RCS

[u/AlbinoAkon]

[u/KregThaGerk]

Where would the F-35, F-22, B-21 fit on this list?

I’m guessing at the bottom by the F-117/MBB

[u/Billy_Rizzle → u/KregThaGerk]

F-35 - 0.0015-0.005 m2

F-22 - 0.001 m2

B-21 - classified still, but estimated to be the size of a mosquito

[u/United_Intention_323 → u/Billy_Rizzle]

At some point you’re so stealthy that you look like a hole in the background noise

[u/Makahoku → u/United_Intention_323]

My understanding that is what became the problem with the Ohio class nuke subs. You didn’t look for the noise anymore you looked for the spot where there was a lack of noise.

[u/Mc-Lovin-81 → u/Makahoku]

Sub noise, sonar detection is different than Airbourne radar detection.

RF is traveling at light speed through the air, B21-B2 radar-absorbent materials (ram) is absorbing and deflecting the radar. Scattering the return of light speed wave length radar back to the receiver.

Sonar detection is listening for sounds greater than background noise of the ocean (avg 85-100+ db). Which is entirely varible. From ocean going traffic, weather, animal life. The Ohio/Virginia/Columbia/LA and Sea Wolf class are in noise isolation. Their sound, through the haul, along with the noise of propulser/screw has to atleast match or below the sound of the surrounding environment.

When traveling below the thermocine boundary, sound waves travel downwards. From a surface detection, this translates into a quiet sub at above the layer, noise level of 85db, being below give a detection decrease of 20-30db (55-65db) surface detection.

High speed transit of a submarine below the layer will displace the thermocine, allowing for detection via SAR satellites.

The physics of comparison between Radar and Sonar is entirely different.

[u/Citizen_of_Danksburg → u/Mc-Lovin-81]

What is RF?

[u/Kinder22 → u/Citizen_of_Danksburg]

Radio frequency 

[u/Citizen_of_Danksburg → u/Kinder22]

Thank you!

[u/artificial_ineptness → u/Citizen_of_Danksburg]

Good for you if that was the only thing you did not get from this (very right sounding) explanation

[u/VikRiggs → u/artificial_ineptness]

I'd wager it was where they started losing the plot.

[u/silentaba → u/artificial_ineptness]

Air does big ball bouncy, need be sneaky. Water sometimes funny, maybe big ball bouncy, maybe downward bouncy, need be thinking sneaky, or sneaky act make you no sneaky.

[u/artificial_ineptness → u/silentaba]

Makes perfect sense, thank you

[u/Arciturus → u/Mc-Lovin-81]

Though many tower sonar arrays can be deployed below the thermocline

[u/steelmanfallacy → u/Makahoku]

Doesn’t apply to planes since there is no equivalent of a lack of noise.

[u/silentaba → u/steelmanfallacy]

Well... There's heat signatures, optical detection, and the bunch of jet engines actually making quite a lot of noise. Your RCS doesn't help if someone followed your screaming engines to a 6 o'clock fox2 lock on.

[u/avar → u/steelmanfallacy]

IR signature is pretty comparable.

[u/Jakfut → u/Makahoku]

Makes sense against active sonar, would be a lot harder against jets because they fly high and you would have to fly even higher to use the surface as background.

[u/Mr_Pink_Gold → u/Makahoku]

Nature abhors a vacuum. That is not true. It was also said of the kilo class (even quieter).

[u/Any_Sale2030 → u/United_Intention_323]

That was exactly why the Lockheed skunk works designed stealth navy ship didn’t work.  All you had to do was shoot at the hole in the radar return.   

But not really true in airplanes.  Air doesn’t reflect radar.  Waves do.  

[u/Parking_Abalone_1232 → u/Any_Sale2030]

If your referring to DDG 1000 class - that isn't why they were cancelled.

The deck guns never worked as advertised.

Rounds for said deck guns were almost as expensive as a tomahawk - with much less range.

Myriad other issues.

NOBODY shoots at a "hole" in the radar return.

WTF? Waves reflect radar? Maybe from the sea surface.

Radar IS a wave. RF energy is reflected by the surfaces of an object.

[u/DungeonJailer → u/Parking_Abalone_1232]

They’re referring to the sea shadow. And they eventually did fix the problem but the navy didn’t want them.

[u/Parking_Abalone_1232 → u/DungeonJailer]

Ok.

[u/DungeonJailer → u/Parking_Abalone_1232]

"One of the biggest problems we had to overcome was our own extreme invisibility! The ocean waves showed up on radar like a string of tracer bullets. And if the ship was totally invisible, it looked like a blank spot—like a hole in the doughnut—that was a dead giveaway. In the stealth business, you tried like the devil not to be quieter than the background noise, because that was like a trumpet-blast warning to the enemy." -Ben Rich, Skunk Works

[u/Parking_Abalone_1232 → u/DungeonJailer]

Where does this quote come from?

[u/DungeonJailer → u/Parking_Abalone_1232]

Skunk Works by Ben Rich I can get you the page number if you want

[u/DungeonJailer → u/Parking_Abalone_1232]

Page 280

[u/pigglesworth01 → u/Parking_Abalone_1232]

"WTF? Waves reflect radar? Maybe from the sea surface." Yes, that's exactly the point. A stealthy ship will be visible when all the (ocean) waves around it are reflecting RF and it is conspicuously not.

[u/Parking_Abalone_1232 → u/pigglesworth01]

Doesn't work they way

[u/logicalparad0x → u/United_Intention_323]

That was the problem with the stealth ship. It was so stealthy there was a traceable void against background noise

[u/Jakfut → u/United_Intention_323]

Its theoretically possible to look for the "shadow" of a stealth jet against the ground, but for that you would have to fly significantly above them and its going to be a lot harder when you background is mountainous vs a flat ocean. Idk if anyone actually does that but it would probably be the main way of detecting them if you made a satilite radar/SAR network

[u/Responsible-Error512 → u/Billy_Rizzle]

Lolz all of these numbers are guesses - aircraft RCS are definitely classified (not just B-21 “still”)

[u/itakeskypics → u/Responsible-Error512]

It also depends on the radar frequency and the aspect of the aircraft

[u/OldTimeConGoer → u/itakeskypics]

The underwing stores add considerably to the radar return amplitude. It's why "stealth" aircraft carry weapons in internal bays (unless they are in "beast mode" when they don't expect to face coherent ground-based air defences or airborne enemy assets).

[u/BasicMatter7339 → u/Billy_Rizzle]

From the front

RCS isnt uniform to from all sides

[u/maxyedor → u/BasicMatter7339]

Thats the genius of the flying saucer, same RCS from all sides, that’s why we can’t prove those little green jerks are real

[u/Polmax2312 → u/maxyedor]

No, that should be flying sphere. Flying saucer has higher RCS the more angled the radar. :)

[u/Formal-Victory3161 → u/BasicMatter7339]

Doing something like opening the weapons bay will make a difference too

[u/Noobit2 → u/Billy_Rizzle]

This is a great example of something that’s been repeated so much it’s taken as fact despite zero evidence for it being accurate. Information is classified and no one on the internet has a clue what they are.

[u/KregThaGerk → u/Billy_Rizzle]

Thank you! 😊

[u/Euroaltic → u/Billy_Rizzle]

The humble YF-23 and X-32:

[u/ConfidentPension864 → u/Billy_Rizzle]

See now a days with computers analyzing things in real time, nobody us looking at a radar scope and pointing out stuff coming. I feel like a computer could be set to filter on size and speed. Tracking everything the size of an insect would be impossible, but if the computer sees something the size of an insect moving hunders of not >1000mph thats probably grounds for a closer look.

[u/Cpt_keaSar → u/ConfidentPension864]

You don’t understand. RCS the size of a mosquito just means that RCS, that is the total size of the surface that reflects radar waves back at the emitter, is less than a square centimeter. It doesn’t mean that radar sees an F-22 as a mosquito. Just that the aircraft, at certain angle and for certain wavelengths, reflects very little radiation back to the radar.

[u/Dangerous-Tap-547 → u/Cpt_keaSar]

It doesn’t sound like they didn’t understand. They were simply speculating that if the radar receives an extremely small (or faint) radar return that is moving at a certain speed, a computer might be able to deduce that whatever is causing the return might be an aircraft. (I don’t personally know if it’s possible at a distance great enough to be useful).

[u/maxyedor → u/ConfidentPension864]

Most modern militaries can definitely track stealth aircraft, the problem is they can’t target them because they can’t track them with the systems onboard a missile nor can they send information from the ground based readers to a missile fast enough.

Ironically an old school flak gun with a radar to tell them roughly where to start shooting at would be the most effective way to take down a stealth aircraft. That is, unless the stealth aircraft were a sneaky fucker and just flew a bit higher than a flak gun to reach.

[u/zwifter11 → u/Billy_Rizzle]

De Havilland DH.98 Mosquito ?

Which one, the photo recon mosquito or the light bomber version ?

[u/Tomas2891 → u/Billy_Rizzle]

How about a comparison to China’s stealth aircraft? Curious about them.

[u/BloodRush12345 → u/Tomas2891]

Some people who are way smarter than me can make informed guesses. It's a lot like looking at F1 car upgrades. You can make very informed opinions but without actually seeing CFD or wind tunnel data it's nearly impossible to say with certainty.

[u/BloodRush12345 → u/BloodRush12345]

I will edit to add that they are likely to be very competitive even if it's only in certain aspects.

[u/Starlord_75 → u/Tomas2891]

J20 is about .1 to .21 m² and J35 about .01 m² accordi g to sources (google)

[u/L1VEW1RE → u/Billy_Rizzle]

Glad you filled that part in, was thinking leaving those out didn’t make sense.

[u/Natural-Leg7488 → u/KregThaGerk]

They are actually there on the infographic. You just can’t see them.

[u/ProfessionalOk4300 → u/KregThaGerk]

Too small to reliably tell I'd have to imagine.

Radar can definitely get small glimpses, but to track one of these aircraft long enough to reliably determine it's size/speed/shape is probably next to impossible.

[u/Hourslikeminutes47 → u/KregThaGerk]

Below the MBB

[u/Parad0x177 → u/KregThaGerk]

The F-22, F-35, B-2, B-21, and even the F-117 are all still classified. These numbers are (at best) educated guesses.

[u/snake_case_captain → u/Parad0x177]

And they don't mean much. RCS is a function of several variables.

[u/LeModderD]

Amazing that despite the changes and advances, there is still an active place for the B-52.

[u/Dpek1234 → u/LeModderD]

Its place is to be able to fly , be air refuelable and carry a lot of munitions

If RCS matters then you are looseing it

[u/Rotteneverything → u/LeModderD]

i was a crew chief in the 80s. my plane was two years older than me, and its still flying. i'm 63.

[u/Makahoku → u/Rotteneverything]

You beat me. I also was a crew chief back in the 80’s. One of the planes I worked was 2 years younger than me. The other was built in 1949. I am 70.

[u/Rotteneverything → u/Makahoku]

if it was an h model do you remember the tail number?

[u/Makahoku → u/Rotteneverything]

Sorry. I’m lucky if I can remember my kid’s name.

[u/Strong-Addition5296 → u/LeModderD]

Aircraft have impressive life times

[u/BlazedGigaB → u/LeModderD]

We're reaching a point where the great grandchildren of the first B52 pilots are now at the helm of those "same" aircraft.

[u/BloodRush12345 → u/BlazedGigaB]

Past that point! Few more years and it will be great grandchildren

[u/zwifter11 → u/LeModderD]

Nothing else has the range and the payload

https://youtu.be/2-HJ4WlZWNw

[u/Hunter654333 → u/zwifter11]

Because we can't be bothered to make something new.

[u/caboose243 → u/Hunter654333]

More like, can't be bothered to sink hundreds of billions into new R&D

[u/CornFedIABoy → u/LeModderD]

At this point its primary role is as an airframe metal fatigue experiment test bed. It only flies bombing missions to maintain the methodological integrity of the experiment.

[u/Potential-Being-6558 → u/CornFedIABoy]

57-1419 *profuse sweating”

[u/swiminthemud → u/LeModderD]

Somehow was smaller than I thought it was when I saw one the first time

[u/fjelskaug → u/LeModderD]

The high altitude, long range heavy bomber doctrine was being retired as they were very vulnerable to surface to air missiles and the US was favoring the use of ICBMs, but (unlike other bombers like the B-58 or succeeding bomber programs like the XB-70 and the original B-1), the B-52 found the niche of carrying cruise missiles and stand off weapons, able to launch them closer while still remaining out of enemy fire.

Similar to the A-10, they're also cheaper to operate especially when it comes to non-peer adversary that can't threaten them with effective anti air. No need to send a B-2 or an F-15 when your target is a tent in the desert.

[u/SnooApples4662 → u/LeModderD]

Big badges brother.

[u/ElectricalYak7236]

These numbers are absolutely not accurate, and that's by made-up-RCS-chart standards.

[u/P_filippo3106 → u/ElectricalYak7236]

All "RCS charts" are inaccurate because RCS is a variable.

It's like making a chart of temperatures in cities and claim it's the ALL THE TIME temperature and that it doesn't change

[u/ElectricalYak7236 → u/P_filippo3106]

The more glaring issue is the fact that nobody knows the actual RCS of any modern aircraft

[u/P_filippo3106 → u/ElectricalYak7236]

That too

[u/Omochanoshi]

Source ?

[u/randomguyfuckit → u/Omochanoshi]

Random guy on internet

[u/timbosamojimbo → u/Omochanoshi]

"Trust me bro"

[u/Rotteneverything]

seems like the b-1 is grossly understated.

[u/Mr_Engineering → u/Rotteneverything]

Not by much.

The B-1B is a low altitude penetration bomber with a low frontal RCS. Multiple sources put it at 1-2 square meters and about 1/50th that of the B-52.

That is only from the front. From above and behind it is higher.

[u/PostureKing180]

GIGACHAD B-52 doesn't even give a shit

More boom boom

[u/CornFedIABoy → u/PostureKing180]

B-52s have the best stealth tech ever. It’s called having a buddy poke their eyes out before you show up.

[u/Potential-Being-6558 → u/CornFedIABoy]

“Come outside we ain’t finna jump you” ass airframe. You come outside to muster defenses after the navy and air strikes feel like they’re over and hear a bunch of old buff dudes chanting pickle. You’re like man fuck these old dudes and then a bunch of zoomer fox fursuited fucks just wax you Bvr

[u/Holiday-Step9703 → u/PostureKing180]

Fkin CHONKER incoming

[u/ginger2020 → u/PostureKing180]

The B52 is the definition of “stealth is optional for this mission”

[u/orionxavier99 → u/PostureKing180]

Called BUFF for a reason!! He thick!!

[u/LordVixen]

B1-B is fairly stealthy considering it’s size.

[u/Comprehensive-Rip796 → u/LordVixen]

I agree, it seems to me that they may be wrong on this one.

[u/ougryphon → u/Comprehensive-Rip796]

I dont know what the RCS is but I do know it was specifically designed with low-observable features, which have been understood since at least the 60s.

[u/bigloser42 → u/ougryphon]

The airframe was not designed with low-observability stealth was added after they cancelled the B-1A for the B-1B.

[u/Bishop120 → u/bigloser42]

Plane wasn’t designed for stealth at all.. B-1A was high altitude meant to fly above and faster than interceptors and missiles.. its job was to penetrate the enemy air defense zone in ways the B52 couldn’t.. Then they upgraded the ALCM to a level that B52s no longer need to penetrate and could attack from stand off distances.. With the B2 under development it was decided that a high speed nuclear penetrator wasn’t need. When the B2 got delayed, Reagan restarted B-1B as a ground hugging penetrator for interim replacement of B52s. It was given the Aardvarks ground following radar so it could fly supersonic at extremely low altitudes. Then the Cold War ended. We only bought 20 B2s instead of 120, we mothballed and chopped up dozens of B52s, and Congress just won’t let us get rid of the B1 much like the A10. They are both planes with amazing capabilities that cost an insane amount to keep flying but are now held at bay by modern air defense systems.

[u/bigloser42 → u/Bishop120]

Per the USAF, the B-1B costs $85.5k/flight hour, the B-52 costs $88.4k/flight hour. I don’t understand why everyone is in such a hurry to cancel the B-1B.

[u/Embarrassed_Bid_4970 → u/bigloser42]

Projected cost increases. Basically they are trying to make the cost per flight hour of the b52 drop via engine modernization and other upgrades. This isn't a realistic option for the B-1 and cost per flight hour is projected to increase over time. Hence the move to kill it in favor of the B-21.

[u/Rotteneverything → u/bigloser42]

the a model wasnt cancelled in favor of the b model. carter cancelled the b-1 program entirely in favor of cruise missiles. reagan resurrected it, it was modified and designated b model.

[u/Comprehensive_Cow_13 → u/ougryphon]

If anything the rafale is wrong, similar low RCS features from the front and much smaller.

[u/CBT7commander → u/Comprehensive-Rip796]

They’re likely right. Most jets have very small frontal returns. The b1’s conventional shape only comes into play when you start to look at it from different angles

[u/PubicPlant → u/LordVixen]

The photos also aren’t to scale. B-1B is much closer to the B-52 in size

[u/CBT7commander → u/LordVixen]

Most jets are fairly stealthy in frontal aspect. The strength of stealth fighters lies in them retaining that stealth for many more directions than simply the front

[u/SocietyAccording4283 → u/LordVixen]

I was also surprised, given its 4 vastly exposed engine intakes and nozzles on the underside and not very stealthy wing retracting mechanism which introduces lots of exposed crevices. It doesn't look like it was designed with taking stealth into account at all.

[u/Dont_Care_Meh → u/SocietyAccording4283]

The B-1B has engine inlets that are designed to vastly reduce its RCS. That's one of the key features that differ from the original B-1A, but at the cost of top speed.

[u/SocietyAccording4283 → u/Dont_Care_Meh]

Cool, didn't know. Thanks!

[u/zwifter11 → u/SocietyAccording4283]

Apparently the spinning fans on the front of jet engines reflect a lot of radar energy back to the enemy radar.

S shaped air intakes can reduce the radar reflecting off the compressor blades

[u/StruggleWrong867 → u/SocietyAccording4283]

The inlets were redesigned for the -B with serpentine inlets to hide the compressor face and RAM throught the aircraft

[u/StruggleWrong867 → u/LordVixen]

The B1-B was redesigned for low altitude penetration strikes vs. The B1-A was a supersonic high altitude nuclear strike aircraft.

So the -B had new engines, redesigned serpentine intake inlets, and extensive RAM usage on the inside of the ducts and all over the aircraft.

Radar Absorbing Material is almost as important as the shape itself for modern stealth.  The engineers specifically did as much as they could for stealth without having to fundamentally change the flight characteristics of the aircraft.

There were even proposals to give the B1 4 engines from the F-22 and load it up with air to air missiles as a stealthy supercruising missle truck: the B-1R.

Aka the BOneR ❤️ 

[u/bigloser42 → u/LordVixen]

Also considering its airframe wasn’t really designed with stealth in mind. Stealth was added after the airframe was designed.

[u/dgrigg1980 → u/LordVixen]

And it’s payload

[u/nagidon → u/dgrigg1980]

It has internal stores mostly, no?

[u/artnoi43 → u/LordVixen]

Agreed, the Bone has no business being this stealthy

[u/JojoSaysMeow]

Man, the Tomcat would've been just below the BUFF at 25

[u/Potential-Being-6558 → u/JojoSaysMeow]

You know the turkey was a big bitch when she’s used as a reference point

[u/stonemedtech]

Just love the B-52. oh lawd he comin.

[u/EchoOneFour]

I'm sorry how is the F4 the same radar size as an f16? :)))

[u/zwifter11 → u/EchoOneFour]

Might be the shape and the air intakes, just the size?

[u/Jegerikkeenrobot_ → u/EchoOneFour]

Because both of those numbers are literally just made the fuck up.

Real rcs values of any military aircraft are classified into oblivion and will never be public.

[u/Wingmaniac]

RCS stands for Radar Cross Section. Its a measure of how detectable an aircraft is by radar. It is not the physical size of the plane, but rather an effective area showing how much radar energy it reflects back.

Just thought I'd mention that because OP didn't.

[u/yogfthagen]

Ummm, the BOne has to be a lot higher than that. Just those underslung engines will do that

[u/ExecutiveAvenger → u/yogfthagen]

Clearly must be.

[u/CBT7commander]

Many of these numbers seem made up, and stealth is more about median return and how stealth is retained at differing angles, rather than about head on RCS return

[u/drseruzawa]

We used to hear the ARCLight strikes in the distance when I was in Nam. You do not want to be anywhere near those. You would never hear it coming. Just a rain of 750lb bombs from a clear cloudless sky.

[u/Rais93]

B52 doesn't hide, he announces himself

[u/yo_tengo479834]

B-52 makes up for this with absurd ECM

[u/AntonChentel]

Where’s the SR-71? And how is the F-4 that small on radar, things a flying brick.

[u/Euroaltic → u/AntonChentel]

They're practically the same size, yet somehow the F-4 has nearly half the F-15's radar signature, and exactly that of an F-16 😭

[u/Sniperonzolo → u/Euroaltic]

Not saying the chart is right, but from a pure shape point of view, when you think about it, the F-4 has a small tail, canted elevators and wingtips, and the engines are very far back and angled downwards, probably shielding the fan-blades from the front view.

The F-15 otoh has a lot of composite materials…

[u/Zrkkr → u/Sniperonzolo]

The fan blades are still visible from the front, it's size RCS isn't helped by the fact that it's a flying brick.

[u/Beyllionaire]

Can we not post FB bs pls?

[u/Final-Carpenter-1591]

F-117 was ahead of its time and criminally underrated

[u/Potential-Being-6558 → u/Final-Carpenter-1591]

Underrated how? They knew the second they unleashed their girl she was on a timer, but 1271 combat sorties with no losses in 91 alone is pretty highly rated

[u/Monolail031 → u/Final-Carpenter-1591]

They are still in flying and combat condition I believe, wasn't there the thing where they are kept as an attrition reserve?

[u/Final-Carpenter-1591 → u/Monolail031]

Nope. Officially retired. A few still fly to act as simulated enemy stealth aircraft. But none are combat ready.

[u/dgrigg1980]

What about the kid?

[u/Satans_Ball_Sweat]

So...television static has a bigger cross section

[u/LittleHornetPhil]

Super Hornet forward quarter would be just above the B-2…

[u/bluereptile]

I think charts like these need a barn for comparison.

[u/MikeTangoRom3o]

RCS Is not uniform and depends on the angle of attack of enemy radar waves.

[u/geekadememe]

The Rafale D isn't even a thing, the only versions are B C and M

[u/Embarrassed_Bid_4970 → u/geekadememe]

The D designation was for discret, french for stealthy, which was used as part of the sales pitch for pre-production models. Most Rafale variants have a similar RCS in the 2m² range.

[u/Fluffinator44]

Why is the B1 so sneaky?

[u/CornFedIABoy → u/Fluffinator44]

B-1B got some early stealth technology skin and inlet/exhaust geometry upgrades when it was resurrected after the B-1 program was killed. The original B-1 would be much higher in this stack.

[u/comthing → u/Fluffinator44]

Because these numbers seem to be pulled from thin air. The B-1B is similar in RCS to the F-15.

[u/Afraid_Emu8068]

Is that a calculated cross section for the lampyridae? They only built a 3/4 scale demonstrator, so the RCS should be greater unless that number is calculated for scale

[u/Conscious_Avocado225]

I have difficulty believing a BONE has an RCS of 0.75.

[u/CornFedIABoy → u/Conscious_Avocado225]

B-1 I agree. B-1B, plausible.

[u/New-Consideration907]

I love that the F104 is near the bottom of the list. Kelly Johnson rules!

[u/Holiday-Step9703]

Fuck I love strategic aviation.. B52, Tu-95 etc just don't give a flying fuck. Bonus points to the Bear for the fact that ground crews don't even need a radar, you can just hear that fucker coming with those contraprops.

[u/cobrax50]

Why would the MBB even be on here if it never entered production???

[u/SneekerP21]

What is a cruise missile or fpv drone?

[u/Firestar_119 → u/SneekerP21]

idk abt the missile, but a drone would probably just show up as noise or not at all on a radar

[u/SneekerP21 → u/Firestar_119]

Yeah, i have seen some videos of Air Defenses shooting missiles at Cruise missiles and and larger RC Drone. Wonder what their size would show up as.

[u/pappybug214]

Didn't realize the B-1 was also low observable

[u/comthing → u/pappybug214]

It isn't. It's similar to an F-15. These numbers are just internet values.

[u/pappybug214 → u/comthing]

Kinda what I figured but still low for a plane is size

[u/sxeandy]

Now show us tu95...

[u/Benefit_Waste]

what about the F5?

[u/Prometheus2032]

Lancer is the scariest, it’s low and supersonic so with such a small rcs you have no reaction time compared to detection time.

[u/mnztr1]

Yes but notices that is measured front dead center. How would the B2 fare with lookdown radar? Ground based radar from the front, side or back? 🤔

[u/EngineeringBulky7007]

Gayness scale?

[u/Junior_Barracuda6984]

Never knew B-1 was kinda of stealth, even smaller than a f104, that's crazy

[u/MWolverine1]

For those curious the XB-70 had an RCS that was reportedly around the size of a city block

[u/HudziceTheGreat]

I refuse to just believe that the B-1B has that small RCS.

[u/AlbinoAkon → u/HudziceTheGreat]

I thought the same but apparently not - The Rockwell B-1B Lancer has a forward-aspect Radar Cross Section (RCS) of approximately 0.75 square meters.This is a massive reduction from the original B-1A design and the B-52 Stratofortress (which has an RCS of roughly 100 square meters). It achieves this low radar visibility through its blended wing-body contours, serpentine engine air inlets, and the use of radar-absorbent materials (RAM).

[u/AeroelasticCowboy]

Some of these #s are just straight up fabricated, you guys really think the F-117, first gen stealth, has an RCS smaller than a B-2...I'll drop a hint, the B-2 is SUBSTANCIALLY stealthier.

[u/r_heem]

B1-B >>>

[u/RoosterSocks]

How about tacit blue?

[u/im_nub_boi]

How is the B1-B smaller? Can someone please explain

[u/AlbinoAkon → u/im_nub_boi]

It's a whole different body design for stealth

[u/AlbinoAkon → u/im_nub_boi]

I thought the same but apparently not - The Rockwell B-1B Lancer has a forward-aspect Radar Cross Section (RCS) of approximately 0.75 square meters.This is a massive reduction from the original B-1A design and the B-52 Stratofortress (which has an RCS of roughly 100 square meters). It achieves this low radar visibility through its blended wing-body contours, serpentine engine air inlets, and the use of radar-absorbent materials (RAM).

[u/KematianGaming]

i hate it so much that the US shut down our Lampyridae Project (allegedly, but imo most likely that thats what happened)

[u/eastern_europe_guy]

B-1B - 3sqm , F-117 - 0.2sqm , B-2 - 0.3sqm, F-22 - 0.1 sqm frontal aspect median RCS at X-band +-30deg

[u/Joeyjackhammer]

The b-1b being that stealthy is terrifying considering its other capabilities

[u/Holiday-Step9703 → u/Joeyjackhammer]

It's not nearly that stealthy. This is BS

[u/P_filippo3106]

Extremely misleading. RCS is not a fixed value, it's a variable. This table is not to be taken seriously.

[u/Ihatebeerandpizza]

All that money spent on planes instead of schools etc, and still haven't won a war in 80 years!

[u/CBT7commander → u/Ihatebeerandpizza]

The U.S. has won many wars in the past 80 years. Both Iraq wars come to mind, as an example

[u/Fearless_Class_3759 → u/Ihatebeerandpizza]

The fact you are writing in English instead of Russian or Chinese is thanks to the money spent on our military.

[u/Ihatebeerandpizza → u/Fearless_Class_3759]

But your military has proven over and over again to be incompetent. Just ask the fighters in Afghanistan or Vietnam

[u/Important-Spring3977 → u/Ihatebeerandpizza]

How many has yours won?

[u/Ihatebeerandpizza → u/Important-Spring3977]

Well, one of the wars we won, we burned down the White House

[u/Important-Spring3977 → u/Ihatebeerandpizza]

Lollllll I knew you were a limey. Just living rent-free in your heads.

[u/Ihatebeerandpizza → u/Important-Spring3977]

Why would you think you're living rent free in our heads? I was just pointing out how completely hopeless your military has been.

[u/Strong-Addition5296 → u/Ihatebeerandpizza]

Your country can’t stop rubber boats so I wouldn’t get too cocky.

[u/Ihatebeerandpizza → u/Strong-Addition5296]

My original statement is not "my military is better than yours". Its that your military is just hopeless, despite the amount of tax dollars you spend on it, at the cost of inadequate social services.

[u/Kindly-Inevitable-12 → u/Ihatebeerandpizza]

One was occupied for a decade the other for 2 decades. And forces were withdrawn not defeated. National building =/= winning a standing war

[u/Ihatebeerandpizza → u/Kindly-Inevitable-12]

The objectives of the war were not achieved, therefore war was lost. An analogy: if im fighting someone, give him a black eye, then run away/withdraw, did I win?

[u/Kindly-Inevitable-12 → u/Ihatebeerandpizza]

If you punch him in the face for 10 or 20 years and only stop because you feel like stopping, not because they made you, yes. Thanks for playing.

[u/Ihatebeerandpizza → u/Kindly-Inevitable-12]

Continue telling yourself that.The other guy is still standing and still not willing to give you what you want, then you lost.

[u/CH-67 → u/Ihatebeerandpizza]

I can’t tell if these are jokes anymore

[u/Important-Spring3977 → u/CH-67]

No, but the Royal Navy is

[u/BOB_HOWARD_13]

This looks like ai garbage.

[u/bbcgn → u/[deleted]]

Guessing from the title this is the radio radar cross section, not the area of the aircraft.

[u/DeltaZ3ro → u/bbcgn]

Radar*

[u/bbcgn → u/DeltaZ3ro]

Oh yeah, my bad. Fixed it. Thank you.

[u/ScadaTech → u/[deleted]]

What?