Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Is the UAE Funding the Su-75 Checkmate fighter Jet - What Game is This?" video.

@getsideways7257 So you're saying it works.
2
@getsideways7257 Then it works. Of course it's not a magic bullet, nothing is. But it works.
2
@getsideways7257 "there is no point in bending over backwards just to try and make the airframe less reflective" - And yet reality proves them wrong. The F-117 had a great service record with only one shot down and one damaged. And the tactics used to get at them required extreme levels of planning, NATO carelessness and shooting at near point blank to get radar returns. It was worth it. Anyone saying it isn't is coping.
2
They have the domestic J-20 and FC-31, why would they need it?
2
@getsideways7257 No, it doesn't just mean that. It also involves reduction of IR spectrum emissions, for example. No, it was not known since WWII. The way to reduce RCS through shaping was only discovered after a Russian scientist developed the mathematical model to estimate radar returns.
1
@getsideways7257 The Horten was not stealth. This was a claim made post-WWII. Just looking at the engine placement shows that stealth was not a consideration.
1
@getsideways7257 Have you seen FLIR footage of anything that isn't stealth? It creates a huge blob on the screen that's visible from as far as 60 miles away. ""Stealth" wasn't very successful in Horten 229" - Because they were not trying. "the Germans would have perfected it most likely" - This is just a myth. The Horten brothers designed flying wings. That's what they did. The shape of the aircraft was retroactively called stealth after the war but the claims are absolutely dubious. It was a high speed aircraft meant to deliver bombs. Stealth was never a consideration so it could have not been perfected. Especially since they did not have the equations for it. "I don't remember F-117 fighting Russians though?" - Nobody said they did. That's why you don't remember it. But Iraq and Serbia had Soviet-designed defenses that the F-117 penetrated.
1
@getsideways7257 "There is some IR signature reduction, but not nearly as much as to warrant the "stealth" moniker" - That's because you don't understand what stealth means. If FLIR footage shows airliners from 60 miles away, but the F-22 requires to be within 30 miles , that's stealth. "there is no need for a name in the first place" - Sure. But stealth is shorter than "very low observable". "the thing had a noticeably smaller RCS than a typical fighter plane of the time" - Because the wings blend into the fuselage rather than creating a corner reflector, there's no tail, and the engines are recessed into the wing instead of having their own fairings and propellers sticking out. This is all due to how flying wings are designed. "And you'd call that "combat-proven"?" - They've been in combat. One has been shot down. That's combat. "The Russians that basically donated the formulas you mentioned above" - It wasn't a donation, it was published like academic research often is. "moderately reduced signature ones now" - This is a coping mechanism.
1
@getsideways7257 This is delusion. Academic studies are published and accessed by other academics. It's not the US's fault the Russians foolishly thought that RCS calculations had no military purpose.
1
@getsideways7257 I have no time to wrangle your ridiculous strawmen. If you have to lie about what others said that already proves my point. I'm also not from the US. Come back when you have actual arguments.
1
@getsideways7257 You're conflating copying, stealing and just using publicly available academic research.
1
@getsideways7257 I think you're confusing me for someone else. I've never said anything about those subjects and you need to ask the person you think you're talking to, not me. The Ho 229 could be detected at 80% of the range a Bf-109 could, according to the estimates with the mockup that was built for that documentary. Not very stealthy. Who said anything about forbidding anything? Again, you're confusing me for someone else. If there's no stealing then why did you send me replies accusing people of stealing? What does the wiretapping have anything to do with anything? I'm not American. Why are you asking me? Americans don't have privacy. PATRIOT Act. Very relevant to today's date.
1
@getsideways7257 It's not convenience. A 40% RCS is meaningless when it can be detected at almost the same range. The radar band is meaningless. Half? 80%.
1
The thrust vectoring is a way to trim an aircraft without having to use deflection of control surfaces, which increases RCS. Will it work? Time will tell.
1