DCS F-35A

Nice! I definitely like the A and B version better than the C, I don't care for the look of the larger wings on the C version.

You're welcome, it does look pretty menacing there though :thumbup: I agree mind, the sleeker look fits it well.

In reality, low RCS is low RCS for all frequencies. There are plenty of S and L band radars out there ... they don't magically manage to see aircraft at 10x the range of an X-band radar.

Thanks for the clarification. I really don't know the differences between the different bands myself. All I was going off was that diagram which I kind of figured was inaccurate.

Edit: Question that's back on topic with the original intent of this thread. If the kickstarter doesn't make it will the people that pledged $50 or more still be part of OPEVAL?

I believe the diagram comes from Kopp's site. Like Sobek pointed out, my statement was misleading.

More accurately, once you reach a certain wavelength (btw, you can look up radio bands on wikipedia :) which is twice the length of the object, it sets up a half-wave resonance which causes a strong radio reflection. Chaff uses this principle.

However, radars with such long wavelengths require huge antennae to get any reasonable accuracy, and these are the typical ground-stations with the huge fence-like antennae that you may have seen in photos.

Some claim that the L-band (up to about 30cm wavelength) is long enough to cause resonance along some of the F-35's edges. Unfortunately, a) the proof is in the pudding which we do not get to see, let alone eat, b) it isn't very effective for guiding weapons (ok, so you know he's there. You have a pistol and he has a sniper rifle, and you're out of range), and c) if stealth is a huge waste of money/thing of the past/defeated by old low-frequency radars/magical new passive anti-stealth radars, why are other countries investing in lower RCS and stealth solutions?

Thanks for the clarification. I really don't know the differences between the different bands myself. All I was going off was that diagram which I kind of figured was inaccurate.

Question for the guys that are around these for real. Is that data cable from the picture above the only cable that is required for HMCS?

Edit : now that I look at it I'm guessing that is for the comms since it appears to go into the mask. I'd imagine the actual data cable to be a bit beefier

That SAR picture looks a little odd... shadows in a SAR picture?

That SAR picture looks a little odd... shadows in a SAR picture?

It's Correct.

It's Correct.

Damn!

Well, the radar is basically a "flash light", but didn't know the radar would make such clear pictures with shadows, or should i say "shadows"?

Are those shadows due to the radar not seeing properly behind different stuff in the area it's making a SAR picture of?

Damn!

 

Well, the radar is basically a "flash light", but didn't know the radar would make such clear pictures with shadows, or should i say "shadows"?

 

Are those shadows due to the radar not seeing properly behind different stuff in the area it's making a SAR picture of?

Shadows in SAR imagery occur because objects in the scene block the RADAR energy from reaching other portions of the scene. The lack of energy illuminating these shadowed portions of the scene cause them to appear black. :thumbup:

I believe the diagram comes from Kopp's site. Like Sobek pointed out, my statement was misleading.

 

More accurately, once you reach a certain wavelength (btw, you can look up radio bands on wikipedia :) which is twice the length of the object, it sets up a half-wave resonance which causes a strong radio reflection. Chaff uses this principle.

 

However, radars with such long wavelengths require huge antennae to get any reasonable accuracy, and these are the typical ground-stations with the huge fence-like antennae that you may have seen in photos.

 

Some claim that the L-band (up to about 30cm wavelength) is long enough to cause resonance along some of the F-35's edges. Unfortunately, a) the proof is in the pudding which we do not get to see, let alone eat, b) it isn't very effective for guiding weapons (ok, so you know he's there. You have a pistol and he has a sniper rifle, and you're out of range), and c) if stealth is a huge waste of money/thing of the past/defeated by old low-frequency radars/magical new passive anti-stealth radars, why are other countries investing in lower RCS and stealth solutions?

Ah okay. Thanks again. But something that bothers me about those claims is that the engineers couldn't have forgotten about those radio bands when designing the F-35. I mean, the whole point of stealth is to hide from radars isn't it? :huh:

Damn!

 

Well, the radar is basically a "flash light", but didn't know the radar would make such clear pictures with shadows, or should i say "shadows"?

 

Are those shadows due to the radar not seeing properly behind different stuff in the area it's making a SAR picture of?

Maybe this will help...

Maybe this will help...

 

But if you're the emmiter, then you have no way of seeing the shadow, because your view is blocked by the object causing the shadow.

If you can see the shadow that means, there is a clear view between you and the shadowed surface, so there no reason why EM waves emmited by you shouldn't reach that surface.

But if you're the emmiter, then you have no way of seeing the shadow, because your view is blocked by the object causing the shadow.

If you can see the shadow that means, there is a clear view between you and the shadowed surface, so there no reason why EM waves emmited by you shouldn't reach that surface.

I think the SAR image is a 3d esqe image. So it may generate then create a top down view. Just guessing though.

If you can see the shadow that means, there is a clear view between you and the shadowed surface, so there no reason why EM waves emmited by you shouldn't reach that surface.

No, the whole point of SAR is that you perform a coordinate transformation, which leaves the undefined spaces blank. You basically transform your viewpoint from your actual viewpoint to a "synthetic" viewpoint that is straight above the target. During the transformation, areas move into your view that no return intensity is mapped to. Those need to be left blank.

SAR imagey is not always taken straight down but more so at a slant angle...

Then it makes sense, thanks for the clarification :)

edit: Makes even more sense after reading this http://www.geo.uzh.ch/~fpaul/sar_theory.html :)

SAR Detects Lighting differences too, so a Low Angle Light source... like I dunno, the SUN or the MOON, can make shadows appear on the SAR image.

SAR Detects Lighting differences too, so a Low Angle Light source... like I dunno, the SUN or the MOON, can make shadows appear on the SAR image.

How does a radar detect light?

SAR Detects Lighting differences too, so a Low Angle Light source... like I dunno, the SUN or the MOON, can make shadows appear on the SAR image.

You sure about that...

Because no....

Are you thinking of LIDAR?

SAR Detects Lighting differences too

I think you are mixing some stuff up here. Radar sensors are not affected by the visual spectrum.

I just wanted to see how quick I'd be corrected.... Response time 2 Minutes.... Slippin Guys... Slippin..

Not even half way and there's 3 days to go. Oh dear.

Hm. Not surprised.

Explanation:

Case 1.

Dev: Hey, look what we've got. It cost only X$

Some Dude: Wow! Nice, i'll take two - one for a friend.

This is how things go normally in civilized world

Case 2.

Dev: Hey, look what we've already achieved. Pay us us some money, so we can finish it, and you'll get it once it's done.

Some Dude: Meh, again... wait, it's actually cool. There's a chance. Ok, got some spare bucks, here you go.

There are some good examples: Kerbal Space Program (my favourite). Star Citizen (risky thing, but very, VERY good marketing - results: few million bucks)

Case 3.

Dev: Heeeey! We've got nothing, even a basic model working in DCSW environment, just some shots from 3d studio. You want h-f DCS: UFO, dude, no problemo! Give us money, then we gonna create it, eh?

Some Dude: lolz

Just hit 40%/$30,000 with 72 hours to go. Not looking good...

It's dead. Unless something dramatic happens in the next 72 hours, it won't go. Too bad, I supported it and was looking forward to it.

It's dead. Unless something dramatic happens in the next 72 hours, it won't go. Too bad, I supported it and was looking forward to it.

According to KI that won't be the end of it, it just means they'll have a harder time funding it, not that they won't do it at all.