This is meaningless, First you claim that russian AESA radar contained metamaterials.
I never claimed that--get your facts right, or take some English reading courses. I provided sources proving that Russia has experience in metamaterials after you blatantly said we did not, never did i say any Russian radar had metamaterials. Although it is a real possibility.
Now you post an image showing that they strunk EPLRS antennas using metamaterials.
First read what
you said about metamaterials in regards to radar:
As you can see the only mention of metamaterials in regard to radars is that they can use metamaterials to make stealth planes that can make it diffucult for AESA to detect.
What you are saying is that metamaterials are none applicable to radars but instead only serve to mask an aircraft's radar cross section? Which has been proven be be
wrong, the EPLRS was only an example that metamaterial applies to radars because AESA radars too have entennas. I also illustrated that metamaterials applies to circuits.
Metamaterials makes it possible to shrink entennas, which is a critical component of any radar.
Read the following:
Meta-materials shrink antennas - 29/01/2010 - Electronics Weekly
US researchers are shrinking antennas by using meta-materials - structures with negative refractive index.
They are claimed by NIST to be as small as one-fiftieth of a wavelength, with a UHF aerial measuring under 65mm square, while radiating up to 95% of input power.
Notice the officiency which is also a goal of any radar.
Are you still sticking to your failed argument?
Enhanced Position Location Reporting System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
EPLRS is a communications network, similar to a router network. Which they then showed that you could shorten the antenna of a router using the same technique.
None of this has any relevance to plane arrayed radars
It has all the relevance in the world, metamaterials can shrink entennas but acheive atleast the same range, usually greater. How is that not relivant?
Besides that i have posted a number of scientific articals
writen by professionals in the feild of
radars that are saying that metamaterials
are applicable
to AESA radars.
No you are just whining about pointless semantics (no doubt to draw attention away from your ignorance about modern material science)
You made the claim that a radar was a computer which is simply NOT TRUE.
Are you kidding me? Stop putting words in my mouth, this is what i said:
ptldM3 said:
Wow, just wow, a radar is made up of many components, here's a few: entanna, transmiter modules, and of course the radar computer.
The computer processes: aerial targets, provides terrain mapping, distiguishes clutter, and assignes targets.
And who said radars are computers? A radar is full of computers, those same computers allow the above functions to be possible.
You seem to have no understanding about the basic difference between a radar and a radar system.
In a modern radar system, the radar is connected to a computer which is connected to a display.
Similarly a mouse is connected to a desktop (computer) which is then connected to a display.
Get it?
Radar = Mouse
Desktop = Computer
Radar display = Monitor
Unbeleivible! Again read my information carefully, here is what i have said before:
ptldM3 said:
All radars have a main computer that processes incoming information via antenna and transmitters to, for example, the LCM's. Things such as capacitors are scattered through out and are just an extension of the main radar computer.
In that sentence i made it clear that a radar is made up of many components such as entannas, than i made it clear that it's the radar computer's function to process the information and send it to the LCM's (liquid crystal monitors), or as you call it "displays".
Dont you feel embarrassed? Maybe next time you will read my posts carefully.
A Radar does not necessarily NEED to be connected to a computer as the term radar was applied to early 1940's systems that had no computers.
Who said that radars can only work with the aid of a computer? Early radars were nothing like the radars we use today, they were crued, bulky, and could acheive only a fraction of what a modern radar can acheive.
This is one of the earliest forms of radar:
History of radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The difficulty in pinpointing the direction of these fleeting signals led to the use of rotating directional antennas, and in 1923 the use of oscilloscopes in order to display the signals
Notice that it used oscilloscopes to diplay information--today we use LCM's to display information.
And this was one of the first operational radars:
History of radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pollard led the first project, a gun-laying RDF code-named Mobile Radio Unit (MRU). This truck-mounted system was designed a small version of a CH station. It operated at 23 MHz (13 m) with a power of 300 kW. A single 105-foot tower supported a transmitting antenna, as well as two receiving antennas set orthogonally for estimating the signal bearing. In February 1937, a developmental unit detected an aircraft at 60 m (96 km) range. The Air Ministry also adopted this system as a mobile auxiliary to the CH system
I am aware of radar history, but we are not talking about ancient radars, we are talking about AESA radars, and, like it or not, AESA radars do use computers.
Let me repeat since you have difficulty understanding, we are talking about AESA radars which use computers not early forms of radars which consisted of few parts such as entennas and osilliscopes to display information.
And how is your engine and radar remotely related to the development of metamaterials and nanomaterials used in in full stealth planes?
Again go back read what i wrote and than read what you wrote, for the millionth time i mentioned China's struggles with things such as engines because you started thumping your chest claiming that
China can make a superior stealth aircraft compared to Russia and that
China even "rivals" the US. Clearly it's proof that all those scientific articals are a wet dream.
China has plenty of things that Russia does not have like Maglev, KBBF and the likes.
And Russia has plenty of things that China does not such as stealth
![Lol :lol: :lol:](/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/lol.gif)
which you claimed China can do better in, i do admite those photoshops of Chinese stealth aircraft send shivers down my spine.
And there is a definite correlation between amount of papers written in a country and how well the country excels in that field.
Yet somehow Israel is ranked 22nd and most of their technology is light years ahead of anything China has, also Spain, for example, is ranked 9th, yet what have they created that is so ground breaking? Israel is also far ahead of Spain in technology.