China officially admitted "Red B2"!

[Beast]

Yes..Yes your stealth fighter is perfect, ignore Gambit.

Well done! American are proud of you acknowledgement.

The J-31 is superior to either the F-22 or F-35 because it combines all of the strengths of the two aircraft and has none of the weaknesses.

The gaps around the F-22's inlets are eliminated because the J-31 has DSI.

The J-31 has no F-35 style lumps and bumps all over the underside because the J-31 has the F-22's superior flat lower fuselage.

And thus we have the perfect stealth fighter with no weaknesses.

Also I urge everyone to just ignore gambit's many paragraphs of trolling and misdirection.

If you want to know why the F-22/J-31's flat lower fuselage is a superior design just refer to this diagram.

It's so simple even a child will understand.

Generally, I agree with your statement but only after J-31 fitted with a stealthy 2D high thrust power engine, will it completes it in area of stealth and performance.

 

[Esc8781]

The J-31 is superior to either the F-22 or F-35 because it combines all of the strengths of the two aircraft and has none of the weaknesses.

The gaps around the F-22's inlets are eliminated because the J-31 has DSI.

The J-31 has no F-35 style lumps and bumps all over the underside because the J-31 has the F-22's superior flat lower fuselage.

And thus we have the perfect stealth fighter with no weaknesses.

Also I urge everyone to just ignore gambit's many paragraphs of trolling and misdirection.

If you want to know why the F-22/J-31's flat lower fuselage is a superior design just refer to this diagram.

It's so simple even a child will understand.

Very nice analysis!

 

[gambit]

Yes..Yes your stealth fighter is perfect, ignore Gambit.

And people say we should not laugh at and use the phrase 'Chinese physics' to describe how the Chinese members here describe something outside of their experience.

 

[420canada]

gambit sir how do you harness this information about the j-31 do you think it dose not have lower RCS? sir.

 

[Esc8781]

gambit sir how do you harness this information about the j-31 do you think it dose not have lower RCS? sir.

Ask @j20blackdragon. He's the 'real' professional with experience.

 

[dbc]

And people say we should not laugh at and use the phrase 'Chinese physics' to describe how the Chinese members here describe something outside of their experience.

He's probably a kid, if he is an adult then the guards at his mental health institute are on an extended coffee break.
No point wasting your time on people who believe something, anything can be perfect.

 

[gambit]

gambit sir how do you harness this information about the j-31 do you think it dose not have lower RCS? sir.

I have said this over and over, despite how much the Chinese members have distorted my views: In this quite new area of deliberate low radar observable bodies, we cannot make judgments in the absence of hard EM isolated anechoic chamber testing.

Just in case you do not know what is an 'EM isolated anechoic chamber testing'...

http://www.edwards.af.mil/photos/media_search.asp?q=benefield
http://www.edwards.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/120501-F-ZZ999-091.jpg

The Benefield facility at Edwards AFB is the world's best and largest. What we chose to published on what were tested/measured is not even 1/10th of what really went thru. I know that for a fact.

Basically, we take a real body, not just a full scale model of it, then we isolated it from environmental EM sources such as TV, radio, and even cosmic background radiation (CBR). Then we bombard that body with operational radar freqs at precise angles. That is the only way we know to the best of currently technology can give us as to how is the body's RCS. No other way. No simulations. And worst of all -- no eyeballing the jet and make judgment as how the Chinese members repeatedly have done here.

 

[j20blackdragon]

I want you guys to ask yourselves two simple questions.

Question 1:

Which is better, the F-35's DSI or the F-22's giant gaps around the inlets?

Question 2:

Which is better, the F-22's flat lower fuselage or the F-35's lumps and bumps?

Now look at the J-31.

Does it have all the good characteristics of the F-22 and F-35 or does it have all the bad ones?

This is very simple people.

 

[gambit]

I want you guys to ask yourselves two simple questions.

Question 1:

Which is better, the F-35's DSI or the F-22's giant gaps around the inlets?

Question 2:

Which is better, the F-22's flat lower fuselage or the F-35's lumps and bumps?

Now look at the J-31.

Does it have all the good characteristics of the F-22 and F-35 or does it have all the bad ones?

This is very simple people.

Simple minds create simple questions and delude itself into believing it 'proved' anything.

Yah...This proved 'Chinese physics' beyond any doubt. Just simply eyeball it and declare it. The US wasted hundreds of million$$ into research facilities like BAF when we could just simply call in any Chinese off the street.

 

[j20blackdragon]

Just simply eyeball it and declare it. The US wasted hundreds of million$$ into research facilities like BAF when we could just simply call in any Chinese off the street.

But it's not just simple eyeballing.

We can prove gaps and cavities produce a return.

We can prove that a tilted flat surface is superior to a curved surface.

The diagrams above were created by real professionals, not by me.

In fact, the first diagram was first posted by YOU. I just saved it.

 

[gambit]

But it's not just simple eyeballing.

We can prove gaps and cavities produce a return.

We can prove that a tilted flat surface is superior to a curved surface.

The diagrams above were created by real professionals, not by me.

In fact, the first diagram was first posted by YOU. I just saved it.

Why should it matter who created it? What this mean is that even if a text book is presented in front of you, it would be beyond your head if you cannot understand from even simple diagrams.

 

[gambit]

Nah, we 'cheerleaders' wouldn't respond to such farce.

In the classroom, we were told to assume the body is of a 'perfectly electrically conducting' (PEC) material and that edges are of infinite length in order to isolate a particular radiating mechanism. Given the farce we see on this sub-forum about this subject, we should not be surprised if the Chinese members here would actually take such instructions literally for the J-20, J-31, and now this speculative 'red B-2'.

 

[gambit]

Where is all gambit cheerleaders? Dumbfounded after j20blackdragon explanation?

Now...Here is how you guys are going to be dumbfounded...By real physics and logical thinking...

First, we review what your simple minded friend tried to passed off to all of you who are equally simple minded about this subject...

Nothing you say will change the fact that a tilted flat plate is superior to a curved surface filled with lumps and bumps.

He has been trying to pass of the silly idea that on an aircraft that is actually flying, a tilted plate will remain tilted WITH RESPECT TO ANGLE OF INCIDENCE.

This patently defy the laws of real physics.

News for all of the Chinese members here: Angle of incidence IS NOT the same as direction of approach.

Angle of incidence is based upon the perspective of the target.

So if the plate rotate, the angle of incidence will change with respect to rotation...

The top illustration is if the plate does not rotate but the direction of approach changes. The lower illustration is if the plate rotate but the direction of approach remains the same. In both examples, angles of incidences are different with respect to the plate during its attitude changes (rotation).

What this mean is that as the aircraft 'spatially translate', fancy words for flying, even if the seeking radar is fixed like in a ground station, the aircraft will produce varying degrees of radar cross section (RCS) because a complex body will produce diverse surfaces to the seeking radar AT THE SAME TIME. All of these many cross section values give us an average value that we produce for publication.

So what is the comparison between a plate and a diameter (sphere or cylinder) when facing a seeking radar?

Note paragraph 5 right from the beginning: This means that the flat plate would produce a response some 12000 times greater than the sphere,...

Translation: A flat plate facing the radar is 12,000 times greater in reflection than the diameter (sphere or cylinder).

Translation: As the plate rotate, it will produce a predictable pulsating pattern of zero to a maximum whereas the diameter will produce a steady low level reflection (specular).

The creeping wave behavior will exist or not depending on the 10-lambda rule, but going into that rule will blow your mind. You guys are having difficulties with what I have been presenting all this time anyway.

So when it comes to the F-117...

Lockheed knew of this effect but because they did not have the computational power to predict/control curvatures, they have no choice but to use the angled faceting (plates) approach. As the -117 maneuvers inside the radar beam, its many angled facets produces varying cross sectional values but those values are too low inside the clutter rejection threshold for most radars. Hence, the -117 is 'stealthy'. That ought to show how good are Lockheed's engineers when they were in the age of slide rules.

But when comes sufficient computational power to predict/control curvatures, everyone, including China, moved away from the angled faceting method and into curvatures, and that is evident in China's products.

So for you ya-hoos to focus solely on the undersides means none of you have the necessary brains to comprehend complex relationships beyond the number 2.

 

[Fsjal]

I want you guys to ask yourselves two simple questions.

Question 1:

Which is better, the F-35's DSI or the F-22's giant gaps around the inlets?

Question 2:

Which is better, the F-22's flat lower fuselage or the F-35's lumps and bumps?

Now look at the J-31.

Does it have all the good characteristics of the F-22 and F-35 or does it have all the bad ones?

This is very simple people.

The F-22 flat fuselage looks better in my opinion

 

[帅的一匹]

Next time don't name it as red B2, should be Chinese strategic stealthy bomber.