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.
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 TH-cam creator. Keep up the good work.
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.)
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!
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
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!!
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
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?
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
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.
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....
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
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.
🇨🇵. 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 ."
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.
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.
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 ...
@@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.
@@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.
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!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
@@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.
@@jannegrey 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.
@@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.
@@jannegrey 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 TH-cam made by university professors will give you a good insight on stealth technology.
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?
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
i have a question, since stealth work more in reducing the radar effectiveness rather than pure invisibiity by the opponent, why wouldnt a country per say china build more radar and cramp them together at coastlines per say to combat such weapon system? is it a cost thing or i just lack some key knowledge thatmilitaries worldwide seems to get hence why the push for the technology?
Even in that case a stealth aircraft would still be able to get closer then non stealth aircraft before the SAM system is able to attain a lock which means the stealth aircraft can launch anti radiation missiles
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.
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.
@@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.
Would love to know ur background in this. I've enjoyed all ur content but would like to know more about u. Can u do an episode explaining why u know what u know?
Millennium 7 * HistoryTech u didn't answer my question but maybe u can't...secret squirrel...😂, look me up in Australia if u can ever make it here we'll have a drink or 20.....
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.
I'm not an authority but it's probably because the jet fan moves at MANY times the number of revolutions than a propeller and has MANY more blades and the complexity would be insurmountable if not undesirable
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.)
Excellent information, what would be real world too is a examination of the F-35 and the specific compramises made in it's design in the interests of stealth. Maybe one engine instead of two, fuel capacity and use, aerodynamic performance, weapon numbers and type and so on. It always seems that we are told the advantages of stealth but never it's cost both in building and running and battlefield suitability and performance, like reduced range and a potential greater crash rate due to only one engine.
The one vs two engine safety thing may have been more true for older generations, but modern jet engines are so reliable it’s barley (if it all) a consideration
@@Aaron-wq3jz that’s definitely not true, early jet engines were very temperamental and were far more prone to failure than modern ones, with each new generation of aircraft cams more and more reliable engines until the ones we have today
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...
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!
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.
I should really thank Greg
Forget that 7%. 93% of us like it. That opening is one of the things that hooked me.
Agreed
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 TH-cam creator. Keep up the good work.
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.)
On point as usual. Thank you!
Thank you !
One really doesn't find such insights anywhere else on YT. Another great video!
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!
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
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!!
Way too kind!
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
Found this channel only recently, but I’ve been binging all of these videos. Keep up the great content! :)
This is so good. More equations/ worked examples would be awesome! May be how frequency switching/ jamming works next?
Ooh yes im also wating for a jamming and ECM episode
Canopy in F35 is mounted backwards because B (VTOL) version has fan behind the cockpit so they had to install hinge in front
I really appreciate your channel, you deserve far more subs
Very interesting stop. Never really thought about radar bouncing back out getting tanks.
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?
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
I like the editing much better in these videos than the old ones.
Why do you only have 33k subscribers?
This is one of the best military channels on TH-cam!
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.
Support me on Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/millenn...
Support me on Patreon www.patreon.com/Millennium7
Man. That beginning was awesome! Good video!
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....
The attention to detail is what makes this channel worthwhile. Thank you for sharing.
Love this series!!
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.
Another great video. Thank you.
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
Very interesting, showing the limit of technology in real world. It would be nice to add subtitles btw
Excellent video. Would especially like to hear more about how the radome is (presumably) optimised for outgoing waves while mitigating incoming waves.
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.
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.
introduzione abbreviata: APPROVED!
🇨🇵. 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 ."
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.
Yours is an underrated channel. I appreciate your work!
I can feel my neurons waking up with your videos. Excellent work... as always.
I felt improved audio. Nice!
You have neurons? What do you feed them? 😁
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.
Stealth planes look so cool, the SU-57 is one of the best planes I've seen.
Thank you for a massive educational effort.I learnt a lot. Thanks again.
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.😉🤪
But if you haven't been paying attention the most likely potential enemies have a tendency to shoot down passenger jets...
@@jonnekallu1627
Iran would likely be china friendly
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 ...
@@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.
@@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.
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!!
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.
I just found your channel and wish I had found it earlier. You do an amazing job with the narration.
The thumbnail game is really on top in recent videos🔥
Super interesting! Would love to get some in-depth info on the radio / radar lobe emissions
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.
We have glass cockpits that are similar to what your talking about
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.
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.
@@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.
I've seen the movie, I know everything we need to know! (great video as always!)
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!
Great video!
Thanks for the info.
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.
this channel is fantastic, Greetings
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!
@Millennium7: can you do an episode on the 1987 MBB Lampyridae German Stealth Fighter?
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?
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.
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!
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.
@@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.
@@jannegrey
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.
@@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.
@@jannegrey
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 TH-cam made by university professors will give you a good insight on stealth technology.
That was very informative, thank you! :-)
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?
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.
Great stuff!
Wow great channel, robot gig is good too
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
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
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.
Algorithms bless this man
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
Sorry about that, English is not my first language, unfortunately.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech Could u include subtitles I know I am asking too much but sometimes auto generated subtitles aren't that accurate
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.
This was as alwayes an excellent program.
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.
what a shame , you have been around for 3 years and I only discovered your channel today !
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).
PROBABLY continuity, it is just a meter or 2 max and the abrupt change of section would probably be worse.
i have a question, since stealth work more in reducing the radar effectiveness rather than pure invisibiity by the opponent, why wouldnt a country per say china build more radar and cramp them together at coastlines per say to combat such weapon system? is it a cost thing or i just lack some key knowledge thatmilitaries worldwide seems to get hence why the push for the technology?
Even in that case a stealth aircraft would still be able to get closer then non stealth aircraft before the SAM system is able to attain a lock which means the stealth aircraft can launch anti radiation missiles
@@jameson1239 so yours saying, its about the aircraft getting close as possible to destroy the radar or jam it?
@@evanmedi6144 destroy
What happens if you release a continuous flow of plasma over the canopy?
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.
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.
@@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.
Would love to know ur background in this. I've enjoyed all ur content but would like to know more about u. Can u do an episode explaining why u know what u know?
th-cam.com/video/ETFXs9yO7gE/w-d-xo.html
Millennium 7 * HistoryTech u didn't answer my question but maybe u can't...secret squirrel...😂, look me up in Australia if u can ever make it here we'll have a drink or 20.....
Could you compare how F-22 and Su-57 diferent aproach in engines in relation with stealth, please?
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.
Question, on propeller driven aircraft there is the constant speed variable pitch props. Why do not turbofan engines have a variable pitch fan blades?
I'm not an authority but it's probably because the jet fan moves at MANY times the number of revolutions than a propeller and has MANY more blades and the complexity would be insurmountable if not undesirable
th-cam.com/video/Lc8Ssi3K4SY/w-d-xo.html
I think Otis did a great job on shaped intakes. 👍🙂
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
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.)
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
Excellent information, what would be real world too is a examination of the F-35 and the specific compramises made in it's design in the interests of stealth. Maybe one engine instead of two, fuel capacity and use, aerodynamic performance, weapon numbers and type and so on. It always seems that we are told the advantages of stealth but never it's cost both in building and running and battlefield suitability and performance, like reduced range and a potential greater crash rate due to only one engine.
The one vs two engine safety thing may have been more true for older generations, but modern jet engines are so reliable it’s barley (if it all) a consideration
@@moonbear2130 even still one engine jets have been successful and reliable since the very first generations
@@Aaron-wq3jz that’s definitely not true, early jet engines were very temperamental and were far more prone to failure than modern ones, with each new generation of aircraft cams more and more reliable engines until the ones we have today
@@moonbear2130 excuse me I should have said "relatively reliable"
Good Stuff
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!
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...
Sir i did not skip the intro sir!
12:27 😳🤭😂
Fascinating!
So, When are we going to see OTIS vs M7* , fighting it out in DCS ? ;)
😆😆😆
please do a video on the ufo videos the pentagon is confirming
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!
I guess the intake blades would also cause a Doppler shift in the reflection that would be identifiable as a jet engine.
Every great man has a "Jarvis" monitoring his every word..
👍😊 Thank you !
P.S.
Please, offer Otis one free defragmentation - he deserved it this time ..😉
Where can you buy such a smart robot cleaner?
So, when Otis misbehaves what do you do with him? Make him vacuum floors?
He makes Otis calculate Pi
Hey but I thought the f 35 canopy was coated in titanium tin oxide?
Could you enable automatic cc
4:45 There isn’t a myriad of reflections. There are myriad reflections.
More please
Is it me or does the camera seem a little out of focus?
Is Otis also making robots along with lifts and escalators as advertising props or something for its customers?
Do not give him ideas...😆😜😆
I need to know all of this
As I have stated before the greatest thing about this you’re station no political BS, just facts. Thank you 👍🏿