Would you buy Radar Absorbing Paint?

Would you buy radar absorbing paint?


  • Total voters
    79

VXAce

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
Jul 5, 2020
Messages
57
Reaction score
62
What would the use case of something like this be? Protection against I/O at close range from unmarked vehicles?
 

bslaws

Land of Spuds and Gems.
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 8, 2016
Messages
2,124
Reaction score
4,463
Perhaps on my new truck :rolleyes:
ic-Pickup-Truck-Front-3-4-in-Motion-on-Road-Course.jpg
 

G37X Jockey

Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
2,277
Reaction score
3,659
Location
Behind my Steering Wheel
The only radar that worries me is I/O, so any absorbing material would have to be very effective to be of real world value, since I/O is short range, line of sight; typically less than 1000'. If you can make my full sized sedan invisible to radar from 500' + I'd be very interested.
I'm skeptical that such a material exists, but I'd be happy to be pleasantly surprised.
 

Rockette

Learning to Drive
General User
Joined
May 5, 2021
Messages
70
Reaction score
180
Location
USA
I'm not sure paint would be entirely feasible. If it could be done in a wrap... Then maybe.
 

Fireball

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
381
Reaction score
546
I'd be interested, but it would need to be something that could go into the clear-coat and not require a specific color. Mind you, the vehicle I'd be putting it on is undergoing restoration and would be getting painted anyway. Being able to black out those wavelengths without affecting the visible wavelengths though, might be kinda tricky. I'd also only be interested if it offered at least a 40 percent range reduction but not more than 60 percent. I'm only interested in reducing the cop's window of opportunity to see my vehicle, not eliminate it entirely, and that would be worth 500 bucks to me, maybe a bit more if it also offered UV/IR paint protection over what standard clear offers. I do want the cop to be able to get a reading at some point because I don't want to be on the side of the road getting my vehicle torn apart looking for the jammer, I just want him to think it was a glitch.

As was also stated, I want people with automated driving systems to have their cars be able to see me when they get too close. Who knows, might even be fun to watch an automated car constantly speeding up and jamming on the brakes because it can't see me until it's right on me and now it thinks it needs to panic stop for about 2 seconds, when I disappear again. And, it would lessen the trust that people have in those systems when the dealer can't find a problem because the car actually did what it was supposed to, and the "problem" was actually my paint not giving the expected return signal. Problems like that would slow the passage of laws that requires cars on the road be automated. I don't want to see automation become a requirement until long after I'm dead.

All of this would be dependent upon passing independent testing as well, with the most trusted tester being Vortex, if he was willing.
 
Last edited:

Chrismx

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
Oct 3, 2019
Messages
103
Reaction score
124
Location
PNW
Just to echo what others have already pointed out, radar absorbing coatings, not just paint, are only effective when coupled with design, and materials used in construction of the low observable object. Plus, those coatings used on military vehicles are comparatively fragile, requiring regular touch ups and maintenance to remain effective. Since it is not feasible to reengineer the body panels and angles and materials used in construction of a typical road car….maybe excepting the Tesla cyber truck….maybe… even if the paint were free I would be a hard pass. Just my 2¢. Now, a clear PPF or sealant that actually scattered/deflected laser, that would be something……
 

Lars36

Banned
Banned User
Joined
Apr 15, 2021
Messages
1,157
Reaction score
3,418
Location
Ocala Fl
I definitely would if it lowered my car insurance, I got better gas mileage, if it got me from Florida to Jersey in 4 hours, it attracted hot 🔥 girls and when I bought a new car I would have a free upgrade.
Other than this, I doubt it. LOL
 

EvansRadar

Learning to Drive
General User
Joined
May 15, 2021
Messages
16
Reaction score
72
I found this video today because of YouTube's weird algorithm. It's in a different langauge but this guy has stickers and puts them over the numbers in his license plate where It can't be detected on a camera? Idk if its real but the first thing that comes to mind is free Tollways lmao
 

Blasirl

Bring Order to Chaos
Lifetime Premium
Beginner User
Joined
Jul 2, 2019
Messages
412
Reaction score
385
Location
America's Dairyland - Smell our Dairy Air!
I found this video today because of YouTube's weird algorithm. It's in a different langauge but this guy has stickers and puts them over the numbers in his license plate where It can't be detected on a camera? Idk if its real but the first thing that comes to mind is free Tollways lmao
 

G37X Jockey

Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
2,277
Reaction score
3,659
Location
Behind my Steering Wheel
Interesting concept, but the design (if I understand) requires a white plate with black characters over which their special black tape is applied. What if my jurisdiction has plates with a different color combination? Also is there any independent testing.
It's a simple concept that looks too good to be true.
 

Lars36

Banned
Banned User
Joined
Apr 15, 2021
Messages
1,157
Reaction score
3,418
Location
Ocala Fl
Interesting concept, but the design (if I understand) requires a white plate with black characters over which their special black tape is applied. What if my jurisdiction has plates with a different color combination? Also is there any independent testing.
It's a simple concept that looks too good to be true.
Anything to good to be true usually ain't true.
 

Rockette

Learning to Drive
General User
Joined
May 5, 2021
Messages
70
Reaction score
180
Location
USA
I found this video today because of YouTube's weird algorithm. It's in a different langauge but this guy has stickers and puts them over the numbers in his license plate where It can't be detected on a camera? Idk if its real but the first thing that comes to mind is free Tollways lmao
It's Russian... And likely a scam.
 

MASI

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
Aug 20, 2020
Messages
424
Reaction score
940
Location
Moving ......
To be commercially successful, you would need to reliably show:

1) That it actually works. And by works, I mean that it significantly reduces range at all common radar frequencies. Given the range of current detectors, 10-20% reduction is not all that exciting, while a 40 -80% would be! Naturally, the higher the price, the more effective it must be; and

2) That it does not significantly alter the appearance of the vehicle. A clear film would be ideal, because it would like rock chip protection film.

Got a product that actually works and fulfills the above? Let's talk.
 
Last edited:

JustinP

PSL +PSL
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 18, 2016
Messages
2,914
Reaction score
5,997
Only if you can put Veil on top of it for ultimate protection.
 

Ultrafudd

Learning to Drive
Premium Plus
General User
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Messages
41
Reaction score
97
Location
SE Wisconsin
Next time you go to an air show and they have one of those F-117 Cockroaches that only fly at night, take a pocketknife and scrape a little of the paint off a wing. Then go over to Sherwin Williams and check if they can match the color. 😁
 

Token

PSL +5
Intermediate User
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
560
Reaction score
1,995
Location
Mojave Desert, CA, USA
To be commercially successful, you would need to reliably show:

1) That it actually works. And by works, I mean that it significantly reduces range at all common radar frequencies. Given the range of current detectors, 10-20% reduction is not all that exciting, while a 40 -80% would be! Naturally, the higher the price, the more effective it must be; and

The range of current detectors is less relevant when dealing with I/O and an officer that understands how to use it. Moderate to light traffic and an officer that only triggers I/O when they suspect a target is well over the limit can make for low probability of RD activation before you are in the kill zone.

Below I am just pulling numbers for examples and math, everything is "correct", but based on the example max range, and that max detection range quoted is not a real number, just an example used to convey the concept. It may be applicable to some situations, but not others. The relative values are real.

If an officer expects to get a radar return at 1500 feet on an average size vehicle, and waits until the target is well inside the kill zone, say at 1000 feet, but a RAM (Radar Absorbing / Ablative Material) applied reduces the RCS so that the tracking range is less than half, like 500 feet, then the driver would get an extra 500 feet to react/respond before they are cooked. Of course, that is not a long way when moving at speed, but it is better than nothing.

What does that mean in real terms? In order to reduce the detection range from 1500 feet to 500 feet you need to reduce the RCS by about 9.5 dB. That is around an 89% reduction in RCS. i.e. a target with an RCS of 10 square meters must be reduced to slightly over 1 square meter. To half the range, take 1500 feet down to 750 feet, you need to reduce the RCS by 6 dB, or by 75%.

2) That it does not significantly alter the appearance of the vehicle. A clear film would be ideal, because it would like rock chip protection film.

And that just ain't going to happen.

This is not going to be a quick, colorless spray on material, or a thin clear film like a wrap. The required materials in the RAM used are going to have color, visual opacity, and some kind of texture. Of course it could be pigmented, to yield the color desired. But the physical depth will be significantly greater than the ~8 mil thickness of a PPF and a lot thicker than the ~2 mil depth of an average clear coat.

If you designed the material to work at K and Ka band, disregarding X band, it would probably be more visually acceptable to a larger group of users.

The upshot of this all is that it absolutely could be done. Without changing the shape of the vehicle or the vehicles construction materials a coating could be applied that might reduce the RCS by a significant factor. 6 dB, or more (at a quick guess something on the order of ~10 dB should be possible, but I honestly have not looked that deeply into it), of reduction in RCS should be possible by coatings only, reducing maximum detection range significantly. Of course an approach addressing vehicle shapes, construction materials, and coatings, would yield better results.

It would not be cheap and it would probably be visually apparent. Also, how the material weathers might not be acceptable to the average driver, it would almost certainly be more fragile than automotive finishes typically are.

T!
 
Last edited:

WildOne

PSL +5
Intermediate User
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
840
Reaction score
2,608
Location
MD
The range of current detectors is less relevant when dealing with I/O and an officer that understands how to use it. Moderate to light traffic and an officer that only triggers I/O when they suspect a target is well over the limit can make for low probability of RD activation before you are in the kill zone.

Below I am just pulling numbers for examples and math, everything is "correct", but based on the example max range, and that max detection range quoted is not a real number, just an example used to convey the concept. It may be applicable to some situations, but not others. The relative values are real.

If an officer expects to get a radar return at 1500 feet on an average size vehicle, and waits until the target is well inside the kill zone, say at 1000 feet, but a RAM (Radar Absorbing / Ablative Material) applied reduces the RCS so that the tracking range is less than half, like 500 feet, then the driver would get an extra 500 feet to react/respond before they are cooked. Of course, that is not a long way when moving at speed, but it is better than nothing.

What does that mean in real terms? In order to reduce the detection range from 1500 feet to 500 feet you need to reduce the RCS by about 9.5 dB. That is around an 89% reduction in RCS. i.e. a target with an RCS of 10 square meters must be reduced to slightly over 1 square meter. To half the range, take 1500 feet down to 750 feet, you need to reduce the RCS by 6 dB, or by 75%.



And that just ain't going to happen.

This is not going to be a quick, colorless spray on material, or a thin clear film like a wrap. The required materials in the RAM used are going to have color, visual opacity, and some kind of texture. Of course it could be pigmented, to yield the color desired. But the physical depth will be significantly greater than the ~8 mil thickness of a PPF and a lot thicker than the ~2 mil depth of an average clear coat.

If you designed the material to work at K and Ka band, disregarding X band, it would probably be more visually acceptable to a larger group of users.

The upshot of this all is that it absolutely could be done. Without changing the shape of the vehicle or the vehicles construction materials a coating could be applied that might reduce the RCS by a significant factor. 6 dB, or more (at a quick guess something on the order of ~10 dB should be possible, but I honestly have not looked that deeply into it), of reduction in RCS should be possible by coatings only, reducing maximum detection range significantly. Of course an approach addressing vehicle shapes, construction materials, and coatings, would yield better results.

It would not be cheap and it would probably be visually apparent. Also, how the material weathers might not be acceptable to the average driver, it would almost certainly be more fragile than automotive finishes typically are.

T!
Also, by the time you got it down by ~5dB, you would need to start worrying about the reflection from inside of the car, the wheel reflections and the resonance of the undercarriage bouncing back. I seriously doubt anyone would want to drive around in a car that had even been treated to get a few dB less RCS!
 

Signal Environment

PSL +5
Intermediate User
Joined
Apr 2, 2020
Messages
589
Reaction score
1,871
Repainting one's car is not a trivial endeavor. But assuming I were going to repaint a car, and a paint existed that had a significant impact on radar range, I'd definitely consider it.

Although I just thought of a possible issue: with so many radar-based cruise control systems out there, you might have issues where their system doesn't recognize your car adequately and causes an accident. Normally if you were hardcore enough to buy the anti-radar paint you're probably driving faster than anyone's cruise speed. But there's always the chance you'll get hung up in traffic.
 

RustyShackleford

Learning to Drive
General User
Joined
Jun 3, 2021
Messages
62
Reaction score
173
Location
Oregon
There are some products out there I guess, maybe on the phone "yes I need a little for my kids science project". It would be cool to test some animal hair based homebrew vs some of the commercial stuff
 

Attachments

  • ramimg.png
    ramimg.png
    113.8 KB · Views: 7

Discord Server

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Threads
96,510
Messages
1,468,785
Members
24,749
Latest member
ronp
Top