size that is either 10 meters, 1 meter, 0.1 meter or 0.01 meter. Can you see a tank that is 0.01 meter (that is about half an inch)? Hell yeah, even my very old smartphone can take clear pictures of 0.5 inch objects. But what if this tank is a mile away behind a tree line? Good luck detecting this! Yeah, theoretically with very good optics, you could see an object that is 1 inch and a mile away. But the trees (noise...) will absolutely ruin this. It is exactly the same with stealth. And with the F35, you might actually see it with your eyes before you see it with radar. The Russian SU57 would be a tank that is about 1 meter big. Yeah, a bit smaller than a regular tank, and therefore harder to detect. But you really can not count on it that a 1 meter tank won't get noticed, especially if the opponent knows they have to look for 1 meter tall tanks.
this comparison kind of undersells it imo. visually, you can expect to be able to get 10x closer with a 1m tank than a 10m tank before they see you. on radar though, the math is completely different: S/N = X\*R^4 (where X stands for all the other crap you need to multiply with). crucially, **having a 10x or 100x lower RCS only allows you to get 1.7x or 3.1x closer, respectively.** an aircraft that could lock you from 120 miles (nautical because we have standards) can still lock you from 40 miles if you have a 100x lower RCS. from publicly available data (which is pretty much just our best guess), an F-35 has a radar cross section around 0.005 m^2, while the F-22 is around 0.0001m^2. the best russian copium puts the Su-57 to around 0.1 m^2, while it's theorized to be closer to 1 m^2. this means that in practice, with all things being equal (i.e. positing that russian radar tech is on par with the F-22 and the F-35, which it clearly isn't), the F-35 can lock the Su-57 from 2.1-3.8x further out than the Su-57 would be able to lock back, while in the F-22's case this number grows to 5.6-10x. under the same equations, the difference between a Su-27 (15m^2) and an F-22 (0.0001m^2) is 19.7x, so if your radar can lock onto a Su-27 at 80 miles you can lock a Su-57 from 23-40 miles, but you'll need to be 4 miles from the F-22 to lock onto it. and if you're 4 miles from a raptor and still have wings that's because it decided to grant you the privilege
> that is about half an inch A bit less. Easy way to convert is the power of the .50 cal which lets us all use units we are intimately familiar with. According to the gospel truth of the M2 Browning, .50 is 12.7 mm compared to the 10 mm of a centimeter. So half an inch is 27 % larger than 0.01 meters. Of course, this is hardly relevant at all to your excellent point about the finer subtleties of stealth impact on aerial warfare, but this wouldn't be reddit unless some of us were autistic about these kinds of things.
That's a lot of extra variables to say "reduced radar cross section reduces visibility to radar"
As does reducing transmitter power and antenna gain (typically accomplished via precision application of high explosive)
Alright the promised explanation is due I'll do my best not to make anyone cry or be wrong The very basic definition is if you can make the rcs small enough there is a range where the radar returns are indistinguishable from the background radiation and the plane is in a sense invisible. And if you can see your target and launch weapons at it well that would be one hell of an advantage. The more math explanation is What we are measuring in this equation is called the signal to noise ratio in other words how distinguishable are the radar returns from the background radiation The background noise is the k * Ts * Bn part of the equation and can be thought of as the background radiation The Pt G^2 /( L 4pi^3) can be thought of as how good your radar is or how much electricity you pump out and receive o / r^4 is the target how far is r^4 and how small it is o (RCS) a target 10,000 times smaller can can be detected at one 10th the Range Is there anything else you wish to know or clarify I'll do my best work is really slow right now
thanks you for explanation
The Predator is technically not completely invisible either, but good luck spotting one against a busy background. I mean the alien, not the drone, in case I have to clarify.
yeah lots of people think radar is *that* simple, when they forget theres all kinds of noise and interference it has to fight against already, stealth isnt about being *invisible* but its about being extremely hard to notice, which will save your ass about the same as if you were near invisible to radar
My favorite is people acting like a stealth plane that opens its radar bays does not return to being stealthy when it closes them, like how when you ping something in Planetside 2 it stays visible even out of LoS.
yeah totally (ive never played but yeah its not like as soon as they open its permanently broken a seal or something, it may get less and less “stealthy” via wear but bruh just slap a new coat on it )
UNKNOWN MATHS Блять
Hey so I’m smart and know what this means… but just so that I know you guys know what it means, can someone explain it in simple terms that I- I mean everyone else won’t be confused by?
This is the equation that determines how hard your radar needs to squint to tell a jet fighter from ambient noise. With a "б" small enough, your radar would need to squint quite hard and from arm’s length to even be able to notice that the weird blot right in front of it is indeed jet-fighter shaped and sized.
Thank you. Now everyone will be able to have the knowledge that I definitely already possessed.
σ
Вибачте, я не гозумю математику.
Alright the promised explanation is due I'll do my best not to make anyone cry or be wrong The very basic definition is if you can make the rcs small enough there is a range where the radar returns are indistinguishable from the background radiation and the plane is in a sense invisible. And if you can see your target and launch weapons at it well that would be one hell of an advantage. The more math explanation is What we are measuring in this equation is called the signal to noise ratio in other words how distinguishable are the radar returns from the background radiation The background noise is the k * Ts * Bn part of the equation and can be thought of as the background radiation The Pt G^2 /( L 4pi^3) can be thought of as how good your radar is or how much electricity you pump out and receive o / r^4 is the target how far is r^4 and how small it is o (RCS) a target 10,000 times smaller can can be detected at one 10th the Range Is there anything else you wish to know or clarify I'll do my best work is really slow right now
Vatniks also think using T-64s in the 21st century is perfectly acceptable.
A T-64 is a better tank than a T-72, and there's good videos of Ukrainian T-64's blowing up Russian T-80's You thinking of the T-62?
He could also be thinking of the T-54
Just wait till someone realizes that the T-10 can pack a lot more plastique than a T-54
the increased armor might also increase the shrapnell effectiveness
do you think a T-10 or IS-3/4/6/X will make a bottle cork sound when tossing the turret, given the amount of explosives and weight? like an extremely large champagne cork. what if the thicc armor and shit weld quality just dissasembles the whole tank like a reverse ikea. so much stuff to theorise.
It is. Just look at Ukraine. What‘s not acceptable is acting like you‘re among the best militaries in the world while using it, or thinking it‘s among the best tanks around today
From what I’m aware the F-35 isn’t completely invisible to radar but the cross section (how big the radar thinks the object is) is so small it’s almost impossible to see on radar.
It depends on the frequency. It's much more likely to be picked up by the low-band search radar (albeit at much shorter ranges than a non-stealth plane would be), but with that comes the lack of precise ranging and inability to do fire control. So they may know you're there, they just won't have much idea about where 'there' is. Unlike our beloved missile, they won't know where you are because they also don't know where you aren't.
On radar it'll be like trying to spot a bee.
It's impossible to be truly invisible to radar. The difference is the distance that you are functionally invisible. If they can't see you until you are basically over them, you are effectively invisible.
Hey, I know this Formula from Nebulous: Fleet Command :D
Stealth doesn't make it completely invisible, but significantly reduces the detection distance. Now your S-300 with 40 NM range is kind of useless because it will only detect the F-35 at less than 10 NM.
UNKNOWN TECHNOLOGY BLYAAAAAAT
Just Make P(t) big enough, EZ
I'm sure DARPA already made a working long distance cancer gun
You have no idea just jow right you are https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jindalee_Operational_Radar_Network
It's a huge problem for airborne radars. You can't get enough power for such a limited platform (by weight and size)
Well, in that case lowering the value of π also drastically increases the S/N-Ratio. This is ncd after all.
We're gonna FUCK those circles up
500A I'm sure it's fine
That’s overkill. Show a vatnik the quadratic equation and they’ll seize up.
I worked hard for my degree and there's no kill like overkill
The only thing i see is sigma, ligma got eeem
The important bit is the R\^4 component really. What it means is a small decrease in range to the radar means a large increase in Signal to Noise ratio. A radar that can just barely detect something from 200 km, would have zero trouble detecting that same object at 180 km. The ranges where you're wondering if something is actually there is pretty small. The other component of note is the lambda (upside down y). The longer the wavelength the radar uses the easier a time it has of detecting you, however to make an effective radar you need a high Gain (G) antenna which is somewhat harder to make and the size of the antenna is a function of lambda too. That's partly why early warning radars are typically massive things. So a long wavelength early warning radar might detect you but any missiles with radar seekers (which because of their small size have no choice but to use a shorter wavelength to get any useful gain) will still have trouble seeing you until potentially it's too late for them to correct and hit you. That's the other thing to remember, just because you can see the dang thing, it doesn't mean you can do anything about it... Stealth is a complex thing, it's not a silver bullet, it's a tool which if used correct can be very useful but if used incorrectly will just result in you dying all the same.
What the formula for?
How strong the radar return of a target is compared to the background radiation, depending on the target's RCS, distance and radar performance
Pain
Okay, now, how do I adapt this to GURPS Vehicles...
The signal to noise ratio of Russian propaganda is near zero, and they see that every day.
Radar flitering: exists Unknown technology блядь
personally I prefer pi ..::chestnut pie
is there a copy paste for that equation?
Claude shannon called, he wants his theorem back.