Would you buy Radar Absorbing Paint?

Would you buy radar absorbing paint?


  • Total voters
    25

butterman

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
71
Reaction score
86
Awards
0
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
If someone sold radar absorbing paint, would you buy it? why or why not?

I can't say much without spilling the beans.
 

fitz4321

Running With Scissors
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
2,004
Reaction score
3,464
Awards
0
Location
Bay Area, CA
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Likely not. I’m not going to paint my whole car.
 

CPB

Left Lane for Passing Only
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
May 26, 2017
Messages
383
Reaction score
510
Awards
0
Location
Louisiana
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
If someone sold radar absorbing paint, would you buy it? why or why not?

I can't say much without spilling the beans.
If it is guaranteed cancer and birth defects, no. If it can be applied on top of 3m vinyl, expel or plasti-dip. Then why not? Outside of insane costs.
 

Vortex

Making Videos
Administrator
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
20,226
Reaction score
39,436
Awards
0
Location
Washington State
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
I'd be surprised if it had any appreciable effect, especially since you can't put it over things like your engine block, the windshield, etc. There's still a lot of things that could return a signal even if you covered the paint in it. Maybe it would cut down acquisition capabilities at a long distance, effectively turning a car into a motorcycle in terms of reflectivity or something, but I'd be surprised if it did something major.
 

InsipidMonkey

Premium Monkey
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Acceptus
Newly Registered
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
5,065
Reaction score
9,283
Awards
0
Location
New England
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Even if your car is covered in radar absorbing paint, there are still other large vertical surfaces to provide a radar return (eg radiator, engine).

I think there is a thread somewhere about a Corvette that had an angled radiator, and the range at which it could be picked up by radar was measurably shorter than other vehicles.
 

OBeerWANKenobi

This is not the car you're looking for.....
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Acceptus
Newly Registered
Joined
Mar 20, 2018
Messages
3,190
Reaction score
7,617
Awards
0
Location
Right Behind You! (Wisconsin)
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
If proven to help, measurably, I'd certainly try it if it could be formulated like plasti-dip so you could remove it later.
 

butterman

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
71
Reaction score
86
Awards
0
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I'd be surprised if it had any appreciable effect, especially since you can't put it over things like your engine block, the windshield, etc. There's still a lot of things that could return a signal even if you covered the paint in it. Maybe it would cut down acquisition capabilities at a long distance, effectively turning a car into a motorcycle in terms of reflectivity or something, but I'd be surprised if it did something major.
Good thing I've got nothing better to do XD. Windshield is the tough part. If a paint is applied to the outside of the car then the energy van be absorbed before it gets to most of the metal panels and components, aside from the engine, radiator and whatever else open to the grill. Right, so that's the idea. By reducing cross section you reduce range
-- Double Post Merged: --
I'm in the process of building a radar test chamber for fun and have always been interested in stealth tech so I'm going to test out some materials and techniques even if it doesn't turn into a product. Radar is huge business (Raytheon, BAE) for engineers in my area, so I'll profit even if it's just something to add to my resume.

...but back to the original question, would you buy it? why, why not?
 
Last edited:

GernBlanston

Premium Member
Premium Member
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Mar 30, 2019
Messages
24
Reaction score
35
Awards
0
Location
PNW
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Radar absorbing coatings and materials are but a small part of 'stealth' technology.
Shapes and angles and corners make more of a difference. Plus, who
wants to paint their car matte grey. To answer the question, I'll say no thanks.
-- Double Post Merged: --
-ps- The poll should include "Nope" regardless of cost.
 

butterman

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
71
Reaction score
86
Awards
0
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Radar absorbing coatings and materials are but a small part of 'stealth' technology.
Shapes and angles and corners make more of a difference. Plus, who
wants to paint their car matte grey. To answer the question, I'll say no thanks.
-- Double Post Merged: --
-ps- The poll should include "Nope" regardless of cost.
Thanks for the feedback! So you would say color is a deciding factor for you?

you are 100% correct about shaping surfaces. It is far more effective and practical to develop and live with compared to anti-reflective coatings. Unfortunately it's even more inconvenient to change the body work of a car rather than just paint it.
 

LuCroix

Drive it like you stole it!
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Jun 1, 2017
Messages
739
Reaction score
434
Awards
0
Location
Long Island, NY
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
No, because I have no intentions of painting my cars for some range reduction. I feel as if its primary use case would be for I/O which I don't see in these parts. I live in the land of C/O and LIDAR.

ETA: Granted I/O is always a possibility, there's enough traffic here that the R3 will sniff it well before I reach it.
 
Last edited:

jakevsnake

Premium Member
Premium Member
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Oct 15, 2015
Messages
406
Reaction score
280
Awards
0
Location
Tampa, FL
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
well military aircraft have radar absorbing paint and materials and that alone is not enough. When you see stealth aircraft the angles of the airframe change the radar cross section which contribute a great deal.. dont think radar absorbent paint alone will do much.
 

pipinos1976

PSL +5
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
256
Reaction score
241
Awards
0
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Since the shape is the main factor I believe that a simple paint to reduce RCS and acquisition distance is neither practical nor effective to the extent users would want. Apart from this we have to consider the longevity of the paint, the difficulty in applying it, the cost, the health risks and finally the fact that a strange looking car is a thief/vandal magnet and it's like calling an LEO to check on you.
 

mb300sd

PSL +200
Premium Member
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Mar 14, 2012
Messages
432
Reaction score
348
Awards
0
Location
GA
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
The paint could certainly be interesting for blacking out grills and radiators. I wouldn't apply it to the whole car, but any advantage is good.
 

venom690

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Jul 22, 2018
Messages
154
Reaction score
170
Awards
0
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
radar absorbing paint, lmao, the military has spent billions if not trillions in this technology, to think all they needed to do was to paint the planes with radar absorbing paint is hilarious.

Even Stealth aircraft and ships can be picked up by radar and how far are they flying ? in addition they employ radar scramblers, odd angles and god knows what else that is obviously top secret.

one common characteristic in any stealth vehicle is the odd angles,and they avoid round surfaces or anything that aims straight into any angle for long , mostly small different faced sharp angles.

If you were to make a stealth car or motorcycle any flat surface would have to be aimed up or down or to the sides and not facing forward and no section could be larger than a feet , add radar absorbing paint and a radar jammer and you could probably be completely immune to police radar, but we all know jammers are highly illegal, so using angles and paint I think the main thing would be size of the vehicle and angles.

but if you are going to go through all that trouble to get a reduced detection rate of 10 or 20% it may not be worth it.

now an interesting Idea would be create a car that has off axis faced surfaces with radar absorbing paint and then install two forward facing surfaces with some sort of high reflective material that move at different speeds back and forth and never match the actual speed of the vehicle, these two surface swill move at different speeds to confuse the radar gun, the gun will be reading two moving objects but varying speeds proving different speeds while ignoring whatever signal is reflected from the main vehicle as the radar gun may be overwhelmed.

The officer would see on his gun two maybe three vehicles, all showing different speeds , it would be an interesting test as the officer could see speeds of 150 and 50 mph on a vehicle moving at 70, in seconds intervals.

radar guns can pick the strongest signal, and the fastest one of the pack, neither of which would be actual car or motorcycle.

Comments?
 

radarrob

Newcumber
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Oct 28, 2010
Messages
9,525
Reaction score
2,995
Awards
0
Location
USA
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Radar is not a threat to me,Lidar is a super big concern going into now and the future.
 

butterman

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
71
Reaction score
86
Awards
0
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Thanks again everyone for the feedback. I'm asking these questions in order to gauge market interest within the core demographic. Your concerns and comments will direct development of said paint.

Based on what is commercially available (microwave absorbent materials are a common scientific tool) I think it is possible to reduce detection distance significantly. If you can get the RCS down to that of a motorcycle then you're looking at a detection range of 0.1 miles compared to the original range of 0.7 to 0.5 miles. It also depends on the car, FC Rx-7, MR-2, 944 would be perfect vehicles and might be able to go lower. However, this is all speculation until I begin testing.
 

omgboost

Left Lane Hog
Security Attaché
Moderator
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Oct 27, 2014
Messages
3,499
Reaction score
4,207
Awards
0
Location
Forced Induction Land
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I changed your title as I thought it was spam or was posted in the wrong forum.
 

asleeper

Premium Member
Premium Member
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
588
Reaction score
816
Awards
0
Location
Previously Virginia
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Radar is not a threat to me,Lidar is a super big concern going into now and the future.
Low powered K band radar such as a Kustom Falcon can be quite deadly when used "properly". An LEO setup around a curve or well hidden, running selective I/O I would say isn't going to give you much of warning. Short of having a rabbit nearby or driving PSL even the best RD won't save you.

Going forward, lidar is probably the bigger concern Last thing we need are more DET's or other manufacturer's following their example and incorporating similar features in their lidars.
 

infiniti

Premium Member
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Jun 8, 2014
Messages
2,283
Reaction score
2,485
Awards
0
Location
Ohio
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Thanks again everyone for the feedback. I'm asking these questions in order to gauge market interest within the core demographic. Your concerns and comments will direct development of said paint.

Based on what is commercially available (microwave absorbent materials are a common scientific tool) I think it is possible to reduce detection distance significantly. If you can get the RCS down to that of a motorcycle then you're looking at a detection range of 0.1 miles compared to the original range of 0.7 to 0.5 miles. It also depends on the car, FC Rx-7, MR-2, 944 would be perfect vehicles and might be able to go lower. However, this is all speculation until I begin testing.
Perhaps a little more context would give you more specific and relevant feedback. Are you talking about a clear surface application, such as a wax or sealant or are you talking about deconstructing a car and having a body shop paint, level, clear and reassemble the car? (I doubt many of us in here would have the means or skills to “paint” our car to an acceptable level of quality.)
And for what typical benefits?
 

Napster

Learning to Drive
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
45
Reaction score
71
Awards
0
Location
Idaho
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
If someone sold radar absorbing paint, would you buy it? why or why not?

I can't say much without spilling the beans.
Well maybe.. I would be very sceptical and want some proven examples before even entertaining the thought.. painting a car with NORMAL paint is expensive so there is that worry.. Do i need a home size loan to do it?
 

Donation drives

RDF Server & License Fees (APR 2019) (ACTIVE)

This donation drive covers the server and licensing fees for RDF for the month of April 2019...
Goal
$308.00
Earned
$320.00
This donation drive ends in

Latest threads

Social Group Activity

Forum statistics

Threads
80,383
Messages
1,202,042
Members
18,395
Latest member
superheterodyne
Top