About Tonopah Test Range

originally posted by: HomeyKXTA
a reply to: Zaphod58

If I understand what your hypothesis is on the new antenna, then that would make quite a bit of sense.
side thought: I don't know if the Vindicator project is still active, but could that technology be implemented with such an LPI?

You do realize that LPI radar and comms were developed/evaluated on rather boring commercial aircraft for test beds.

Nothing to see here...move along...move along.

Screw it.

I would bet these F117's are being used to test a form of Russian/Chinese stealth anti-radar coating against a form of ground passive-stealth detecting radar that the U.S. is working on. If they put the Rus/China coating on the most radar evading shaped aircraft ever made(F117), and they figure out how to detect it, then they can detect the structurally less-faceted enemy fighter planes that will use it against the U.S.. Why would you use an F117 for any other reason other than stealth radar evasion testing? It would also explain the new four arch structures to the north(the ones everyone is claiming are fuel/water tanks, or even "Stargates").

a reply to: EHowardHuntClub

You can watch the test flights. They aren't flying over site-4. The flights seem to be random. None of the MIT Lincoln Labs planes are doing tests. Based on observation at TTR, there is nothing to back up your hypotheses.

Now if they have a F-117 at Groom, then it is a different story. Groom has static and dynamic RCS.

a reply to: EHowardHuntClub

Not trying to be a wisenheimer here but are you sure the F117 is "the most radar evading shaped aircraft ever made"? It's my understanding that the F-117's design was rather primitive because they were limited by the computers at the time. The B-2 was designed later, with more powerful computers, resulting in a smaller RCS. In fact, a simple google search found this table (not sure how accurate it is), showing that the F-22 has a smaller RCS than the F-117 as well.

You are correct Gariac, the ground pics I saw were at Groom, but the location of those "Arches" sits up high enough to go a far distance. As far as the 117's radar signature due to it's shape, I am speculating that the Stealth Tech that RUS/PRC have come from the 117 that crashed in Bosnia and that the Serbs gave to Russia(and probably sold to China). I am also speculating under the reasoning that the only thing the 117 does well is stealth. Other wise why use it for anything else?

originally posted by: EHowardHuntClub
You are correct Gariac, the ground pics I saw were at Groom, but the location of those "Arches" sits up high enough to go a far distance. As far as the 117's radar signature due to it's shape, I am speculating that the Stealth Tech that RUS/PRC have come from the 117 that crashed in Bosnia and that the Serbs gave to Russia(and probably sold to China). I am also speculating under the reasoning that the only thing the 117 does well is stealth. Other wise why use it for anything else?

What ground pics? What arches?

The F-117 has to be the only US fighter without radar. Off the top of my head, that is the only thing special about it other than stealth.

a reply to: face23785

etd.lib.metu.edu.tr...

I found this document that attempts to compare various aircraft RCS by an odd means. Well odd meaning not the "method of moments" AKA NEC software. I can't vouch for its accuracy at the moment. I need to read a bit more of it, so I am just presenting it as something to check out.

The RCS data on the interwebs is just guess work as far as I know since the DoD isn't likely to give out such data. Furthermore you really need RCS from an angle if not angle plus azimuth. The paper I linked to in theory has RCS per angle.

a reply to: gariac

Good point on the RCS tables being guesswork.

I just don't see the point of using the 117 as a test bed for anything at this point. There's no way to know for sure if anything they test on it will transfer over to our newer aircraft, so why not just station a few F-22s down there as test beds? I think that would also be simpler and cheaper from a logistics/supply standpoint as well. What's the advantage to testing on the retired 117?

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: gariac

Good point on the RCS tables being guesswork.

I just don't see the point of using the 117 as a test bed for anything at this point. There's no way to know for sure if anything they test on it will transfer over to our newer aircraft, so why not just station a few F-22s down there as test beds? I think that would also be simpler and cheaper from a logistics/supply standpoint as well. What's the advantage to testing on the retired 117?

For static RCS, you can test on a pylon. For dynamic RCS, you wouldn't do it at the TTR.

The deal with RCS, if you are strictly thinking "method of moments", is everything matters. This thing talked to that thing. (Note I only use the method of moments software in antenna design.) So if your plan is to see how some antenna effects your stealth, you would really need for it to be on the real thing. When they develop low probability of intercept RF, that can be on (and was) on larger platforms. That way you can have the engineers onboard rather than use telemetry.

The F-22 testbed plane:
i.imgur.com...

The F-22 antennas aren't pop out but rather integrated.

a reply to: gariac

Ok I see what you're saying. Thanks for the details. Makes a little more sense to me now.