On Wed, 9 May 2001, Tim May wrote:
> I give up. Now Choate has his own idiosyncratic interpretation of
> geometry. Add it to the list of number theory, physics, electronics,
> etc.
>
> Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection. If the flat plate
> reflector is not perpencular to the beam, the beam will most
> definitely not return "more or less directly back."
Bullshit, rf at that frequencies isn't a laser beam it's more like a
reflective wave from a beach, the reflection loses the tight coherence
from the incident wave (as a result of the radar guns waveguide). As a
result the reflected wave splatters out into a rough semi-circle. This
means you don't get those tight reflections that you're talking about.
As to F-117's, the 'stealth effect' only occurs if the angle of indicence
is very acute (ie much greater than 90 degrees), which is why the body
panels are angled the way they are, the radar coming UP from the ground
hits the side panels and gets reflected upward. If you had another
aircraft at roughly the same altitude as the F-117 they would be able to
take that reflected beam and use it to get a tight lock on the F-117 even
though they didn't send out any beam. It even becomes possible in that
scenario to shoot the F-117 down without it knowing it ever got a 'paint'.
THE primary means of detecting a stealth aircraft of the F-117 variety is
to have the transmitter in one place and receivers in others looking for
those reflected beams.
____________________________________________________________________
The solution lies in the heart of humankind.
Chris Lawson
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
