I am not easily convinced and I am convinced by neither the paper nor your drivel. I am just making a point that proper criticism is not name-calling.Do I really need to dissect that rag and spoon-feed you with it?
This is from page 8:
"Based on our calculation and respecting to the counter measure on TF-23 Block0, we can assume frontal aspect RCS as -20dbsqm (0.01m2). TF-23 Block1, with advanced magnetic coating and RAM panel layer, it could reach RCS value for X Band 10GHz as -25dbsqm (0.003m2)."
Do you see any math on that paper to support this? Did they provide any insight on what their variables were and what assumptions they have made? Are you just taking their word for it?
From page 9:
"Assuming all other parameters are the same apart from emitting power rate (40kW/25.5kW), it corresponds to range 12% higher for TF-23 KAAN radar. So with a certain margin, safely it can be assumed 175km for RCS 1m2 targets"
They assume F35 has 160km detection range against 1 sqm target. How do they know this? They also somehow calculate BÜRFİS's range as 175km against 1sqm target. Again, they say we calculated but there is no calculation shown on the paper? Like why is it not 150km or 300km?
Then there are these tables:
View attachment 72723
Do you see any evidence or proof of where they got the RCS figures of these aircrafts. Like how can you know the radar signatures of KIZILELMA or KAAN when they're going through iterative changes from prototype to prototype(with not RAM material)? And as if the charade wasn't enough, they've added in a KIZILELMA Block2 and its RCS when there's not even a picture of the drone?
Maybe you should ask yourself why are you so easily convinced? Why do you think that this "paper" is more credible than the daily chatter we do about KAAN on this forum? Or are we doing science here?
They start most of their RCS calculations by modeling the geometry of the aircraft in Matlab and they at least confirm the directional correctness of their approach by comparing their results for known aircraft to existing literature. In a field shrouded in secrecy with design process of some aircraft still ongoing, this is a best-effort kind of approach. Of course, some parameters will change but they are at least trying to point in the right direction by making best use of the available data. If you approach it as a prima facie calculation and not the final one, maybe you will do it more justice.