# Its Official: JXX is going to test fly in the next few days



## Communist

*Sorry I am not allowed to disclose when Mother China will publicly disclose JXX. *


*&#28207;&#23186;&#31216;&#35299;&#25918;&#20891;&#22235;&#20195;&#26426;&#21363;&#23558;&#23436;&#25104;&#30740;&#21046;*
2010&#24180;04&#26376;27&#26085; 13:25:52 &#12288;&#26469;&#28304;&#65306;&#29615;&#29699;&#26102;&#25253;







&#32593;&#21451;&#21046;&#20316;&#30340;&#20013;&#22269;&#22235;&#20195;&#26426;&#24819;&#35937;&#22270;&#12290;

&#36817;&#26399;&#26377;&#28207;&#23186;&#31216;&#65292;&#20013;&#22269;&#31532;&#22235;&#20195;&#25112;&#26426;&#21363;&#23558;&#23436;&#25104;&#30740;&#21046;&#65292;&#20250;&#20808;&#34892;&#36827;&#34892;&#20869;&#37096;&#23567;&#33539;&#22260;&#35797;&#39134;&#65292;&#30446;&#21069;&#65292;&#31354;&#20891;&#27491;&#22312;&#21152;&#32039;&#30456;&#20851;&#39550;&#39542;&#21592;&#30340;&#35757;&#32451;&#12290;

&#12298;&#39321;&#28207;&#21830;&#25253;&#12299;&#32593;&#31449;4&#26376;14&#26085;&#21002;&#21457;&#39064;&#20026;&#31532;&#22235;&#20195;&#25112;&#26426;&#24555;&#30740;&#25104; &#21487;&#23218;&#32654;F-22 &#20891;&#26041;&#26089;&#24050;&#35757;&#32451;&#26426;&#24072;&#30340;&#25991;&#31456;&#65292;&#25991;&#20013;&#25552;&#21040;&#65292;&#20013;&#22269;&#31532;&#22235;&#20195;&#25112;&#26426;&#24456;&#24555;&#23601;&#35201;&#25581;&#24320;&#31070;&#31192;&#38754;&#32433;&#65292;*&#28040;&#24687;&#20154;&#22763;&#36879;&#38706;&#65292;&#32463;&#36807;&#22810;&#24180;&#30340;&#30740;&#21046;&#65292;&#30446;&#21069;&#24050;&#36827;&#20837;&#25910;&#25104;&#38454;&#27573;&#65292;&#20013;&#22269;&#20250;&#20808;&#34892;&#36827;&#34892;&#20869;&#37096;&#23567;&#33539;&#22260;&#35797;&#39134;&#12290;*

&#28207;&#23186;&#31216;&#65292;&#20026;&#37197;&#21512;&#26032;&#20195;&#25112;&#26426;&#65292;&#20013;&#22269;&#26089;&#24050;&#23494;&#38179;&#32039;&#40723;&#22320;&#21152;&#32039;&#23545;&#26032;&#25112;&#26426;&#26426;&#24072;&#30340;&#35757;&#32451;&#12290;&#20854;&#20013;&#21253;&#25324;&#25317;&#26377;&#20197;&#27516;-10&#34920;&#28436;&#38431;&#33879;&#21517;&#30340;&#31354;24&#24072;&#65292;&#20027;&#35201;&#26159;&#38024;&#23545;&#19981;&#21516;&#24615;&#33021;&#30340;&#19968;&#20123;&#24120;&#35268;&#24615;&#35757;&#32451;&#20064;&#12290;

&#28207;&#23186;&#24341;&#29992;&#19968;&#20301;&#20891;&#23448;&#30340;&#35805;&#25253;&#36947;&#35828;&#65292;&#25105;&#32477;&#23545;&#30456;&#20449;&#25105;&#20204;&#22269;&#23478;&#33322;&#31354;&#24037;&#19994;&#30340;&#23454;&#21147;&#65292;&#20250;&#20026;&#25105;&#20204;&#30740;&#21046;&#20986;&#26356;&#20986;&#33394;&#30340;&#25112;&#26426;&#65281;&#33267;&#20110;&#24403;&#21069;&#26159;&#21542;&#20855;&#22791;&#23454;&#21147;&#23545;&#20184;F-22&#65292;&#36825;&#20301;&#20891;&#23448;&#29992;&#20853;&#26469;&#23558;&#25377;&#27700;&#26469;&#22303;&#25513;&#22238;&#31572;&#12290;

&#25991;&#31456;&#36824;&#25552;&#21040;&#65292;&#26089;&#22312;&#21435;&#24180;&#24213;&#65292;&#20013;&#22269;&#31354;&#20891;&#21103;&#21496;&#20196;&#20309;&#20026;&#33635;&#23601;&#36879;&#38706;&#65292;&#31532;&#22235;&#20195;&#25112;&#26426;&#21363;&#23558;&#36827;&#34892;&#39318;&#39134;&#65292;&#20043;&#21518;&#39532;&#19978;&#36827;&#20837;&#35797;&#39134;&#38454;&#27573;&#65292;&#26681;&#25454;&#29616;&#26377;&#24773;&#20917;&#65292;&#22312;8&#21040;10&#24180;&#21518;&#21363;&#21487;&#35013;&#22791;&#37096;&#38431;&#12290;

&#12298;&#39321;&#28207;&#21830;&#25253;&#12299;&#36824;&#25552;&#21040;&#65292;&#28040;&#24687;&#20154;&#22763;&#25351;&#20986;&#65292;&#31532;&#22235;&#20195;&#25112;&#26426;&#36739;&#31532;&#19977;&#20195;&#25216;&#26415;&#20248;&#21183;&#21576;&#29616;&#20986;&#21069;&#25152;&#26410;&#26377;&#30340;&#20195;&#24046;&#65292;&#21487;&#23218;&#32654;&#32654;&#21046;F-22&#65292;&#20855;&#22791;&#38544;&#24418;&#12289;&#36229;&#38899;&#36895;&#24033;&#33322;&#12289;&#36229;&#26426;&#21160;&#24615;&#12289;&#30701;&#36317;&#36215;&#39134;&#31561;&#29305;&#24615;&#12290;&#27492;&#26426;&#19968;&#20986;&#65292;&#23558;&#22823;&#22823;&#25552;&#21319;&#20013;&#22269;&#31354;&#20891;&#23454;&#21147;&#65292;&#25289;&#36817;&#21644;&#27431;&#32654;&#22269;&#23478;&#30340;&#36317;&#31163;&#12290;

Reactions: Like Like:
16


----------



## Speeder 2

^^^ Hey, I saw the news at HKCD website yesterday and posted the news (or better say "still rumour" ) on PDF/ FC-20 thread, ahead of you . 

Hope it turns out to be true! Then we could be surprised one of these days by the first leaked real photo of JXX appearing somewhere in the net...

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## WAQAS119

oh great news...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## WAQAS119

Design is awesome...


----------



## Guest

sorry for saying this, this pic looks so ugly. however, this may be exactly what we are going to see. all the pics of Jxx released looks almost identical to this one. and most importantly, these pics also look identical to the one, PSed by GaoShan, first seen in 2007.


----------



## WAQAS119



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Speeder 2

no no, you guys have mistaken. above photo for sure is a fan art (it's noted below), still not the real one.

The real one could appear in www by leaked sources somewhere soon...hopefully. There're many reporters out there trying to take a shot on the bird , I can imagine.

Fingers crossed!


----------



## aimarraul

this is official, from HY daily, JXX=J10B


*Chinese Air Force official: China's fourth-generation fighters refer to modified J-10 fighters*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Speeder 2

aimarraul said:


> this is official, from HY daily, JXX=J10B
> 
> 
> *Chinese Air Force official: China's fourth-generation fighters refer to modified J-10 fighters*



come on, you can't be serious. that was an old news, aiming to deflam rumours created by deputy chief of plaaf's TV interview, in which he mentioned "maiden flight soon" - hasn't J-10B conducted its maiden flight yet? That just doesn't wash. 

He also said "according to the current statue it could be inducted in the next 8 -10 years".

See? he couldn't possiblely mean that J-10B could be inducted in teh next 8-10 years, could he?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## topjumper

He's trying to downplay people's expectations here, understandable. There are nothing concrete on the internet yet about this plane.


----------



## genetic_nomad

beautiful bird, waiting to see it on official channels


----------



## chinapakistan

genetic_nomad said:


> beautiful bird, waiting to see it on official channels



That pic is PSed, not the real one. There are no real Jxx pictures on internet.


----------



## Speeder 2

topjumper said:


> He's trying to downplay people's expectations here, understandable. There are nothing concrete on the internet yet about this plane.



I knew it, just played with him.


hey armaraul, what your avatar is about? that must be J-10C, right? haha


----------



## !!craft!!

this look like a damm good bird with forwards canards....!! dont think any 5th gen fighter plane has it.... congragulations to my chinese friends...you guys reaaly pulled one out!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Speeder 2

aimarraul said:


> WS-15 will take at least 5 more years,"maiden flight" is impossible before 2015



impossible?  

ruskies, anyone?




aimarraul said:


> canard configuration



I see...alongwith full stealth "configuration", super maneuverbility and super cruise too?


----------



## Machoman

Damn this plane looks like a monster. Reall killer man Go China

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Guest

yeah, the pic is PSed. but why all pics and other sources (remember the new MFD) can be linked back to the first one. and if you ask me, this certainly can be count as a upgraded or modified J10. furthermore, this plane may not have a powerful engine or radar too, at least for now. therefore, it could still be classfied as 4G fighter either.


----------



## topjumper

It'll first fly with russian engines, the deal is already there. TG won't give up the rest of the jet's development just because its engine technology needs more time to catch up, it's the same thing all over again as the J-10 -- fly on Russian engine first, then put in chinese engine a few years later when ready. 

Still, until we see the real pics on the internet then all of this is just speculations.


----------



## ao333

This is more than speculation; it's BS. China will always introduce its counterparts after India buys something, not before. Just as how the J-10 were inducted 1 year after SU-30MKI entered service, if past trends continue, the J-10B will be made public in 2014-2015, when the MMRCA starts. And the J-XX will "go Xinhua" whenever India decides to carry out the PAK FA purchase. So I'd say *at least* 3 years until maiden flight.

Furthermore, it's not that the Chinese government doesn't want to gloat, but that it can't. The last time they did with their missiles in 1995, American carrier battle groups came rushing into the Taiwan Strait. Who knows what will happen if they showed off their 5th gen or anything that is superior to Taiwan's F-16C/D? Now, if India introduces something, it'd give the PLAAF an excuse to introduce its "Taiwan liberation" means. It's all a matter of timing. The intelligence agencies know when and what will enter service, and for what purpose. It's simply done this way, so as to not allow the media too much space to elaborate on. In other words, for China, it's not a matter of when the plane enters service, it's about when Xinhua/CCTV publicizes it.


----------



## TechLahore

ao333 said:


> The last time they did with their missiles in 1995, American carriers came rushing into the Taiwan Strait. Who knows what will happen if they showed off their 5th gen or anything that is superior to Taiwan's F-16C/D? Now, if India introduces something, it'd



China does not fear American aircraft carriers anymore. If it did, it would not have demonstrated its satellite killer missile, announced its anti-carrier BM capability or aggressively brought down a USAF surveillance aircraft and held its crew captive for several days.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## syntax_error

That is one huge plane mate!!!!
what the size comparision to F-22 and Pak-FA ???
any1 ?


----------



## Kompromat

Communist said:


> *Sorry I am not allowed to disclose when Mother China will publicly disclose JXX. *
> 
> 
> *&#28207;&#23186;&#31216;&#35299;&#25918;&#20891;&#22235;&#20195;&#26426;&#21363;&#23558;&#23436;&#25104;&#30740;&#21046;*
> 2010&#24180;04&#26376;27&#26085; 13:25:52 &#12288;&#26469;&#28304;&#65306;&#29615;&#29699;&#26102;&#25253;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#32593;&#21451;&#21046;&#20316;&#30340;&#20013;&#22269;&#22235;&#20195;&#26426;&#24819;&#35937;&#22270;&#12290;
> 
> &#36817;&#26399;&#26377;&#28207;&#23186;&#31216;&#65292;&#20013;&#22269;&#31532;&#22235;&#20195;&#25112;&#26426;&#21363;&#23558;&#23436;&#25104;&#30740;&#21046;&#65292;&#20250;&#20808;&#34892;&#36827;&#34892;&#20869;&#37096;&#23567;&#33539;&#22260;&#35797;&#39134;&#65292;&#30446;&#21069;&#65292;&#31354;&#20891;&#27491;&#22312;&#21152;&#32039;&#30456;&#20851;&#39550;&#39542;&#21592;&#30340;&#35757;&#32451;&#12290;
> 
> &#12298;&#39321;&#28207;&#21830;&#25253;&#12299;&#32593;&#31449;4&#26376;14&#26085;&#21002;&#21457;&#39064;&#20026;&#31532;&#22235;&#20195;&#25112;&#26426;&#24555;&#30740;&#25104; &#21487;&#23218;&#32654;F-22 &#20891;&#26041;&#26089;&#24050;&#35757;&#32451;&#26426;&#24072;&#30340;&#25991;&#31456;&#65292;&#25991;&#20013;&#25552;&#21040;&#65292;&#20013;&#22269;&#31532;&#22235;&#20195;&#25112;&#26426;&#24456;&#24555;&#23601;&#35201;&#25581;&#24320;&#31070;&#31192;&#38754;&#32433;&#65292;*&#28040;&#24687;&#20154;&#22763;&#36879;&#38706;&#65292;&#32463;&#36807;&#22810;&#24180;&#30340;&#30740;&#21046;&#65292;&#30446;&#21069;&#24050;&#36827;&#20837;&#25910;&#25104;&#38454;&#27573;&#65292;&#20013;&#22269;&#20250;&#20808;&#34892;&#36827;&#34892;&#20869;&#37096;&#23567;&#33539;&#22260;&#35797;&#39134;&#12290;*
> 
> &#28207;&#23186;&#31216;&#65292;&#20026;&#37197;&#21512;&#26032;&#20195;&#25112;&#26426;&#65292;&#20013;&#22269;&#26089;&#24050;&#23494;&#38179;&#32039;&#40723;&#22320;&#21152;&#32039;&#23545;&#26032;&#25112;&#26426;&#26426;&#24072;&#30340;&#35757;&#32451;&#12290;&#20854;&#20013;&#21253;&#25324;&#25317;&#26377;&#20197;&#27516;-10&#34920;&#28436;&#38431;&#33879;&#21517;&#30340;&#31354;24&#24072;&#65292;&#20027;&#35201;&#26159;&#38024;&#23545;&#19981;&#21516;&#24615;&#33021;&#30340;&#19968;&#20123;&#24120;&#35268;&#24615;&#35757;&#32451;&#20064;&#12290;
> 
> &#28207;&#23186;&#24341;&#29992;&#19968;&#20301;&#20891;&#23448;&#30340;&#35805;&#25253;&#36947;&#35828;&#65292;&#25105;&#32477;&#23545;&#30456;&#20449;&#25105;&#20204;&#22269;&#23478;&#33322;&#31354;&#24037;&#19994;&#30340;&#23454;&#21147;&#65292;&#20250;&#20026;&#25105;&#20204;&#30740;&#21046;&#20986;&#26356;&#20986;&#33394;&#30340;&#25112;&#26426;&#65281;&#33267;&#20110;&#24403;&#21069;&#26159;&#21542;&#20855;&#22791;&#23454;&#21147;&#23545;&#20184;F-22&#65292;&#36825;&#20301;&#20891;&#23448;&#29992;&#20853;&#26469;&#23558;&#25377;&#27700;&#26469;&#22303;&#25513;&#22238;&#31572;&#12290;
> 
> &#25991;&#31456;&#36824;&#25552;&#21040;&#65292;&#26089;&#22312;&#21435;&#24180;&#24213;&#65292;&#20013;&#22269;&#31354;&#20891;&#21103;&#21496;&#20196;&#20309;&#20026;&#33635;&#23601;&#36879;&#38706;&#65292;&#31532;&#22235;&#20195;&#25112;&#26426;&#21363;&#23558;&#36827;&#34892;&#39318;&#39134;&#65292;&#20043;&#21518;&#39532;&#19978;&#36827;&#20837;&#35797;&#39134;&#38454;&#27573;&#65292;&#26681;&#25454;&#29616;&#26377;&#24773;&#20917;&#65292;&#22312;8&#21040;10&#24180;&#21518;&#21363;&#21487;&#35013;&#22791;&#37096;&#38431;&#12290;
> 
> &#12298;&#39321;&#28207;&#21830;&#25253;&#12299;&#36824;&#25552;&#21040;&#65292;&#28040;&#24687;&#20154;&#22763;&#25351;&#20986;&#65292;&#31532;&#22235;&#20195;&#25112;&#26426;&#36739;&#31532;&#19977;&#20195;&#25216;&#26415;&#20248;&#21183;&#21576;&#29616;&#20986;&#21069;&#25152;&#26410;&#26377;&#30340;&#20195;&#24046;&#65292;&#21487;&#23218;&#32654;&#32654;&#21046;F-22&#65292;&#20855;&#22791;&#38544;&#24418;&#12289;&#36229;&#38899;&#36895;&#24033;&#33322;&#12289;&#36229;&#26426;&#21160;&#24615;&#12289;&#30701;&#36317;&#36215;&#39134;&#31561;&#29305;&#24615;&#12290;&#27492;&#26426;&#19968;&#20986;&#65292;&#23558;&#22823;&#22823;&#25552;&#21319;&#20013;&#22269;&#31354;&#20891;&#23454;&#21147;&#65292;&#25289;&#36817;&#21644;&#27431;&#32654;&#22269;&#23478;&#30340;&#36317;&#31163;&#12290;




*Translation of this article*


China produced four generations of users machine Imaginative.

Recent Hong Kong media that China will soon complete the development of fourth-generation fighters, "will first conduct an internal small-scale test," Currently, the Air Force is stepping up the relevant driver training.

"Hong Kong Commercial Daily" Web site published on April 14, entitled "Research into the fourth generation of fighters may soon rival F-22 military pilots already trained," the article, the paper said, China's fourth-generation fighters will soon be exposed open mystery, sources said, after years of development, "has entered the harvest stage, China will first conduct an internal small-scale flight test."

Hong Kong media said, to meet the new generation of fighters, the Chinese already underway to intensify the training of new fighter pilots. J -10, including demonstration team has to empty 24 well-known teacher, "mainly for the performance of a number of different training routine practice."

Hong Kong media quoted a military officer as saying, "I absolutely believe that our national aviation industry's strength, will we develop a more excellent fighter!" For the current ability to meet the strength to deal with F-22, the officer of "soldiers to the breakwater to soil cover, "answered.

The article also mentioned that as early as late last year, how proud the Chinese air force deputy commander said the upcoming fourth-generation fighter first flight, followed immediately into the test phase, according to the existing situation, in the 8 to 10 years can the troops.

"Hong Kong Commercial Daily" also referred to sources, the fourth-generation fighters advantage over third-generation technology presents an unprecedented generation gap is comparable to the US-made F-22, with stealth, supersonic cruise, super maneuverability, short take-off and other characteristics. This machine came out, will greatly enhance China's air power, to narrow the distance between America and Europe.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## scuthan

I think Hongkong media should focus on entertainment news, which they are good at.


----------



## below_freezing

&#28207;&#23186;&#19981;&#21487;&#20449;&#65292;&#20182;&#20204;&#30340;&#27700;&#24179;&#20173;&#28982;&#20572;&#30041;&#22312;&#23089;&#20048;&#20843;&#21350;&#30340;&#23618;&#38754;&#19978;&#12290;

hong kong news is unreliable, their skill is still at the level of tabloids and gossip.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

I don't think Hong Kong's media is reliable, but I do believe PLAAF is on the track to introduce J-XX soon. The maiden flight should be expected before 2012. 

And pretty confident that we will have our indigenous turbofan engines. No way that Russians would share its newest engine technology with China, meanwhile they don't have it in their inventory yet.


----------



## Awesome

I'm yet to see one real picture of this plane.

But all the PSed designs seem to match a similar trend. There might be something in that.


----------



## Awesome

Who are these three?


----------



## nakodo

^^^^^^^^^^^^
Test pilots for J-XX? Anyways congratulations to all Chinese and eventually Pakistanis for creating this thread. Hopefully the plane will materialize on/before the stated time line else there will be no difference b/w running things in India and China. Or is it possible that China is already flying this plane and will wait to reveal it till 1 yr after India inducts PAK-FA as some1 suggested?


----------



## ao333

nakodo said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Test pilots for J-XX? Anyways congratulations to all Chinese and eventually Pakistanis for creating this thread. Hopefully the plane will materialize on/before the stated time line else there will be no difference b/w running things in India and China. Or is it possible that China is already flying this plane and will wait to reveal it till 1 yr after India inducts PAK-FA as some1 suggested?



PAK FA will FOC around 2015. Export processes to India will take another year. FOC for India will take another. So, I'd think the J-XX would be introduced around 2018 just as the Chinese general suggested.

And no, the maiden flight won't take place before 2013.


----------



## faithfulguy

ao333 said:


> PAK FA will FOC around 2015. Export processes to India will take another year. FOC for India will take another. So, I'd think the J-XX would be introduced around 2018 just as the Chinese general suggested.
> 
> And no, the maiden flight won't take place before 2013.



The only way India can have a stealth fighter before 2020 is to buy the F-35. But to do that, India must realign its foreign policy to that of the west.


----------



## gogbot

faithfulguy said:


> The only way India can have a stealth fighter before 2020 is to buy the F-35. But to do that, India must realign its foreign policy to that of the west.



Oh , then what does that mean for the J-XX .


----------



## faithfulguy

gogbot said:


> Oh , then what does that mean for the J-XX .



I do not know, you never know what the Chinese are doing. They are very very secretive. This plane might be ready to fly or there might not be such a project and no one knows. So its almost pointless to discuss the capability of Chinese military. They never make any public announcement and the ones that are made cannot be completely trusted. 

But what India can do is to prepare for China if it regards China as a core enemy that must its military must be defeated in 96 hours. The only plausible to accomplish that is by using US military hardware. Otherwise, India can be defeated in 96 hours. It that happens, India would become the laughing stock of the world history as it made threats that others can carry out against India. So if you want to talk big, you better be able to back it up.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

duhastmish said:


> sound like a rumor , chinese havent been able to make a good quality - 4 th gen fighter yet --- they are stuggling with j-10 .
> 
> but lets see may be they - got to steal the technology from aliens  loool ( j.k)
> 
> a fifht gen fighter with canards seems like a rumour.
> 
> cheers.



Last time i check PLAAF had 150 J-10s and were testing FC-20 with there indegenous engine?
Anyways nice trolling.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## below_freezing

i was about to say lol.

if we're "struggling" with J-10, then the LCA doesn't even exist.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gogbot

faithfulguy said:


> I do not know, you never know what the Chinese are doing. They are very very secretive. This plane might be ready to fly or there might not be such a project and no one knows. So its almost pointless to discuss the capability of Chinese military. They never make any public announcement and the ones that are made cannot be completely trusted.



Are you suggesting that China can have its stealth systems , before Russia/India .

You have been critical enough about my country and it allies.

Making audacious claims and constantly stating we can't accomplish anything 

Simply because of the fact we are not America.

And China is exempt from your judgement because it is so secretive.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## below_freezing

lol, why put india and russia together. russia is decades ahead of india.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

Relax fellas, no need to bring up pak-fa or India vs China. What are the chances that the Chinese release images of the aircraft if it actually takes to the sky, slim i'm guessing?


----------



## gubbi

ptldM3 said:


> Relax fellas, no need to bring up pak-fa or India vs China. What are the chances that the Chinese release images of the aircraft if it actually takes to the sky, slim i'm guessing?



That is IF the design takes to the skies. Creating such a LO design is not an easy task. There would be a whole lot of other variables to be taken into account. And given the fact that almost all of Chinese 'indigenous' aircraft are either stolen airframes or of Russian origin, they would find it really difficult to create a VLO airframe and make it fly.


----------



## below_freezing

gubbi said:


> That is IF the design takes to the skies. Creating such a LO design is not an easy task. There would be a whole lot of other variables to be taken into account. And given the fact that almost all of Chinese 'indigenous' aircraft are either stolen airframes or of Russian origin, they would find it really difficult to create a VLO airframe and make it fly.



yeah, the LCA is not stolen. it is 100&#37; pure indian tech. if you claimed india stole it, the original owner may be very offended. it is a plane truly worthy to represent the apex of indian engineering.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gubbi

below_freezing said:


> yeah, the LCA is not stolen. it is 100&#37; pure indian tech. if you claimed india stole it, the original owner may be very offended. it is a plane truly worthy to represent the apex of indian engineering.



Prove that LCA has stolen technologies or else I will refer to you henceforth as Mr. Mental case/Liar - one among the numerous 50 cent herd.

There is a world of difference between stealing technologies, renegading on contractual obligations and putting minds together in collaborations or buying technologies. You, mister, happen to know squat about LCA or the technologies it incorporates or for that matter even what goes into the J-10 program. 

So either post reliable source to back up your claim or take a hike mister. Oh yes, if you dont post a proper source, I shall refer to you henceforth as Mental Case or Mr Troll. Oh wait, better still, you shall be, plain and simple, ignored as one who knoweth nothing!.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## below_freezing

nope i said that LCA is completely indigenous 100&#37; indian technology.

if it was stolen, i'd be offended to be called the originating country.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Lilo

Does China have an engine that can super cruise?


----------



## below_freezing

probably not but supercruise is the most useless feature of a 5th generation plane.


----------



## jagjitnatt

The current pic is a fan art. It is in no way a stealthy design. Its rcs is probably more than 1-2 square meter.

JXX needs time. It is the first plane that China would be building on its own without any foreign input. It can only materialize soon if it is another stolen/copied design, but how many 5 th gen designs are there till date?

I expect a maiden flight no sooner than 2020. 5 gen plane are really tough to build, the tech were only available to US, even Russia can't build a proper stealth plane. China is a too far from US/Russia. India is not even in the game.

If it was another 4 gen plane, then I could believe the news, not for a 5 gen.


----------



## aimarraul

show russian the testing date of WS-15&#65292;we will have the temporary engine for testing modified J-10 ,they wouldn't miss the last 10 years to make more money from TG

http://www.takungpao.com:82/gate/gb/www.takungpao.com/news/10/04/28/junshi03-1250000.htm

2000&#24180;&#20197;&#21518;&#65292;&#20182;&#24320;&#22987;&#21442;&#21152;&#37197;&#35013;&#22235;&#20195;&#26426;&#30340;&#25105;&#22269;&#26368;&#20808;&#36827;&#30340;&#33322;&#31354;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#33258;&#20027;&#30740;&#21046;&#39033;&#30446;&#8212;&#39640;&#25512;&#37325;&#27604;&#21457;&#21160;&#26426;&#26680;&#24515;&#26426;&#26041;&#26696;&#35774;&#35745;&#21644;&#24037;&#31243;&#35774;&#35745;&#65292;&#30001;&#20110;&#25216;&#26415;&#36807;&#30828;&#65292;&#34920;&#29616;&#31361;&#20986;&#65292;&#20182;&#30001;&#19968;&#21517;&#26222;&#36890;&#30340;&#35774;&#35745;&#20154;&#21592;&#36880;&#28176;&#25104;&#38271;&#29234;&#24635;&#20307;&#32467;&#26500;&#25216;&#26415;&#30740;&#31350;&#23460;&#20027;&#20219;&#12289;&#39640;&#25512;&#37325;&#27604;&#26680;&#24515;&#26426;&#21103;&#24635;&#24037;&#31243;&#24072;&#12290;

2009&#24180;12&#26376;25&#26085;&#65292;&#25353;&#29031;&#21407;&#23450;&#35745;&#21010;&#65292;&#26159;&#26680;&#24515;&#26426;&#36827;&#34892;&#39640;&#31354;&#21488;&#36798;&#26631;&#35797;&#39564;&#30340;&#26085;&#23376;&#65292;&#36825;&#26159;&#32771;&#26680;&#35797;&#39564;&#30340;&#26368;&#21518;&#19968;&#20010;&#38454;&#27573;&#65292;&#20063;&#26159;&#26368;&#38590;&#36798;&#21040;&#30340;&#32771;&#26680;&#35797;&#39564;&#12290;&#36825;&#26102;&#65292;&#26680;&#24515;&#26426;&#24050;&#23436;&#25104;&#20998;&#35299;&#26816;&#26597;&#21644;&#37325;&#26032;&#35013;&#37197;&#65292;&#19968;&#20999;&#20284;&#20046;&#37117;&#24050;&#20934;&#22791;&#23601;&#32490;&#12290;&#22836;&#19968;&#22825;&#26202;&#19978;&#65292;&#26446;&#20013;&#31077;&#19968;&#30452;&#38590;&#20197;&#20837;&#30561;&#65292;&#26680;&#24515;&#26426;&#32467;&#26500;&#23601;&#20687;&#25918;&#30005;&#24433;&#20284;&#30340;&#19968;&#36941;&#21448;&#19968;&#36941;&#22312;&#33041;&#28023;&#37324;&#28014;&#29616;&#65292;&#21387;&#27668;&#26426;&#12289;&#29123;&#28903;&#23460;&#12289;&#28065;&#36718;&#65292;&#38745;&#23376;&#12289;&#36716;&#23376;&#65292;&#36724;&#21521;&#21147;&#183;&#183;&#183;&#183;&#183;&#65292;&#27599;&#19968;&#20010;&#35774;&#35745;&#32454;&#33410;&#26174;&#24471;&#26159;&#37027;&#20040;&#28165;&#26224;&#12290;&#31532;&#20108;&#22825;&#65292;&#22312;&#20180;&#32454;&#26597;&#30475;&#20102;&#26680;&#24515;&#26426;&#35013;&#37197;&#21518;&#30340;&#26816;&#27979;&#36164;&#26009;&#21518;&#20182;&#23545;&#21516;&#20107;&#35828;&#65292;&#12300;&#26680;&#24515;&#26426;&#26242;&#26102;&#36824;&#19981;&#33021;&#35797;&#36710;&#65292;&#28065;&#36718;&#30424;&#21069;&#38388;&#38553;&#24456;&#21487;&#33021;&#22826;&#23567;&#65292;&#35797;&#36710;&#26377;&#24456;&#22823;&#39118;&#38505;&#65292;&#35831;&#24378;&#24230;&#19987;&#19994;&#20877;&#20180;&#32454;&#26657;&#26680;&#19968;&#27425;&#12301;&#12290;&#38543;&#21518;&#65292;&#24378;&#24230;&#19987;&#19994;&#22312;&#32508;&#21512;&#32771;&#34385;&#36733;&#33655;&#12289;&#28201;&#24230;&#12289;&#36716;&#36895;&#31561;&#22810;&#31181;&#22240;&#32032;&#22522;&#30784;&#19978;&#23545;&#35813;&#22788;&#38388;&#38553;&#36827;&#34892;&#35814;&#32454;&#35745;&#31639;&#65292;&#35745;&#31639;&#32467;&#26524;&#35777;&#23454;&#20102;&#20182;&#30340;&#21028;&#26029;&#65292;&#26368;&#21518;&#19968;&#20010;&#32771;&#26680;&#35797;&#39564;&#28857;&#23384;&#22312;&#36716;&#12289;&#38745;&#23376;&#21457;&#29983;&#30896;&#25705;&#30340;&#24040;&#22823;&#21361;&#38505;&#12290;&#32463;&#36807;&#35774;&#35745;&#24072;&#31995;&#32479;&#30340;&#30740;&#31350;&#35752;&#35770;&#21518;&#20915;&#23450;&#65292;&#31435;&#21363;&#20877;&#27425;&#36827;&#34892;&#26680;&#24515;&#26426;&#20998;&#35299;&#35843;&#25972;&#21644;&#37325;&#26032;&#35013;&#37197;&#12290;&#27491;&#26159;&#30001;&#20110;&#20182;&#30340;&#35748;&#30495;&#30340;&#25490;&#26597;&#12289;&#26524;&#25954;&#30340;&#20915;&#23450;&#12289;&#27491;&#30830;&#30340;&#21028;&#26029;&#65292;&#20445;&#35777;&#20957;&#32858;&#20102;&#26080;&#25968;&#33322;&#31354;&#20154;&#24515;&#34880;&#12289;&#26497;&#20854;&#36149;&#37325;&#30340;&#26680;&#24515;&#26426;&#39034;&#21033;&#23436;&#25104;&#20102;&#26368;&#29234;&#20851;&#38190;&#30340;&#39640;&#31354;&#21488;&#36798;&#26631;&#35797;&#39564;&#12290;

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dingyibvs

I like this fanpic better, it's basically a high-res version of a supposed leak from Chengdu:







And here's the supposed leak:






There are some differences, of course, but the general shapes of the two are pretty similar.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## no_name

^^ can't see pic


----------



## jagjitnatt

no_name said:


> ^^ can't see pic



me too.


----------



## Hyde

dingyibvs said:


> I like this fanpic better, it's basically a high-res version of a supposed leak from Chengdu:
> 
> 
> 
> And here's the supposed leak:


You are quoting pictures from another forum's attached posts. You will have to save those pictures and upload on image hosting sites like imageshack.us

Not everybody will register there to see those pics


----------



## dingyibvs

Sry guys, haven't been posting on message boards for long, but I've edited them

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## no_name

@ no. 47

First pic is my favourite. I think it just looks more sexy than other pics.


----------



## jagjitnatt

I must say, the pics are awesome. One of these might be my next wallpaper.

But for a 5th gen, these pics don't look authentic.


----------



## mohd497

Congrates to the Chinese brothers may j-xx take maiden flight real soon.For those who think design is not stealthy please leave it for the experts and the people who are building it i dont think they are investing in it to be not stealthy.


----------



## dingyibvs

no_name said:


> @ no. 47
> 
> First pic is my favourite. I think it just looks more sexy than other pics.



Heh yea, I like it a lot too, but I don't think it looks as stealthy as the supposed leak pic.


----------



## gogbot

Not that i want to reign in on anyone's parade .
You are free to enjoy the concept art as you please but ,

a friendly reminder this was the concept art for the PAK-FA / FGFA









it was very awesome, 

and even quoted by Sukhoi as saying they were very close to the real thing

in the end we got this










I am just saying ,

This cool PS plane 







As awesome as they are , does not mean they are anywhere close to the real thing

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## jagjitnatt

And this was my favorite pic


I was seriously disappointed when I saw the real PakFa pics. The actual plane didn't look anywhere close to the fan art. The photoshop pic was just the coolest pic I had ever seen.


----------



## thebrownguy

jagjitnatt said:


> And this was my favorite pic
> 
> 
> I was seriously disappointed when I saw the real PakFa pics. The actual plane didn't look anywhere close to the fan art. The photoshop pic was just the coolest pic I had ever seen.


hahah .. same with me. I was really fascinated by the fan art. But the T50 looks like the beauty to me, now that the influence of fan pic is over.


----------



## dingyibvs

jagjitnatt said:


> And this was my favorite pic
> 
> 
> I was seriously disappointed when I saw the real PakFa pics. The actual plane didn't look anywhere close to the fan art. The photoshop pic was just the coolest pic I had ever seen.



Heh yea, it's def a very cool looking piece of fanart!

Also, I think we all know that they're just fanarts, nobody's saying it's the real thing. However, a pretty reliable poster on another board did say about 3 months ago that this pic supposedly look basically identical to the real thing:






Out of all the fanarts I've seen of the JXX, the supposed Chengdu leak pics bear the strongest resemblance to that pic, so maybe there's some merit to it? It's also entirely possible that one of the pics is simply inspired by the other. I suppose we'll just have to wait!


----------



## lhuang

^ Why are there canards


----------



## jagjitnatt

lhuang said:


> ^ Why are there canards



cause photoshoppers love em.

No stealth plane will have canards. If it has canards, its not 5th gen.


----------



## nakodo

jagjitnatt said:


> cause photoshoppers love em.
> 
> No stealth plane will have canards. If it has canards, its not 5th gen.



auto-retractable upon detection of radar.


----------



## aimarraul

jagjitnatt said:


> cause photoshoppers love em.
> 
> No stealth plane will have canards. If it has canards, its not 5th gen.



canards affect the stealth peformance a lot when it deflect,you only need to use it during take-off/landing or do the super maneuver move,but it will provide better maneuverability to avoid the coming missile,if F-22's minimal frontal RCS is 0.1sqm,0.3 sqm is an acceptable number for modified J-10 ,our engine is not as good as F119,that's why it will have canards

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jagjitnatt

aimarraul said:


> canards affect the stealth peformance a lot when it deflect,you only need to use it during take-off/landing or do the super maneuver move,but it will provide better maneuverability to avoid the coming missile,if F-22's minimal frontal RCS is 0.1sqm,0.3 sqm is an acceptable number for modified J-10 ,our engine is not as good as F119,that's why it will have canards



F22 rcs is 0.0001 square meter.

The Su47 had an rcs of 0.3, EF2000 0.1, Rafale 0.3, J11 5 square meters.

Canards will kill the stealth.


----------



## aimarraul

jagjitnatt said:


> F22 rcs is 0.0001 square meter.



only idoit will believe this number


----------



## lhuang

aimarraul said:


> only idoit will believe this number



You didn't just say that


----------



## mohd497

first of all there are many types of canards some of it "kill the stealth" as stated by my indian friends while others use for maneuverability and reduced radar cross section lets take the example of eurofighter is have a special type of canard known as control-canard which is controlled by an software to control its canard leaving it to reduce its radar cross section. The picture which is uploaded by dingyibvs could be very close thing notice the design of f-22 or pak-fa in which ever the the angle of transmit of radar wave have hit the plane the every part of that plane hitting the radar wave hit back it is main objective when designing a stealth plane


----------



## SinoIndusFriendship

jagjitnatt said:


> *F22 rcs is 0.0001 square meter.*
> 
> The Su47 had an rcs of 0.3, EF2000 0.1, Rafale 0.3, J11 5 square meters.
> 
> Canards will kill the stealth.


----------



## jagjitnatt

aimarraul said:


> only idoit will believe this number





SinoIndusFriendship said:


>



The above number is believed to be true for F22 no matter what you say. 

Even F35 has 0.001 square meter rcs. That is why its called stealth aircraft.

Even the latest F16s have a smaller rcs around 1 square meter. Gone are the days when 5 square meter rcs was something to flaunt.

Get real.


----------



## jagjitnatt

mohd497 said:


> first of all there are many types of canards some of it "kill the stealth" as stated by my indian friends while others use for maneuverability and reduced radar cross section lets take the example of eurofighter is have a special type of canard known as control-canard which is controlled by an software to control its canard leaving it to reduce its radar cross section. The picture which is uploaded by dingyibvs could be very close thing notice the design of f-22 or pak-fa in which ever the the angle of transmit of radar wave have hit the plane the every part of that plane hitting the radar wave hit back it is main objective when designing a stealth plane



All canards due to their moving nature kill stealth. The case with EF Typhoon is that the canards are not metal, but composites painted with RAM coatings. The edges of the canards as well as the tail and the wings are coated with RAM, which reduces its rcs significantly.











Look at the edges. They are not the same as the rest of the frame. That is what keeps the rcs low.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## mohd497

jagjitnatt you just proved my point i hope that j-xx will also have RAM coating instead of metal but this is just one aspect of it designing a very low RCS plane doesn't only have RAM coating there are other factors too which you cant i tell leave it to the people building it if eurofighter can have low rcs and also having canard then i dont find any reason for j-xx not having it.


----------



## Dark Angel

aimarraul said:


> only idoit will believe this number





Eeeeh mate i think u got it reversed .......... only an idoit will *not *believe this number


----------



## jagjitnatt

mohd497 said:


> jagjitnatt you just proved my point i hope that j-xx will also have RAM coating instead of metal but this is just one aspect of it designing a very low RCS plane doesn't only have RAM coating there are other factors too which you cant i tell leave it to the people building it if eurofighter can have low rcs and also having canard then i dont find any reason for j-xx not having it.



Sure J-XX can have a low rcs, but what they are aiming for is even lower than Typhoon's.

Only US and now UK have RAM coating tech, not even Russia although Russia is trying pretty hard. So its tough, not impossible though.

I wish Chinese luck for their plane but we shouldn't be over optimistic either.


----------



## Guest

jagjitnatt said:


> F22 rcs is 0.0001 square meter.



either Russia or US is telling a lie.
US said: F22 rcs is 0.0001 square meter.
Russia said: we can detect F22 50kms away. (this would be imposible, if F22's rcs is what it is advertised)


----------



## jagjitnatt

Guest said:


> either Russia or US is telling a lie.
> US said: F22 rcs is 0.0001 square meter.
> Russia said: we can detect F22 50kms away. (this would be imposible, if F22's rcs is what it is advertised)



The radar in Mig 35 which is Irbis E, an AESA radar can detect F22 at a range of 35-40 kms.


The radar in PakFa would be much more powerful. So it is easily possible that it would be able to detect it at 50 km range.
Also Russia believes its L-Band radar can detect stealth planes at a longer range, but its universally known that the L Band radar works at low frequency, because of which its not accurate. X Band radars do detect but at a closer range. The Irbis is an X band radar, so an equivalent L Band radar would be able to detect F22 at a range of 50 km or so.


----------



## aimarraul

jagjitnatt said:


> Sure J-XX can have a low rcs, but what they are aiming for is even lower than Typhoon's.
> 
> Only US and now UK have RAM coating tech, not even Russia although Russia is trying pretty hard. So its tough, not impossible though.
> 
> I wish Chinese luck for their plane but we shouldn't be over optimistic either.



we never count on "luck" ,you better check how big is 0.0001sqm before you try to convince people that F-22 is smaller than a bug on the radar.F-22 is only 400KM away from our coastline ,luck is not gonna help reunify taiwan

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SinoIndusFriendship

Guest said:


> either Russia or US is telling a lie.
> US said: F22 rcs is 0.0001 square meter.
> Russia said: we can detect F22 50kms away. (this would be imposible, if F22's rcs is what it is advertised)



what's the point in debating when he refuses to listen to science.


----------



## mohd497

jagjitnatt said:


> Sure J-XX can have a low rcs, but what they are aiming for is even lower than Typhoon's.
> 
> Only US and now UK have RAM coating tech, not even Russia although Russia is trying pretty hard. So its tough, not impossible though.
> 
> I wish Chinese luck for their plane but we shouldn't be over optimistic either.



of course they are aiming for the lower RCS than Typhoon i was just pointing out that having canard doesnt mean it "kills stealth" which i successfully did.China is very progressive country and anything can happen i think they must have RAM tech otherwise you wont be hearing these news buddy.


----------



## jagjitnatt

SinoIndusFriendship said:


> No point in debating with Jag. He believes that "guru" doesn't require water or nourishment to sustain himself for 70 years, which defies science.



very clever to have edited your post after delivering the message.

BTW, I never said I believed him, I never even commented on that guy.

I just put up the fact about J-XX and whatever you throw at me. It is you who starts derailing cause you know nothing about it. Take your rants and insults somewhere else.


----------



## jagjitnatt

mohd497 said:


> of course they are aiming for the lower RCS than Typhoon i was just pointing out that having canard doesnt mean it "kills stealth" which i successfully did.China is very progressive country and anything can happen i think they must have RAM tech otherwise you wont be hearing these news buddy.



I partially agree that china is very progressive, but expecting it to beat the tech masters of today would be an over stretch. If they had RAM coating tech, we would have seen the plane already, don't you think?
Even if not the J-XX we would have seen the tech on J-10 or J11.


----------



## Guest

SinoIndusFriendship said:


> what's the point in debating when he refuses to listen to science.



on the contrary, i found his comment on F22's rcs is resonable when cross referencing with his post of Russian radar's capability. so before we can found anything confronting with it (F22's rcs or Russian radar capability), he is right.


----------



## mohd497

jagjitnatt said:


> I partially agree that china is very progressive, but expecting it to beat the tech masters of today would be an over stretch. If they had RAM coating tech, we would have seen the plane already, don't you think?
> Even if not the J-XX we would have seen the tech on J-10 or J11.



dude i told you before not only having RAM tech means the country can develop stealth aircraft but also there are other factors you must understand chinese work in very secretive manner look at j-10 comes out of no where well lets have finger crossed your instinct tells you that it is difficult for china while mine tells me china have that capability only time will tell.


----------



## DaRk WaVe

no doubt canards will kill stealthiness, su-47 had canrads but still it was stealthy but not in league of 5th Gen

even Rafale & EF have canards but they are designed to become 'low observability A/Cs' but not complete 5th Gen A/Cs, lets see what Chinese can do 




> RCS
> 
> The base radar formula used is (RCS1/RCS2)^0.25. So the F-16C reduced RCS is 1.2 m2, standard fighter is 5 m2. (1.2/5)^0.25 = 0.69. Therefore the F-16C can be detected at 69&#37; of radar range as compared with a standard fighter.
> B-52 Bomber 100 m2 bomber range x1
> 
> F-4, A-10 25 m2 bomber x 0.71, fighter x 1.5
> 
> B-1B Bomber 10 m2 bomber x 0.56, fighter x 1.19
> 
> Tornado 8 m2 fighter x 1.12
> 
> Generic fighter 5 m2 fighter range x 1
> 
> MiG-21 3 m2 fighter x 0.88
> 
> F-16C/18C w. reduced RCS 1.2 m2 fighter x 0.7
> 
> F-18E, Rafale 0.75 m2 fighter x 0.62
> 
> Eurofighter 0.25-0.75 m2 fighter x 0.47-0.62
> 
> Exocet, Harpoon missile 0.1 m2 fighter x 0.38
> 
> JSF (&#8216;golf ball sized&#8217 0.005 m2 fighter x 0.18
> 
> F-117, B-2, F-22 0.0001 m2 fighter x 0.07
> 
> F-117, B-2 F-22 also given as 0.01-0.001 m2, &#8216;marble sized&#8217; or fighter x 0.12-0.21
> 
> F-22 RCS requirement was 1/1000th the F-15. This has probably be exceeded by a large margin. Even if the F-15 RCS is a large 25 m2, the F-22 is 0.025 m2 worst case (fighter x 0.26).
> 
> As can be seen &#8216;stealthy&#8217; aircraft aim to reduce opposition situation awareness by decreasing detection range.
> 
> Situation Awareness



& for F-22 becoming visible within 35-40km is a fact, no one claims that F-22 will remain 'invisible' until it comes within WVR for a fight 



> AWACSs today like E-2C Hawkeye 2000 and E-3C are capable to the detect the target of RCS = 1m2 class 250~300 km away.
> 
> *And their maximal effective detection range to the fighters in the world should be:*
> 
> * F-15C & Su-27 (RCS = 10~15m2): 450 ~ 600 km
> * Tornado (RCS = 8 m2): 420 ~ 500 km
> * MIG-29 (RCS = 5 m2): 370 ~ 450 km
> * F/A-18C (RCS = 3 m2): 330 ~ 395 km
> * F-16C (RCS = 1.2 m2): 260 ~ 310 km
> * JAS39 (RCS = 0.5 m2): 210 ~ 250 km
> * Su-47 (RCS = 0.3 m2): 185 ~ 220 km
> * Rafale (RCS = 0.1~0.2 m2): 140 ~ 200 km
> * F-18E (RCS = 0.1 m2): 140 ~ 170 km
> * MIG-42 (RCS = 0.1 m2): 140 ~ 170 km
> * EF2K (RCS = 0.05~0.1 m2): 120 ~ 170 km
> * F-35A (RCS = 0.0015 m2): 50 ~ 60 km
> * F/A-22 (RCS < or = 0.0002~0.0005 m2): < or = 30 ~ 45 km
> 
> Even the tradional fighters (F-15, F-16) have the modern AWACS on their side, the stealthy fighter like F/A-22 with AIM-120 is still capable to give them the big surprise.
> 
> As for the low RCS NG fighters like EF-2000, MIG-42, and Rafale, if they are equipped with the NG BVRAAM like Meteor (Effective range: 90~100 km+ to the 9G maneuverable fighter, and 150~200 km+ to the big, slow and clumsy airplanes like AWACS...) and R-77M-PD (Maximal effective range: 160 km+), I think they also have certain amount of chance to give tradional fighters + modern AWACS today a surprise.


----------



## gogbot

dingyibvs said:


> Heh yea, it's def a very cool looking piece of fanart!
> 
> Also, I think we all know that they're just fanarts, nobody's saying it's the real thing. However, a pretty reliable poster on another board did say about 3 months ago that this pic supposedly look basically identical to the real thing:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Out of all the fanarts I've seen of the JXX, the supposed Chengdu leak pics bear the strongest resemblance to that pic, so maybe there's some merit to it? It's also entirely possible that one of the pics is simply inspired by the other. I suppose we'll just have to wait!



My whole point was to show you that , concept art can't be trusted.

It looks really cool , and you want the plane to be that way . But it never is what you hope it to be.

If keep taking all this art as representation of the real thing , you will just be disappointed when you see the real thing.

That Fat art picture you commented on for the Paf-FA m was the one that was , supposedly confirmed by a Sukhoi employee as where close to the real thing , obviously that was only rumour and we'd all been had

Believe what ever you want just putting the possibility out there


----------



## SEAL

jagjitnatt said:


> The radar in Mig 35 which is Irbis E, an AESA radar can detect F22 at a range of 35-40 kms.
> 
> .



Jaginatt you forget that F-22 can detect Mig-35 and SU-30 from the distance of 200/250km.  and keep aside your Indian propaganda first make your own things than come to the party.
we don't wanna embarrass you in every thread by reminding you of Tejas,Arjun dhuruv and consecative failures of missiles.


----------



## jagjitnatt

fox said:


> Jaginatt you forget that F-22 can detect Mig-35 and SU-30 from the distance of 200/250km.  and keep aside your Indian propaganda first make your own things than come to the party.
> we don't wanna embarrass you in every thread by reminding you of Tejas,Arjun dhuruv and consecative failures of missiles.



Stop jumping and read what I replied to. Someone had a doubt and I cleared it. Keep aside your hate when commenting on anything. No trolls allowed here.


----------



## lhuang

fox said:


> Jaginatt you forget that F-22 can detect Mig-35 and SU-30 from the distance of 200/250km.  and keep aside your Indian propaganda first make your own things than come to the party.
> we don't wanna embarrass you in every thread by reminding you of Tejas,Arjun dhuruv and consecative failures of missiles.



Just wondering:

Before posting this, what goes through your head?


----------



## Speeder 2

There's no absolute thing in science, the same in design. The claim that "canards kill stealth" is not absolute. It can be only understood in the context of "according to publicly available knowledge, or according to existing knowledge of the mainstream, canards kill stealth". 

RAM considerable reduce RCS. On ram tech , US is no doubt the best. The UK itself is nothing on ram tech but a beneficiary of the US classified info. China, however, arguablelly is the second place in ram tech IMO, since China is a world leader in many aspects of Material Science, clearly ahead of Russia (possiblely ahead of the EU as well), by how much, we don't know as surely it's classified. We only can see that when the real deal comes out.

That's why I think China's next gen would be ahead of Russia on stealth tech. However, canards' advantage of increasing super maneuverability could potentially compensate the inferior tech of WS-15 in comparson to that of the US and Russia. So for Chinese scientists, obviously there is a trade-off btw super maneuverability(canards, and what kind of canard design with with kind of coating) and degree of the stealth required to be classified as the 5th gen. 

Thus saying _"since canards kill stralth, if J-XX has canards then it's no 5th gen"_ is patently misleading. One key aspect that scientists have been working on ( I can imagine since the very start) should have always been how to design JXX with stealthy canards in combination with their level of ram tech, while with its overall RCS performance still achieving the criterion of 5th gen, albeit slightly inferior to that of F-22.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gogbot

Speeder 2 said:


> There's no absolute thing in science, the same in design. The claim that "canards kill stealth" is not absolute. It can be only understood in the context of "according to publicly available knowledge, or according to existing knowledge of the mainstream, canards kill stealth".
> 
> RAM considerable reduce RCS. On ram tech , US is no doubt the best. The UK itself is nothing on ram tech but a beneficiary of the US classified info. China, however, arguablelly is the second place in ram tech IMO, since China is a world leader in many aspects of Material Science, clearly ahead of Russia (possiblely ahead of the EU as well), by how much, we don't know as surely it's classified. We only can see that when the real deal comes out.
> 
> That's why I think China's next gen would be ahead of Russia on stealth tech. However, canards' advantage of increasing super maneuverability could potentially compensate the inferior tech of WS-15 in comparson to that of the US and Russia. So for Chinese scientists, obviously there is a trade-off btw super maneuverability(canards, and what kind of canard design with with kind of coating) and degree of the stealth required to be classified as the 5th gen.
> 
> Thus saying _"since canards kill stralth, if J-XX has canards then it's no 5th gen"_ is patently misleading. One key aspect that scientists have been working on ( I can imagine since the very start) should have always been how to design JXX with stealthy canards in combination with their level of ram tech, while with its overall RCS performance still achieving the criterion of 5th gen, albeit slightly inferior to that of F-22.



Or you should just consider the possibility the J-XX concept art does not represent true design.

and that the J-XX really does not have canards.

It's far simpler to not install canards then , to try and find a solution to problem that as far we know is far more difficult.


----------



## jagjitnatt

Speeder 2 said:


> There's no absolute thing in science, the same in design. The claim that "canards kill stealth" is not absolute. It can be only understood in the context of "according to publicly available knowledge, or according to existing knowledge of the mainstream, canards kill stealth".
> 
> RAM considerable reduce RCS. On ram tech , US is no doubt the best. The UK itself is nothing on ram tech but a beneficiary of the US classified info. China, however, arguablelly is the second place in ram tech IMO, since China is a world leader in many aspects of Material Science, clearly ahead of Russia (possiblely ahead of the EU as well), by how much, we don't know as surely it's classified. We only can see that when the real deal comes out.
> 
> That's why I think China's next gen would be ahead of Russia on stealth tech. However, canards' advantage of increasing super maneuverability could potentially compensate the inferior tech of WS-15 in comparson to that of the US and Russia. So for Chinese scientists, obviously there is a trade-off btw super maneuverability(canards, and what kind of canard design with with kind of coating) and degree of the stealth required to be classified as the 5th gen.
> 
> Thus saying _"since canards kill stralth, if J-XX has canards then it's no 5th gen"_ is patently misleading. One key aspect that scientists have been working on ( I can imagine since the very start) should have always been how to design JXX with stealthy canards in combination with their level of ram tech, while with its overall RCS performance still achieving the criterion of 5th gen, albeit slightly inferior to that of F-22.



Correct. Since I am not aware on how good China is at RAM, I could be wrong at it.

You summed it up nice and without insults or useless trolls unlike some of other claiming to be chinese members.

Respect for that.


----------



## mohd497

self delete


----------



## mohd497




----------



## jagjitnatt

I can't see the pic, but its the X36 by McDonnell Douglas I guess.
What are you trying to say?


----------



## mohd497

The above picture is of x-36 an experimentale stealth agility aircraft of US.As you can see it is controlled by the forward canard without damaging its RCS.The experiment was very successful not only it maintain its stealth but also have very high maneuverability i'm not saying that canard doesnt increase RCS but some of them are specially design to be of fifth gen fighter just think about it if canard kills stealth then why eurofighter use it when it engine can thrust vector


----------



## jagjitnatt

mohd497 said:


> The above picture is of x-36 an experimentale stealth agility aircraft of US.As you can see it is controlled by the forward canard without damaging its RCS.The experiment was very successful not only it maintain its stealth but also have very high maneuverability i'm not saying that canard doesnt increase RCS but some of them are specially design to be of fifth gen fighter just think about it if canard kills stealth then why eurofighter use it when it engine can thrust vector



The X-36 was not a stealth plane. It was an experiment to demonstrate tailless plane. A tailless plane is very unstable. This was an experiment to find out if such a fighter can be made in the future because tails reduce the maneuverability of the plane.

There was no aspect of stealth on the plane, which is why it was never promoted.

And the reason canards were required on this plane is because there were no horizontal or vertical stabilizers on the plane.

A plane needs at least a horizontal or vertical stabilizer, the canards act as horizontal stabilizers on X-36.

But in today's fighter aircraft its the tail fins that provides vertical as well as horizontal stabilization. The canards are used for providing lift to the plane (in case of Typhoon, Rafale or Gripen) and sometimes to add maneuverability as in case of Su30MKI.

Most importantly, the canards on X-36 are fixed wings and not moving like today's aircraft, which is what reduces the rcs of X-36. The other rcs reducing factor is the absence of a tail, which is the main contributor to rcs from side angles.


----------



## mohd497

dude it was stealth here read this: Federation of American Scientists :: X-36


----------



## jagjitnatt

mohd497 said:


> dude it was stealth here read this: Federation of American Scientists :: X-36





> McDonnell Douglas and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) have developed a *tailless research aircraft* that could dramatically change the design of future stealthy fighters.



This is the first line from that page. Its not a stealth design but could change the future of stealth planes since it doesn't have the tail fins. Tails are the major contributor of rcs, removing them would make the design more stealthy. Tailless design is a breakthrough. 



Also look at the image, the canards are fixed and are not exactly canards, they are horizontal stabilizers.


----------



## mohd497

ok well read the coloumn of x-36 over here this should do it: Stealth Warplanes - Google Books

---------- Post added at 07:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:08 PM ----------

they have successfully combined stealth and agility.


----------



## jagjitnatt

mohd497 said:


> ok well read the coloumn of x-36 over here this should do it: Stealth Warplanes - Google Books
> 
> ---------- Post added at 07:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:08 PM ----------
> 
> they have successfully combined stealth and agility.



Stealth in his context is low observability due to the fact that there is *no tail*. Just check the next few pages. Even Rafale is quoted as stealth there.


----------



## mohd497

jagjitnatt said:


> Stealth in his context is low observability due to the fact that there is *no tail*. Just check the next few pages. Even Rafale is quoted as stealth there.



read carefully rafale is not quoted as stealth they hace the stealth design but never went for it because cost was much more and they ended up with rafale


----------



## gogbot

mohd497 said:


> The above picture is of x-36 an experimentale stealth agility aircraft of US.As you can see it is controlled by the forward canard without damaging its RCS.The experiment was very successful not only it maintain its stealth but also have very high maneuverability i'm not saying that canard doesnt increase RCS but some of them are specially design to be of fifth gen fighter just think about it if canard kills stealth then why eurofighter use it when it engine can thrust vector



You mean this







It was an experimental aircraft built to 28% scale , and contolled by a pilot on the ground.

as a 



> Tailless Fighter Agility Research Aircraft



despite its look's it is hardly a 5th gen fighter aircraft.



Any flat surface decreases the stealth signature of an aircraft.
Canards therefore do increase the RADAR crosssection, unless they replace traditional elevators. But that would most likely necessitate a larger wing which is also bad.

Perfect stealth fighter is still a flying wing , with all unnecessary surfaces removed.

_________________________________________________

It is a design choice really , i have agree , that canards do not kill stealth but they do have detrimental impact on them.

For example lets take the T-50's technology demonstrator the Su-47



This also led to concepts such as these






Just saying , the US and Russia have , opted against Canards on their planes for a reason.

We all remember this Boeing's 6th gen concept aircraft



Notice how it aims to eliminate as many unnecessary surfaces as possible.


----------



## mohd497

point is clear though canard can increase the RCS by much but still some special type of canards can still be used in 5th gen aircrafts


----------



## mohd497

gogbot said:


> You mean this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was an experimental aircraft built to 28% scale , and contolled by a pilot on the ground.
> 
> as a



read all of my posts you are just copy and pasting wikipedia


----------



## jagjitnatt

mohd497 said:


> read carefully rafale is not quoted as stealth they hace the stealth design but never went for it because cost was much more and they ended up with rafale



read my posts above. I've described why X-36 is called a stealth design.
Its not because of canards but lack of tail.

Also read what I wrote about canards and stabilization.

X36 is *not *a stealth plane but a revolutionary stealth experiment, which *introduces many features that add to stealth* of the fighter aircraft.

I don't know how to explain this to you. Wait a min.


----------



## jagjitnatt

mohd497 said:


> point is clear though canard can increase the RCS by much but still some special type of canards can still be used in 5th gen aircrafts



As of today, canards can not be used since it would seriously add to the rcs. 

Its not just about canards, it about reducing the the number of surfaces. F22 has six surfaces, PakFa too has 6 surfaces. With canards, J-XX will have 8 surfaces ie 8 directions where it will be susceptible to radar.

The X-36 reduces the number of surfaces to just 4 thereby reducing rcs further, but its not the presence of canards but rather the absence of tail and horizontal stabilizers that reduce the rcs.

The canards do increase the rcs but in comparison to the rcs reduced by cutting off the tail and stabilizers, it is less and thereby overall reducing the rcs of the aircraft.

I am out of words but I hope you should be able to understand now.


----------



## gogbot

mohd497 said:


> point is clear though canard can increase the RCS by much but still some special type of canards can still be used in 5th gen aircrafts



To date no final prototype's or production models of 5th gen aircraft have used canards .

experimental's have made use of them , yes

But the consensus among all those developers seems to be that Canards are an extra surface that should be avoided if possible.

You can still use them and may even get a respectable amount of stealth.

But will it be better than the other competitor out there i think not.

A flying wing with all unnecessary surfaces eliminated still represent the best stealth solution.
_______________________________________________

I don't know why people are so adamant about the J-XX having a canard design .

I mean your fighting for this point as if You know the J-XX has canards , while mostly , there has been only fan-art to suggest that design.


----------



## mohd497

Can you give me just one link which says that canard increases the x-36 RCS i will completely agree with you and my doubt will be cleared as of now i cant see anywhere saying that usage of canard in x-36 increases its RCS


----------



## Speeder 2

gogbot said:


> You mean this
> ...
> 
> Just saying , the US and Russia have , *opted against Canards on their planes for a reason*.
> 
> We all remember this Boeing's 6th gen concept aircraft
> 
> .




Don't forget F-22 is 80s design. I 've read it somewhere that one of the 6th gen design concepts of the US is with canards.

For example in such a scenario that I foresee: if JXX comes with a fully blended body/wings design ( resembles F-22, or more like T-50, but with wings much more upfront positionwise) , with some front parts of wings edge movable when needed, while normally act as "fixed" full wings, you then call that them fixed wings or wings with "canards"?


----------



## gogbot

mohd497 said:


> Can you give me just one link which says that canard increases the x-36 RCS i will completely agree with you and my doubt will be cleared as of now i cant see anywhere saying that usage of canard in x-36 increases its RCS



X-36 was not stealth.
Find me a link that says it was.
It is at best low observable.

Any unnecessary surface will increase the RCS . 
especially moving parts , like canards.

That is the only explanation one needs.


----------



## jagjitnatt

mohd497 said:


> Can you give me just one link which says that canard increases the x-36 RCS i will completely agree with you and my doubt will be cleared as of now i cant see anywhere saying that usage of canard in x-36 increases its RCS



Its common sense yaar, as the number of surfaces increase so does the radar observability.

Read some.
HowStuffWorks "Uses of Radar"
Radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Another alternative is asking Gambit. He would surely be able to explain you.

Read this. Explains how canards reduce stealth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canard_&#37;28aeronautics)#Canard_aircraft_characteristics


----------



## gogbot

Speeder 2 said:


> Don't forget F-22 is 80s design. I 've read it somewhere that one of the 6th gen design concepts of the US is with canards.



I don't know about the F-22 , but there were experimental that used canards .
meaning it may be feasible ,

But none made into a production model.
explantion , difficulties incorporating such a design . perhaps



> For example in such a scenario that I foresee: if JXX comes with a fully blended body/wings design ( resembles F-22, or more like T-50, but with wings much more upfront positionwise) , with some front parts of wings edge movable when needed, while normally act as "fixed" full wings, you then call that them fixed wings or wings with "canards"?



The Pak-FA use's those 



but i don't think they are called canards , manoeuvrable surfaces is the term i believe.


Yf-23 also used them



B-2 also uses said surfaces to fly ,







It is a very stealth design.


----------



## gubbi

gogbot said:


> The Pak-FA use's those
> 
> 
> 
> but i don't think they are called canards , *manoeuvrable surfaces* is the term i believe.
> 
> It is a very stealth design.



I believe the term is LERX - leading edge root extensions - fillets or strakes. Correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## mohd497

gogbot said:


> X-36 was not stealth.
> Find me a link that says it was.
> It is at best low observable.
> 
> Any unnecessary surface will increase the RCS .
> especially moving parts , like canards.
> 
> That is the only explanation one needs.







see and hear the link if you people have anymore doubt than dear i cant help


----------



## jagjitnatt

mohd497 said:


> YouTube - Mcdonnell Douglas JSF proposal and x-36
> see and hear the link if you people have anymore doubt than dear i cant help



YouTube = not a source. Period.

All your info comes from google searches. But there are a trillion pages out there and only a few are credible.


----------



## indiarocks

a fifth generation stealth plane with forwards canards .....that defies the basic principle of stealth....looks like a great example of fourth generation prototype plane or maybe a heavily modified j-10....well if it is really j-XX...less stealth will be a factor questioning its generation otherwise is a great design except the fwd. canards.


----------



## dingyibvs

jagjitnatt said:


> I partially agree that china is very progressive, but expecting it to beat the tech masters of today would be an over stretch. If they had RAM coating tech, we would have seen the plane already, don't you think?
> Even if not the J-XX we would have seen the tech on J-10 or J11.



Well, I don't think that's a good line of reasoning. The UK doesn't make much use of RAM coating either, and the U.S. hasn't exactly incorporated it into their fleet of F16/15/18's and they've had the tech for quite a while.



gogbot said:


> My whole point was to show you that , concept art can't be trusted.
> 
> It looks really cool , and you want the plane to be that way . But it never is what you hope it to be.
> 
> If keep taking all this art as representation of the real thing , you will just be disappointed when you see the real thing.
> 
> That Fat art picture you commented on for the Paf-FA m was the one that was , supposedly confirmed by a Sukhoi employee as where close to the real thing , obviously that was only rumour and we'd all been had
> 
> Believe what ever you want just putting the possibility out there



Yea, I agree, it could just be all disinformation. I'm certainly not gonna place a whole lot of faith on the fan arts, just makes for some interesting speculation.



gogbot said:


> X-36 was not stealth.
> Find me a link that says it was.
> It is at best low observable.
> 
> Any unnecessary surface will increase the RCS .
> especially moving parts , like canards.
> 
> That is the only explanation one needs.



No, not any unnecessary surface will increase RCS. Canards usually increase RCS because they're placed above the wings, which does increase the frontal cross section. However, the JXX, if it uses canards, will likely have it inline with the wings, very much like the PAK-FA's LERX. The only difference, really, is that there's a little gap between the JXX's "LERX" and the wing. As far as frontal RCS is concerned, there is no difference.

If the canards move, of course, it'll increase frontal RCS, but they're not needed to move except during take-off and high speed maneuvers, the latter of which would only be needed during WVR dogfights in which RCS is of little importance. Thus, when cruising toward the target, they can simply have the canards not move, and it wouldn't reduce stealth at all.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Speeder 2

self-delete


----------



## Speeder 2

dingyibvs said:


> No, not any unnecessary surface will increase RCS. Canards usually increase RCS because they're placed above the wings, which does increase the frontal cross section. However, the JXX, if it uses canards, will likely have it inline with the wings, very much like the PAK-FA's LERX. The only difference, really, is that there's a little gap between the JXX's "LERX" and the wing. As far as frontal RCS is concerned, there is no difference.
> 
> If the canards move, of course, it'll increase frontal RCS, but they're not needed to move except during take-off and high speed maneuvers, the latter of which would only be needed during WVR dogfights in which RCS is of little importance. Thus, when cruising toward the target, they can simply have the canards not move, and it wouldn't reduce stealth at all.



I thought so as well. I'm not familiar with aerodynamics, hence I am not sure what's the aerodynamics difference btw pacing canards like J-10, and placing them in the same horizontal line as wings like JXX possiblely does (in such a design, as you said, frontal RCS could be almost the same as F-22/T-50 ). However, there must be some differences when conducting super manuever between these 2 kinds of canards designs. The question is if the diff significantly large enough or not.


----------



## dingyibvs

Speeder 2 said:


> I thought so as well. I'm not familiar with aerodynamics, hence I am not sure what's the aerodynamics difference btw pacing canards like J-10, and placing them in the same horizontal line as wings like JXX possiblely does (in such a design, as you said, frontal RCS could be almost the same as F-22/T-50 ). However, there must be some differences when conducting super manuever between these 2 kinds of canards designs. The question is if the diff significantly large enough or not.



I think canards give you the best lift and maneuverability when placed above the wings, so in-line canards really don't help you that much. But then again, it really doesn't increase hurt your RCS either, unlike canards on the J-10, for example.


----------



## no_name

dingyibvs said:


> Thus, when cruising toward the target, they can simply have the canards not move, and it wouldn't reduce stealth at all.



Might be possible if V shaped tails acts as both horizontal and vertical stabilizers. Canards just adds extra maneuverability.


----------



## ptldM3

jagjitnatt said:


> Sure J-XX can have a low rcs, but what they are aiming for is even lower than Typhoon's.
> 
> *Only US and now UK have RAM coating tech, not even Russia *although Russia is trying pretty hard. So its tough, not impossible though.
> 
> I wish Chinese luck for their plane but we shouldn't be over optimistic either.



Not thrue Russia has had extensive work in RAM, read the link below.



Speeder 2 said:


> RAM considerable reduce RCS. On ram tech , US is no doubt the best. The UK itself is nothing on ram tech but a beneficiary of the US classified info. China, however, arguablelly is the second place in ram tech IMO, since China is a world leader in many aspects of Material Science, *clearly ahead of Russia *(possiblely ahead of the EU as well), by how much, we don't know as surely it's classified. We only can see that when the real deal comes out.
> 
> 
> .



How many times are you going to post worthless rants? Every single one of your posts are the same thing, China is superior to Russia, China's stealth is superior to Russia's and now it's China's RAM is superior to Russia, your opinions don't matter and you know nothing about Russia's capabilities. Moreover, being a "world leader" in "material science" doesn't mean you can have "superior" RAM. Read:


http://www.ato.ru/rus/cis/archive/4-2003/interview/?sess_=4e4563b23abbc3a7be9f31cc67ef52e8



> Stealth Aircraft Technology:"Our Capabilities are not Inferior to Those of America"
> 
> Andrey Lagarjkov, Director General of the United Institute of High Temperatures of the Russian Academy of Sciences (and an Associate Member of the Academy), talks about Russian stealth technology in the following interview with the Russia/CIS Observer.
> Until recently, all Russian developments in the field of stealth technologies were strictly classified. There weren't any reports made concerning research institutes dealing with these issues. The veil was raised somewhat last year when it was announced for the first time that the United Institute of High Temperatures of the Russian Academy of Sciences was carrying out research in the domain of reduced aircraft visibility. The information was rather sketchy. It was reported that the institute is specialized in creating materials with new properties, in particular with ferromagnetics and so-called artificial magnetics. It was pointed out that technologies developed by the institute were used in designing and manufacturing the Sukhoi Su-27M and Su-37 (Su-47). Director General Lagarjkov, who hasn't spoken about such matters in public before, told Sergey Sokut about work of his institute in greater detail.
> - How does Russia's way of making aircraft stealthy differ from the American technology?
> - The Americans have two approaches. The first, and earliest one, was used for the F-117 and B-2. The low radar cross-section (RCS) was achieved through the shape of the aircraft and the use of radar-absorbing materials to cover the airframe. In this application, the principle of minimal level of visibility was a cornerstone - and other characteristics had to be sacrificed. For example, both aircraft are subsonic. Later the Americans tried another approach: modern radar absorbing materials are applied to F-16 and F-18, as well as to 5th generation F-22 and JSF combat aircraft, which have a traditional shape. The low level of visibility is achieved through different techniques, which Mikhail Pogosyan, director of Sukhoi, and I are going to reveal in the near future. We and the Americans are close to each other in this type of technology. Russia possesses the technology for upgrading in-service aircraft with modern stealth characteristics, and moreover, this technology is demanded by foreign operators of Russian aircraft. We, together with Sukhoi, have achieved world-class results in this area, which are confirmed by tests of real aircraft. We also can optimize the shape of the aircraft to lower the level of visibility, but I still wouldn't like to speak about the use of our techniques for 5th generation aircraft.
> - When would it be possible to speak about achieved results?
> - Some discussion is possible today. The exact results of radar cross-section reduction will never be disclosed, neither here in Russia nor abroad. But sometime ago it was announced that the RCS of a MiG-21 fighter after its treatment by our institute is approximately 0.25 sq m. This corresponds to the characteristics of a cruise missile.
> - How far is it possible to go in reducing visibility of the 4th generation aircraft, and what additional improvements can be achieved in the next generation?
> - My MiG-21 example demonstrates that the RCS of upgraded/modernized aircraft can be reduced 12-15 times. If we speak about new designed models, I wouldn't want to discuss the numbers publically.
> - In the press, information has been published about exotic technologies for providing low visibility, for example, plasma. How effective is it?
> - We use plasma in solving the problems of RCS of an aircraft's nosecone. In general, plasma technologies are very useful at flight altitudes of more than 25 km. At low altitudes it is impossible to use them, because there is not enough power on board.
> - What is the share of stealth technologies in the total aircraft cost?
> - If stringent, but reasonable requirements for visibility are implemented in the project from the very beginning, it won't be too large. I'd like to point out here that at my institue, we have carried out advanced work in fundamental research. I also want to stress here that we had to do this without governmental support - funding our research from out-of-budget sources during the last 10-15 years.
> - It is known that you cooperate closely with Sukhoi. What about the institute's work with other design bureaus?
> - Recently, we have started cooperating intensively with the others as well.
> - If we compare achievements of different countries in the reduction of aircraft visibility, who would the leaders be? Obviously, the Americans would hit the top, wouldn't they?
> - The Americans are no. 1 because of the application of stealth to a large volume of real products. But considering the understanding of the whole problem in general - and the potential - I don't think the Americans are better than we are. We are able to achieve, and already have achieved, the same - and even in some areas, we have had somewhat better results. Another plus for the Americans is their broader application of stealth. In particular, they are entering the world market with the stealthy aircraft. Similar developments are being made in Europe, but the level of these countries is not so high. The French are tackling this problem as well. They have very good research equipment - anechoic chambers, for example. Their Rafale fighter is advertised as an aircraft with a low radar cross-section.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## below_freezing

The least important part is specialized RAM.

ordinary composites are good enough.

the real problem is designing the surfaces to reflect radar to different directions than the transmitter.

in addition, it doesn't matter if eurofighter is 0.000000000001 m2 RCS, once it adds weapons it would be a flying elephant.

to solve the stealth problem i think it's better to have a naturally smaller plane with a single engine, no canards. it doesn't even have to be all aspect stealth, just frontal.

unless the F-22 is smaller than a fly on the radar a cross section of 0.0001 is unreasonable.


----------



## nakodo

below_freezing said:


> it doesn't even have to be all aspect stealth, just frontal



You are assuming a very simplistic scenario where the fighter flies in a straight line into a single radar base. Usually there are multiple radars and there is no straight line flight. So side aspect is important. Once done with the mission if a fighter wants to return safely even rear aspect is important esp suppressing IR signature.

If J-XX designers are thinking the way you are then it is kaput even b4 it leaves the drawing board!


----------



## Speeder 2

ptldM3 said:


> How many times are you going to post worthless rants? Every single one of your posts are the same thing, China is superior to Russia, China's stealth is superior to Russia's and now it's China's RAM is superior to Russia, your opinions don't matter and you know nothing about Russia's capabilities. Moreover, being a "world leader" in "material science" doesn't mean you can have "superior" RAM.



What is wrong with you, huh? I say what I want to say on the topic and I say how many times as I see fit, it's none of your f**king business! If personal attacks are the best you can do, you'd better have a serious talk with mods. 

Yeah, I do nothing about Russia's detailed capabilities, but I don't need to know the details, tell me one example that a country who is not world-class on Material Science can somehow make world-class RAM coating? My saying that is not aiming at sneering at Russia's techs which are mostly one of the forerunners. Nonetheless, common senses tells that no way that T-50 gets better ram tech than F-22, or than incoming JXX mostly likely .

Copy-paste some chest-thumping article makes no difference as common sense dictates what it is. Wether Russia's RAM tech being the world-class or not is secondary actually at the moment compared with other flaws of T-50's aerodynamics design in relation to F-22 or even F-35, which probably are considered generally as far bigger problems of its stealthness.


----------



## below_freezing

nakodo said:


> You are assuming a very simplistic scenario where the fighter flies in a straight line into a single radar base. Usually there are multiple radars and there is no straight line flight. So side aspect is important. Once done with the mission if a fighter wants to return safely even rear aspect is important esp suppressing IR signature.
> 
> If J-XX designers are thinking the way you are then it is kaput even b4 it leaves the drawing board!



there have to be tradeoffs between theoretical ability and time. otherwise it'll end up like the LCA. besides, i meant to say that if it was necessary to rush for time, frontal stealth is the most important.

of course the bigger problem isn't RAM but shaping.


----------



## gogbot

below_freezing said:


> The least important part is specialized RAM.



Materials research is the most important , right after the engine.



> ordinary composites are good enough.



I am not to sure about that , but if you say so.



> the real problem is designing the surfaces to reflect radar to different directions than the transmitter.



I though that was simpler problem , with today's computers , it is far easier to design and test stealth concepts



> in addition, it doesn't matter if eurofighter is 0.000000000001 m2 RCS, once it adds weapons it would be a flying elephant.



That is why you have internal weapons bay's



> to solve the stealth problem i think it's better to have a naturally smaller plane with a single engine, no canards. it doesn't even have to be all aspect stealth, just frontal.



B-2 is giant of plane, but still have very good stealth due to its flying wing design , with no unnecessary surfaces



> unless the F-22 is smaller than a fly on the radar a cross section of 0.0001 is unreasonable.



It is said to be a marble sized.

But of course i cant confirm that.


----------



## ptldM3

Speeder 2 said:


> What is wrong with you, huh? I say what I want to say on the topic and I say how many times as I see fit, it's none of your f**king business! If personal attacks are the best you can do, you'd better have a serious talk with mods.



You are free to say whatevery you choose as long as it's within acceptable limits. However, when you misslead the readers with your vague statements and dismissals than there is a problem.



Speeder 2 said:


> Yeah, I do nothing about Russia's detailed capabilities, but I don't need to know the details, tell me one example that a country who is not world-class on Material Science can somehow make world-class RAM coating?



Wrong, you do need to know the details before you start claiming inferiority.

And don't try to use something as vague as materal science. Russia has governoment scientific institutions/defence institutions such as the Russian space agency which has its own science based research center and Kapustin-Yar which is Russia's equivalent of area 51. Russia also has civil based Scientific institutions such as the Russian accademy of sciences which has a main headquarters but also consists of institutions across Russia and of course there are universities and civil companies. But considering most of Russia's scientific institutions are either state owned or sponsored the likelihood that you will see these government institutes reveal their breakthroughs which are meant for military purposes are slim to none, lets take, for example, the pak-fa and its composites, in a video scientists revealed a new type of composite material, but because it's used all most exclusively for the military the makers of the composites didn't go out patent and reveal the composite until reporters asked but even then the scientist didn't reveal too much details. 

Back to the topic of material science, if my memory serves me correct Spain was high on the list, also the Netherlands ranked #2 in the world in material science journal articals, so does this mean these two countries can built a stealth aircraft or make better RAM than Russian scientists working for the Russian space agency or Russian Accademy of Sciences, or even highly classified research institutions such as Kapustin-Yar? Also did the Soviet Union rank highest in material science when they send the first rocket into space or send the first satelite into space, or built space stations or even built space capsules that survived the violent reentry into earth's orbit? Also the Pak-fa will be a partnership with India, meaning Indian scientists and engineers will contribute to the development, and from reading various publication and watching videos regarding Russian RAM i know it is very advanced but now that India is in the programs the RAM has that much more potential of becoming better esspecially when you combine the material sciences of both countries, than again i don't think material science means much when much of the applications can't be used by the military or arn't used by the military, instead defence or civilian institutions (under contract) develop what the military needs.



Speeder 2 said:


> My saying that is not aiming at sneering at Russia's techs which are mostly one of the forerunners. Nonetheless, common senses tells that no way that T-50 gets better ram tech than F-22, or than incoming JXX mostly likely .



There is no need to put the US on a pedestal, the US is not the undisputed leader in everything, look at all the material science, funding, and top notch defence and civilian institutions in the US now look at the fact that the US bought rocket engines from Russia to power their Atlas rockets. Russian technology has always been good or in some cases even better than the US and now you think that Russia can't come up with something as insignificant as a good RAM coating thats competitive with the US, but no you took it a step further and said we can't be competitive with China. And one last thing about "material science" how does Russia built, for example, the IBRIS-E radar including AESA NIIP have outstanding ranges up to 400+km, not to mention other features such as radar data-links and a high degrees of resolution coupled with the ability to track targets with small rcs's at long distances, now are these radars build out of cardboard or fairy dust? Or do you think that there is alot of research that goes into these radars? After all radars are built out of various materials that fall under the context of "material science" this includes everything from circuit boards to synthetic coolant to synthetics that make up the radar. Does Phazatron and NIIP make some of the best radars in the world by accident? Another thing to think about, China approached Russia with the intent of buying the IBRIS radar, remember radars are linked with material science, so why would China be interested in crappy Russian radars? Remember according to your logic Russia should have inferior radars because of the Russia's decline in material science.



Speeder 2 said:


> Copy-paste some chest-thumping article makes no difference as common sense dictates what it is. Wether Russia's RAM tech being the world-class or not is secondary actually at the moment compared with other flaws of T-50's aerodynamics design in relation to F-22 or even F-35, which probably are considered generally as far bigger problems of its stealthness.



The only chest thumping is comming from you, so far the only things i have heard from you are, China is better than Russia and China's material science is so great while Russia's isn't. My link was just that, a link, a link that proved that Russia's RAM technology is better than you originally though. Reducing an aircraft's rcs up to 15 times is pretty damn impressive, you can keep putting down and dismissing Russian technology by bringing up "material science" which is vague and proves absolutely nothing.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

> mohd497 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give me just one link which says that canard increases the x-36 RCS i will completely agree with you and my doubt will be cleared as of now i cant see anywhere saying that usage of canard in x-36 increases its RCS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jagjitnatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its common sense yaar, as the *number of surfaces increase so does the radar observability.*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Generally speaking...True.



gubbi said:


> I believe the term is LERX - leading edge root extensions - fillets or strakes. Correct me if I am wrong.


Also called leading edge (LE) flaps or slats. These are not true flight control surfaces. LE flaps usually works with trailing edge (TE) flaps to...

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Flaps and Slats


> ...a slat is simply a flap on the leading edge of a wing rather than the trailing edge. The slat typically extends forward and downward from the leading edge to increase camber thereby increasing lift in a similar manner to a flap.


...Increase wing surfaces to increase lift. LE flaps can work independently of TE flaps under certain flight conditions provided the FLCS has provisions for such independent operations.



> dingyibvs said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, not any unnecessary surface will increase RCS. *Canards usually increase RCS because they're placed above the wings, which does increase the frontal cross section.* However, the JXX, if it uses canards, will likely have it inline with the wings, very much like the PAK-FA's LERX. The only difference, really, is that there's a little gap between the JXX's "LERX" and the wing. As far as frontal RCS is concerned, there is no difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speeder 2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought so as well. I'm not familiar with aerodynamics, hence I am not sure what's the aerodynamics difference btw pacing canards like J-10, and *placing them in the same horizontal line as wings like JXX possiblely does (in such a design, as you said, frontal RCS could be almost the same as F-22*/T-50 ). However, there must be some differences when conducting super manuever between these 2 kinds of canards designs. The question is if the diff significantly large enough or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Canards stands a greater chance of increasing RCS than LE flaps. Am not saying that they must, only that aerodynamics necessities may restrict their placements on the body, usually on the cone frustum, that there is no choice but to suffer the RCS increase. It is not about placing the canard inline with the wing. Here is why...

Radar cross-section - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> High frequency approximations such as *geometric optics*, Physical Optics, the geometric theory of diffraction, the uniform theory of diffraction and the physical theory of diffraction are used when the wavelength is much shorter than the target feature size.


The highlighted is significant.

The only body that offers a constant RCS, regardless of radar position, is the sphere. On the sphere, the initial radar reflectivity action is a minute return called specular reflection. The majority of the wave behave in what is called the 'creeping wave' action...

Creeping wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Creeping waves greatly extend the ground wave propagation of long wavelength (low frequency) radio. They also cause both of a person's ears to hear a sound, rather than only the ear on the side of the head facing the origin of the sound. *In radar ranging, the creeping wave return appears to come from behind the target.*


This 'creeping wave' is a form of the surface traveling wave, but both are not the same. On a sphere, the side that meet the incident signal is called the 'illuminated' side. The opposite side is called the 'shadow'. The sphere's diameter is called the 'electrical path' and of course a portion of this path is that shadow side. When the incident signal meet the sphere's surface at low grazing angle, a surface traveling wave is created. A portion of the signal will enter the shadow side and become the creeping wave.

The radar grazing angle is illustrated below...

Glossary of remote sensing terms


> Grazing Angle
> 
> Angle between the mean horizontal at the scene and the incoming radar illumination. The concept is most apt for ship-borne or aircraft radars *when the illumination is itself close to horizontal.*



When a creeping wave is created, or that when it exists on the shadow side of the sphere, the creeping wave no longer receives continuous energy like the traveling wave does. Remember, these are two distinct entities on different environments. As the sphere's diameter is the electrical path, the longer this path, eventually the creeping wave die. But if the sphere's diameter is short enough, the creeping wave may come around to the illuminated side and be strengthened. The surface wave, on the other hand, is continuously kept alive by the illuminating radar.

A sphere is not the only shape that has an electrical path. All shapes and complex bodies are themselves electrical paths. When a surface traveling wave encounter the end of an electrical path, this end is a scatter point...

Radio propagation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> *Knife-Edge diffraction* is the propagation mode where radio waves are bent around sharp edges.



This is an important fact in general and for the canard in particular as we shall see later on.

Visually speaking, an aircraft is obviously not a simple body. We can see planar, cylinder, triangle, and combinations of all the common shapes. In RCS prediction, a complex body can be 'decomposed' into discrete geometric shapes. This is the simplest and usually the initial process of RCS prediction -- the geometric components method (GCM). At the highest level, an aircraft is composed of:

- Cone (radome)
- Cone frustum (immediately behind the radome)
- Cylinder (fuselage)
- Planars (control surfaces)

Volume


> The *frustum of a cone* is formed if the tip is cut off parallel to the base. Frustum shapes occur often on model rockets as fairings between cylindrical sections of the body.



We can take discrete RCS measurements of those individual *SECTIONS* of the aircraft, sum them up and have an acceptable peak RCS value. Now the difficult work of RCS reduction begins.

- The cone is the radome, which is essentially an EM passthrough structure. How else can the aircraft's radar work? That mean the aircraft's own radar antenna is a reflective surface. Usually the radar engineering team that owns the system is also responsible for reducing the RCS value of their design.

- The cone frustum contains the cockpit, engine intakes, protrusions like communication antennas and air data probes, depressions like vents or gun ports,

- The cylinder or fuselage contains the wing roots, which may or may not be corner reflectors, a no-no, depending on how the aircraft is designed. Same for stab roots, vertical and horizontal.

- The planars are the flight control surfaces themselves, and this includes canards. Flight control surfaces are always the largest reflectors.

Each section must be carefully studied and measures taken to reduce contributory RCS. Sometimes a depression, or vent, can be relocated where it stands a minimal chance of trapping a portion of the EM wave and reflecting that portion. The cockpit canopy can be coated with absorbers to reduce any pass through. Weapons can be carried internally. And so on...

The GCM process of RCS prediction and reduction does not take into consideration the EM 'traveling' and 'creeping wave' behaviors, or does not take them very well, as all bodies, even geometrically complex ones, produces this behavior to some degree at many aspect angles.

An aspect angle is illustrated below...

Glossary of remote sensing terms


> Aspect Angle
> 
> Description of the geometric orientation in the horizontal plane of an object in the scene with respect to the illuminating wavefront.



To add everything so far together...

A canard may *NOT* be a detriment to RCS reduction measures only when its shape and position on the aircraft made it part of a continuous electrical path. That mean even if a canard is the same horizontal plane as the wing, if it is a distinct body by itself, therefore its own electrical path, any surface wave created by a radar signal that meet this canard will have a very short resident time on the canard before we see that *'knife edge diffraction'* effect shown earlier. But if the canard is shaped and position where it is part of a continuous electrical path, then we have the best of both worlds: high maneuverability and a very low RCS contributor.

So if we take the B-2 from the side aspect angle, given what we know of the B-2's curves, top and bottom, we can see that the US took great pains to create as continous as possible this electrical path. We can also see many curves that has many shadow regions where a portion of the surface wave become a creeping wave and loses energy on those shadow regions. Any amount energy loss for any creeping wave is desirable. Discontinuities -- bad -- are created when we have gaps along this electrical path. Some gaps are unavoidable as they are manufacturing consequences. Nonconducting epoxy is the solution. Some gaps could be the results of surface damages, such as from maintenance or even combat. Some gaps are electrical, not physical, in nature, such as a line of electrically conducting corrosion that maintenance could not see. Discontinuities, or gaps, create the potential for that 'knife edge diffraction' effect.

The B-2, F-22 and F-35 were not designed via GCM.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Speeder 2

ptldM3 said:


> You are free to say whatevery you choose as long as it's within acceptable limits. However, when you misslead the readers with your vague statements and dismissals than there is a problem.



Waht acceptable limits? 

acceptable by whom? by you? lol. 

I mislead readers? You not? 

If my statement, short and to the point, is a vague statement, then yours could be named as "vodka statement" that is more vague and senseless.




ptldM3 said:


> Wrong, you do need to know the details before you start claiming inferiority.



Let's see what details you know to claim your inferiority then?




ptldM3 said:


> And don't try to use something as vague as materal science. Russia has governoment scientific institutions/defence institutions such as the Russian space agency which has its own science based research center and Kapustin-Yar which is Russia's equivalent of area 51. Russia also has civil based Scientific institutions such as the Russian accademy of sciences which has a main headquarters but also consists of institutions across Russia and of course there are universities and civil companies.



So Russia got her own "area 51" and some research institutions? Cool !

Do you know that China doesn't ?





ptldM3 said:


> But considering most of Russia's scientific institutions are either state owned or sponsored the likelihood that you will see these government institutes reveal their breakthroughs which are meant for military purposes are slim to none,




And? 

What you're trying to prove with that ? That Chinese insititutions are owned by private entities? lol




ptldM3 said:


> lets take, for example, the pak-fa and its composites, in a video scientists revealed a new type of composite material, but because it's used all most exclusively for the military the makers of the composites didn't go out patent and reveal the composite until reporters asked but even then the scientist didn't reveal too much details.




The same can be said with ANY major millitary power. China will publicise the fomulas of all her millitary techonologies derived from materials Science research, huh? 

Or the US will do so? Or France will do so? ...

The US won't let you have a closer LOOK at F-22 , for god's sake. 

China even doesn't claim to have J-XX project. (Well, China's deputy air chief did it once before got criticised)

Russia doesn't disclose secrets. Fine. But which country does so, apart from India D) ? What's your point here?





ptldM3 said:


> Back to the topic of material science, if my memory serves me correct Spain was high on the list, also the Netherlands ranked #2 in the world in material science journal articals, so does this mean these two countries can built a stealth aircraft or make better RAM than Russian scientists working for the Russian space agency or Russian Accademy of Sciences, or even highly classified research institutions such as Kapustin-Yar?



1) I didn't say materials science =100&#37; ram tech;

What I said was better ram tech is most likely supported by the better materials science; hence a country with better materials science development has a better chance coming up with better ram tech.

2) Spain and Ned top the ranking on Materials Science? What are you smoking? 

3) On the statements: 

Both you and I know close to nothing on the detailed ram tech ( millitarised materials Science) from the US, China and Russia;

All we argue here is "a general guess" based on personal opinions,ok?

But our common stance stops here.

To support my arguement that China likely has better ram tech than Russia, I used *General level* of each country's Materails Science known to scientific community as a rough measure tool, which is the best public-available toolkit one can get, as no country reveals the top millitary scerate derived from its science. But still, one can have an educated guess at what levels they are at by eaxming its correspoding civilian tech and research achievments wihtin scientific communities.

So far, what educated guess you have offered to support your argument? 

Zero!

Oh, "Russia has its own Area 51"? And you accuse my statement being vague...






ptldM3 said:


> Also did the Soviet Union rank highest in material science when they send the first rocket into space or send the first satelite into space, or built space stations or even built space capsules that survived the violent reentry into earth's orbit?




humm...probably yes. And? That was more than half a century ago...

Following your logic, I need to mention China invented gun power too?

And this is another "proof" of your argument? Puh..leeez ! 





ptldM3 said:


> Also the Pak-fa will be a partnership with India, meaning Indian scientists and engineers will contribute to the development, and from reading various publication and watching videos regarding Russian RAM i know it is very advanced but now that India is in the programs the RAM has that much more potential of becoming better esspecially when you combine the material sciences of both countries,



India? Did you just say India? It's just me or ... since when "India" and "world-class Materials Science" these 2 phrases have been linked together by anyone, even Indians? 

Man, I am starting to have a serious doubt on the nationality you said you have after this. Are you a Russian or an Indian indeed hiding behind other people's flag? PDF is packed with the latter.


Since you are so eager to brand India's materials science as world-class to give "your" Russia an extra boost, why not to make *Laos *and *Vietnam *(no pun inteneded) into *Russian-indian *5th gen project too,as you'll have "combined materials science of *4 *countries" 






ptldM3 said:


> than again i don't think material science means much when much of the applications can't be used by the military or arn't used by the military, instead defence or civilian institutions (under contract) develop what the military needs.



*Even so, the general level of sophisitication of a country's Material Science development is the BEST measure one can use at this stage to gauge the likely sophitication of ram tech derived from it, given neither of us knows the real millitary details of either country*  - a world-class materials science country has much higher possbility to develope a better ram tech than a country who ranks lower.

Man, i am tired of repeating above same phrase and logic in order to instill them into your empty skull again and again !


*For the last 7 years, China's materials science occupies more than 20% of world's total output, in both research papers publiched in reputed scientific journals and patents granted. Yes, this doesn't equal to her level of millitary RAM tech, but this is the best indication one can come up with in such an argument, telling you the general strenghth of a country in this area. *

Is it not? According to you, since North Korean millitary is more secretive than Russia's area 51, so north koreans must have better ram techs but they just have't disclosed it yet?





ptldM3 said:


> There is no need to put the US on a pedestal, the US is not the undisputed leader in everything,



I didn't say that USA is the undisputed leader in everything.

But we are talking about 5th gen here, in which it most likely is for the moment until real evidences suggest otherwise. e.g. 300m price tag of F-22 with a big chuck of its cost on its delicate coating and maintanance, compared with 80m-100m worth T-50, one could generally see the quality difference in ram, after normalised for labour costs etc.





ptldM3 said:


> look at all the material science, funding, and top notch defence and civilian institutions in the US now look at the fact that the US bought rocket engines from Russia to power their Atlas rockets.



rocket is another thing. don't mix it. And your logic here is wrong also.





ptldM3 said:


> Russian technology has always been good or in some cases even better than the US and now you think that Russia can't come up with something as insignificant as a good RAM coating thats competitive with the US, but no you took it a step further and said we can't be competitive with China.




Russia used to be so, but as lack of funding since Soviet collaped has severely crippled Russia's R&D, what Russia shows now mostly come from residual dividends of Soviet era. We see Russia struggles in many areas, e.g. on T-50, from next-gen engine tech, ram tech, real deployable small-sized AESA radar, to general stealthy design, eletronics, etc.

On the other hand, China is fastly catching up in many aspects, and even surpass Russia on some, due to massive R&D already invested and ongoing. China's general R&D level is just second to that of the US.




ptldM3 said:


> And one last thing about "material science" how does Russia built, for example, the IBRIS-E radar including AESA NIIP have outstanding ranges up to 400+km, not to mention other features such as radar data-links and a high degrees of resolution coupled with the ability to track targets with small rcs's at long distances, now are these radars build out of cardboard or fairy dust? Or do you think that there is alot of research that goes into these radars? After all radars are built out of various materials that fall under the context of "material science" this includes everything from circuit boards to synthetic coolant to synthetics that make up the radar. Does Phazatron and NIIP make some of the best radars in the world by accident? Another thing to think about, China approached Russia with the intent of buying the IBRIS radar, remember radars are linked with material science, so why would China be interested in crappy Russian radars? Remember according to your logic Russia should have inferior radars because of the Russia's decline in material science.




I didn't say Russia's radars are crappy. You did.


Radar is related to materials science to a certain degree, that's why Russia has yet to come up with a decent small-sized AESA radar which she doesn't have because Russia's materials scientists still can't developed certain minimised GaAs MMIC crystallography tube with an exceptionally agile beam required, even though IBRIS is one of the best out there in terms of distance detection. 


China's interest in IBRIS doesn't prove anything. The US is interested in it too. So? It can be for various other reasons.





ptldM3 said:


> The only chest thumping is comming from you, so far the only things i have heard from you are, China is better than Russia and China's material science is so great while Russia's isn't. My link was just that, a link, a link that proved that Russia's RAM technology is better than you originally though. Reducing an aircraft's rcs up to 15 times is pretty damn impressive, you can keep putting down and dismissing Russian technology by bringing up "material science" which is vague and proves absolutely nothing.




Reducing an aircraft's rcs up to 15 times is impressive. But that's not the point. The point is in comparison. What if other/s can reduce it even further, and do it better?


Now we see it's you who is doing aimless chest thumping without offering any concrete arguments that are even close to the topic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ramu

^^^^^^

Read your post... Adds little value. Does not answer one important point:

The point is you can't claim inferiority of Russian technology when compared to Chinese systems with little knowledge about Russian technology especially when China is importing many important systems from Russia !

Next, the claim that post soviet collapse has had an effect on funding may have some truth but cannot change the technological prowess or mastery over material science and other fundamental research that Russia was the leader. The stealth related fundamental research was first published by Russia though US came out with its application.


----------



## ramu

> India? Did you just say India? It's just me or ... since when "India" and "world-class Materials Science" these 2 phrases have been linked together by anyone, even Indians?



Educate yourself : From Wootz Steel to modern day composites, India has mastered material technology in various domains.

Anyway, I don't want to waste my time educating you as the chances of that making any impact on a nut is minimal.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Speeder 2

ramu said:


> ^^^^^^
> 
> Read your post... Adds little value. Does not answer one important point:
> 
> The point is you can't claim inferiority of Russian technology when compared to Chinese systems with little knowledge about Russian technology especially when *China is importing many important systems* from Russia !



be specific! what technology, what systems you refer to? 




ramu said:


> Next, the claim that post soviet collapse has had an effect on funding may have some truth but cannot change the technological prowess or mastery over material science and other fundamental research that Russia was the leader. The stealth related fundamental research was first published by Russia though US came out with its application.



Crap! 

Stealth fighter concept was originally developed by Nazi Germany during WWII. Both US and Soviet got a handful of those tech after the war and developed their own from there.

Modern materials science is cutting edge, which is directly correlated with R&D input, not so called "experieces". It's not painting a wall, for god's sake.

Go educate yourself before unlease a load of BS here !


----------



## Speeder 2

ramu said:


> Educate yourself : From Wootz Steel to modern day composites, *India has mastered material technology *in various domains.



India mastered materials science ?  what weed are you on?

One step at a time, first go master the materials science of modern toilet system, then we'll take it from there, ok?




ramu said:


> Anyway, I don't want to waste my time educating you as the chances of that making any impact on a nut is minimal.



Your education is pathetically minimum judging from what you said. 

How you made here in the UK I wonder, or more like hidding under a false flag as many others do?


----------



## ramu

Speeder 2 said:


> be specific! what technology, what systems you refer to?



Google it and find the defence cooperation between the two countries. If Russia was inferior as you claim in almost every post, China would not be using Russian technology at all.



> Crap!
> 
> Stealth fighter concept was originally developed by Nazi Germany during WWII. Both US and Soviet got a handful of those tech after the war and developed their own from there.
> 
> Modern materials science is cutting edge, which is directly correlated with R&D input, not so called "experieces". It's not painting a wall, for god's sake.
> 
> Go educate yourself before unlease a load of BS here !



In the 1970s, a U.S. mathematician working for Lockheed Aircraft * used a mathematical model developed by Russian scientist Pyotr Ufimtsev to develop a computer program called Echo 1. Echo made it possible to predict the radar signature an aircraft made with flat panels, called facets. * In 1975, Lockheed Skunk Works engineers determined that an airplane with faceted surfaces could have a remarkably low radar signature because the surfaces would radiate 99.9 percent of the radar energy away from the receiver. They built a model called "the Hopeless Diamond" because it looked like a squat diamond and looked too hopeless to ever fly. This work marked a substantial change from the past, because for the first time, designers realized that it might be possible to make an aircraft that was virtually invisible to radar.

Source : Stealth Aircraft


Show me Chinese contribution to stealth technology that has advanced the science in any shape or form !


----------



## ramu

> Your education is pathetically minimum judging from you said.
> 
> How you made here in the UK I wonder?



  +1 Post reported.


----------



## dingyibvs

This is a concept art from the Shanghai Expo:







Pretty strong resemblance to the other pics I posted. Again, it's just speculation, so don't jump on me for it 

Also, Gambit, I won't pretend to understand everything you said, but I do have a degree in EE and I can understand some of it. I can see from your explanation how simply making the canard in line with the wings isn't enough, but it seems to me that there isn't a strong case for the canard being a distinct element by itself. It is, after all, connected to the rest of the plane and could, at least theoretically, be made to "conduct" the creeping wave along the fuselage and the wings to allow it to degenerate. I noticed on the fanart/concept arts I posted that the fuselage extends out a bit to cover up a portion of the canard from the top, perhaps that is made in an effort to this end?


----------



## Speeder 2

ramu said:


> Google it and find the defence cooperation between the two countries. If Russia was inferior as you claim in almost every post, China would not be using Russian technology at all.



You're wasting my time... 

One last time:

When did I claim Russia tech (in general) was inferior to China's as you falsely accused ?? 

I only said, repeatedly, if you understand English at all, that



> China, however, arguablelly is in the second place in ram tech IMO


, hence most likely ahead of Russia's T-50 on related stealth performance.





ramu said:


> In the 1970s, a U.S. mathematician working for Lockheed Aircraft * used a mathematical model developed by Russian scientist Pyotr Ufimtsev to develop a computer program called Echo 1. Echo made it possible to predict the radar signature an aircraft made with flat panels, called facets. * In 1975, Lockheed Skunk Works engineers determined that an airplane with faceted surfaces could have a remarkably low radar signature because the surfaces would radiate 99.9 percent of the radar energy away from the receiver. They built a model called "the Hopeless Diamond" because it looked like a squat diamond and looked too hopeless to ever fly. This work marked a substantial change from the past, because for the first time, designers realized that it might be possible to make an aircraft that was virtually invisible to radar.
> 
> Show me Chinese contribution to stealth technology that has advanced the science in any shape or form !



So... ? 

As I said both Russia and US 's early stealth techs were based on the Nazi German's original concept. Of course, technicques improved and new techniques have been discovered all the time during the last half a century. 

I don't need to show you a hoot about Chinese strealth tech in the 70s, or 80s, or 90s...because that is not the argument/topic at hand.

You haven't proved a damn thing yet after all these copy/paste, because the future will not stop at that point in 1970. Times moves on, so do technologies. We are talking about ram tech and the underlying *modern * material science * in general now and today*, not others, on which I believe that I 've showed enough already on China's recent achivements.

What's you point then? Zero! but only put up a straw man and proceed with reckless attacks.

Don't ask me again to waste my time on you kinda of crap posts bordering the middle of no where. This's my last post to you on this topic!


----------



## ABDULLAH RIZWAN

i m damn sure first pic is faik and i m serving for P.A.F for 27 years and i even dont know about the plane jxx. sorry to say but pakistan is not buying any plane from china. pakistan and china has created a plane named as jf 17 not j xx. PAF is not buying any plane yet.


----------



## TheWarriorIndian

ABDULLAH RIZWAN said:


> i m damn sure first pic is faik and i m serving for P.A.F for 27 years and i even dont know about the plane jxx. sorry to say but pakistan is not buying any plane from china. pakistan and china has created a plane named as jf 17 not j xx. PAF is not buying any plane yet.



well there are a lot of speculation going around here that, pakistan would be buying it from china...


----------



## ABDULLAH RIZWAN

if u dont believe that i m serving officer of P.A.F then let me tell everyone that my current unit is 408 squadron at P.A.F base malir


----------



## ABDULLAH RIZWAN

that's j xx


----------



## ABDULLAH RIZWAN

Public Relations Department of the PLA Air Force has made a confirmation message that the "fourth-generation fighter J-XX&#187; is developed on the basis of design fighter J-10. This statement was issued Xinhua News Agency and People's Liberation Army daily newspaper.

This statement should put an end to all speculations about J-XX, which appeared after the interview with the PLA Air Force General Hye Veyronga (He Weirong), where he said that "the Chinese pilots in the next 8-10 years commit a jump to the most advanced fighters, which will have stealth technology.


----------



## ABDULLAH RIZWAN

can any one tell me that how can i be the major


----------



## Speeder 2

dingyibvs said:


> This is a concept art from the Shanghai Expo:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty strong resemblance to the other pics I posted. Again, it's just speculation, so don't jump on me for it
> 
> Also, Gambit, I won't pretend to understand everything you said, but I do have a degree in EE and I can understand some of it. I can see from your explanation how simply making the canard in line with the wings isn't enough, but it seems to me that there isn't a strong case for the canard being a distinct element by itself. It is, after all, connected to the rest of the plane and could, at least theoretically, be made to "conduct" the creeping wave along the fuselage and the wings to allow it to degenerate. I noticed on the fanart/concept arts I posted that the fuselage extends out a bit to cover up a portion of the canard from the top, perhaps that is made in an effort to this end?



Good to see some fan arts! Looks like kinds of downsized B2 with a pointy nose and a pair of tiny canards  Some in SDF think it could be reverse triangle body with blended wings.

On canards, I can imagine for this kind of huge project, there must be thousands of researchers/sub contractors of all kinds, among whom someone, some big mouth, somehow will eventually leak some realistic info alongside pure fan arts, even though the project itself remains highly classified. Some fan arts, therefore, could possibilely contain some truth. Most of currently CGs in the net "confirm" that it comes with canards. I 've read some lengthy debates arguing that canards are not ideal for stealth design but don't neccesarily increase RCS nonetheless, IF arranged with carefully calculated angles and shapes in relation to the overall design, combined with composite materials and high tech ram coating thereafter, which would make it almost "invisible" at BVR level.


----------



## ABDULLAH RIZWAN

indian air force has not enough strenghth to fight with pakistan


----------



## TheWarriorIndian

ABDULLAH RIZWAN said:


> indian air force has not enough strenghth to fight with pakistan



My dear sir, Have a seat, relax, Enjoy a cup of coffee or Tea, If possible take off and have a sortie, dont speak beyond that, you might be a PAF guy but that dosent make IAF weaker....


----------



## desiman

ABDULLAH RIZWAN said:


> indian air force has not enough strenghth to fight with pakistan




that proves that your not from the PAF, so please sit down and relax.


----------



## Imran Khan

TheWarriorIndian said:


> My dear sir, Have a seat, relax, Enjoy a cup of coffee or Tea, If possible take off and have a sortie, dont speak beyond that, you might be a PAF guy but that dosent make IAF weaker....



no-408 is not fighter sqadron yaar .were the hell come for sortie


----------



## ramu

Speeder 2 said:


> So... ?
> 
> *As I said both Russia and US 's early stealth techs were based on the Nazi German's original concept. Of course, technicques improved and new techniques have been discovered all the time during the last half a century. *
> 
> I don't need to show you a hoot about Chinese strealth tech in the 70s, or 80s, or 90s...because that is not the argument/topic at hand.
> 
> You haven't proved a damn thing yet after all these copy/paste, because the future will not stop at that point in 1970. Times moves on, so do technologies. We are talking about ram tech and the underlying *modern * material science * in general now and today*, not others, on which I believe that I 've showed enough already on China's recent achivements.
> 
> What's you point then? Zero! but only put up a straw man and proceed with reckless attacks.
> 
> Don't ask me again to waste my time on you kinda of crap posts bordering the middle of no where. This's my last post to you on this topic!



Wrong again !



> American aircraft designers began discussing applying stealth technology to airplanes in the 1940s. But it was not until the 1950s that they actually began designs that took into account an airplane's radar signature. The U-2 spyplane, which was started in late 1954 by Lockheed Aircraft under a contract with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), was intended to be stealthy largely by flying at a very high altitude. Its designers expected that Soviet air defense radar would not be capable of detecting aircraft that high, although U.S. radar certainly could. The designers were wrong about Soviet radar, however, and the first U-2s to fly over Soviet territory were immediately detected. This prompted U.S. radar and aircraft experts to evaluate a number of ways to reduce the radar signature of the airplane. Because the U-2's shape was already established, they focused on adding things to the airplane that would absorb or scatter the radar energy that reached the plane. These included a fine wire mesh that was molded over the plane and covered with a paint that contained iron, and wires strung from the nose to the tail. However, none of these efforts reduced the airplane's radar signature very much, some of them significantly reduced its performance, and all were abandoned.
> 
> In 1958, the CIA began studying a replacement for the U-2 that could fly at speeds above Mach 3. This aircraft, soon named OXCART (possibly an inside joke because it implied a vehicle that moved very slowly), was intended to fly very fast and very high. It would also have a small radar signature, meaning that it would appear as a very small object on a radar screen. Its designers hoped that its small size and high speed, so that it would move a great distance between each pass of the radar beam, would cause radar operators to think the radar blip was only "noise" in the radar signal. The single-pilot OXCART, which was also designated the A-12 and built by Lockheed, had a number of radar-reducing features. It was coated with special materials that absorbed radar energy. Designers also developed parts of its structure to "trap" radar energy and prevent it from traveling back to its source. In addition, they added a chemical to the aircraft's special fuel to reduce its radar signature. Overall, the OXCART had a relatively small radar signature, but it was still visible on radar. The Air Force soon developed the two-seat Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird based on the OXCART design, and the Lockheed D-21 TAGBOARD reconnaissance drone. Both aircraft incorporated stealthy features.


----------



## TheWarriorIndian

Imran Khan said:


> no-408 is not fighter sqadron yaar .were the hell come for sortie



Thats why I said *If possible* have a sortie


----------



## Imran Khan

TheWarriorIndian said:


> Thats why I said *If possible* have a sortie



if not posible take a bath?


----------



## TheWarriorIndian

Imran Khan said:


> if not posible take a bath?



thats his choice, Who am I to ruin his privacy?


----------



## below_freezing

ramu said:


> Educate yourself : From Wootz Steel to modern day composites, India has mastered material technology in various domains.
> 
> Anyway, I don't want to waste my time educating you as the chances of that making any impact on a nut is minimal.



SJR - International Science Ranking

India is ranked 9th in materials science, China is ranked 2nd.

Russia is ranked 6th.

Spain and Netherlands are not even in top 10.


----------



## ptldM3

Speeder 2 said:


> Waht acceptable limits?
> 
> acceptable by whom? by you? lol.
> 
> I mislead readers? You not?



Yes you do misslead the readers, and this is how, you base everything on material science. Now you are claiming that Russia's RAM is inferior to China's because of material science, the less informed and narrow minded readership might actually beleive you.






Speeder 2 said:


> Let's see what details you know to claim your inferiority then?





Makes no sence much like your other claims.





Speeder 2 said:


> So Russia got her own "area 51" and some research institutions? Cool !
> 
> Do you know that China doesn't ?



I never said China doesn't, my point was that Russia has goverment insitutions or goverment funded institutions that conduct research and come up with new technologies opposed to just incorporating civilian technologies, thus not every scientific breakthrough that comes out of Russia is publicly revealed. Moreover, not all of the civilian projects have a use in the military world, so material science as a whole doesn't allways apply to the military.





Speeder 2 said:


> The same can be said with ANY major millitary power. China will publicise the fomulas of all her millitary techonologies derived from materials Science research, huh?
> 
> Or the US will do so? Or France will do so? ...
> 
> The US won't let you have a closer LOOK at F-22 , for god's sake.
> 
> China even doesn't claim to have J-XX project. (Well, China's deputy air chief did it once before got criticised)
> 
> Russia doesn't disclose secrets. Fine. But which country does so, apart from India D) ? What's your point here?




Bingo--militaries don't disclose their technologies and this can be said for everyone, the point is Russia doesn't relly on civilian institutions as much as other countries, instead Russia has goverment institutions that usually receive more funding and have better access to technology than civil institutions, thus these goverment institutions can creat superior products--products that don't make it to the internation science gournals. Look at it this way do you think that Japan which is ranked 3rd in material science can create better engines than Rolls Royce which is owned by this British and the British are ranked #7 in material science. Yes Japan has the brilliant minds, available funds, and is a science leader but because of Britan's experience in mlitary jet engines, Japan would have a difficult time building equivilants, the same apples for Russia, Russia has the experience.








Speeder 2 said:


> Spain and Ned top the ranking on Materials Science? What are you smoking?



Spain is ranked 12th out of 174 countries and the Netherlands is ranked 2nd in material science journals, which i made very clear.

SJR - International Science Ranking

03.01.2009 - National Rankings in Materials Science 1998-2008 - ScienceWatch.com





Speeder 2 said:


> On the statements:
> 
> Both you and I know close to nothing on the detailed ram tech ( millitarised materials Science) from the US, China and Russia;
> 
> All we argue here is "a general guess" based on personal opinions,ok?
> 
> But our common stance stops here.




Well if this is the case then why are you saying Russia's RAM techology is inferior to China's? 




Speeder 2 said:


> To support my arguement that China likely has better ram tech than Russia, I used *General level* of each country's Materails Science known to scientific community as a rough measure tool, which is the best public-available toolkit one can get, as no country reveals the top millitary scerate derived from its science. But still, one can have an educated guess at what levels they are at by eaxming its correspoding civilian tech and research achievments wihtin scientific communities.
> 
> So far, what educated guess you have offered to support your argument?
> 
> Zero!




 i don't go by "educated guesses" I already mentioned Russia has established defence institutions that have extensive experience, you really think that some country that may be higher ranked in material science is going to be able to produce superior technology eve though that country has less experience and less established defence institutions? Moreover, i gave you an actual link discribing Russia's RAM development...you, however, have gave me nothing other than "educated guesses".






Speeder 2 said:


> humm...probably yes. And? That was more than half a century ago...



It doesn't matter that it was half a centry ago, what matters is Russia was able to achieve what the US coundn't and did Russia rank higher in material science?






Speeder 2 said:


> India? Did you just say India? It's just me or ... since when "India" and "world-class Materials Science" these 2 phrases have been linked together by anyone, even Indians?
> 
> Man, I am starting to have a serious doubt on the nationality you said you have after this. Are you a Russian or an Indian indeed hiding behind other people's flag? PDF is packed with the latter.
> 
> 
> Since you are so eager to brand India's materials science as world-class to give "your" Russia an extra boost, why not to make *Laos *and *Vietnam *(no pun inteneded) into *Russian-indian *5th gen project too,as you'll have "combined materials science of *4 *countries"



Yea you got me, i'm Indian . and there is no need to degrade India they are ranked 9th in material science although still considerabally less than the top 3 countries, but this is not the point, the point is India and Russia can share their findings, and as everyone knows India has some of the brightest minds in the world.






Speeder 2 said:


> *For the last 7 years, China's materials science occupies more than 20% of world's total output, in both research papers publiched in reputed scientific journals and patents granted. Yes, this doesn't equal to her level of millitary RAM tech, but this is the best indication one can come up with in such an argument, telling you the general strenghth of a country in this area. *



Having a high ranking in material science doesn't mean you can go around and say China is superior to Russia, well you can but you'll look ignorant. I guess since China is superior to Russia than it has to be superior to Germany, France, and the UK.







Speeder 2 said:


> I didn't say that USA is the undisputed leader in everything.
> 
> But we are talking about 5th gen here, in which it most likely is for the moment until real evidences suggest otherwise. e.g. 300m price tag of F-22 with a big chuck of its cost on its delicate coating and maintanance, compared with 80m-100m worth T-50, one could generally see the quality difference in ram, after normalised for labour costs etc.



What's your point with the cost? Sukhoi is a state owned company and Lockheed Martin is private, meaning they try to make as much pofit as possible, this means having high price tags, the economics are allso different, it's cheaper to produce an aircraft in Russia than it is in the US.







Speeder 2 said:


> rocket is another thing. don't mix it. And your logic here is wrong also.



My logic is not wrong, a US scientists stated that Russia had superior rocket engines, thus the US uses them to power the Atlas rockets, and this fits in perfectly with my logic of material science and the ability to produce competitive products.






Speeder 2 said:


> Russia used to be so, but as lack of funding since Soviet collaped has severely crippled Russia's R&D, what Russia shows now mostly come from residual dividends of Soviet era. We see Russia struggles in many areas, e.g. on T-50, from next-gen engine tech, ram tech, real deployable small-sized AESA radar, to general stealthy design, eletronics, etc.




 Sorry the engines for the T-50 have been able to produce as much as 40,000lbs thrust, and we alrady have engines in the SU-35 that can acheive supercruise as well as maintain a very long service life before overhauls are needed.

Now for your rediculous radar claim, the ZHUK-A AESA is 575mm, this should be small enough to fit in the nose of the JF-17 which is 640mm. Now lets look at the ZHUK's capabilities, the new model has a range of 200km and can track 60 targets and last i heard it should be able to engauged up to 18 targets at once.

And as for the "gerneral stealth designe" of the PAK-FA it has all the features that a stealth aircraft should, granted it's a prototype and things such as engine nozzles are still not 'stealthy' but it's a prototype and development work on Rapptor style nozzles is underway, so don't jump to any conlusions.







Speeder 2 said:


> Radar is related to materials science to a certain degree,



No it's related to a very high degree, look up all aspects of material science then go study the elements of a radar.





Speeder 2 said:


> *that's why Russia has yet to come up with a decent small-sized AESA* radar which she doesn't have because Russia's materials scientists still can't developed certain minimised GaAs MMIC crystallography tube with an exceptionally agile beam required, even though IBRIS is one of the best out there in terms of distance detection.



I think i already blew that claim out of the water when i mentioned the ZHUK-A, its size and its performance.







Speeder 2 said:


> Reducing an aircraft's rcs up to 15 times is impressive. But that's not the point. The point is in comparison. What if other/s can reduce it even further, and do it better?




What if Santa Claus is real? I gave you a link proving Russia's capabilitie in RAM developmnt, you, on the other hand, still maintain that China is superior to Russia based on material science. Either post a link proving China' RAM techology is superior or don't post at all, and i'm not interested in your "educated guesses".


----------



## Sanchez

@ ptldM3

The link on Russian RAM tech doesn't seem to have any information. Can you repost one?


----------



## ramu

below_freezing said:


> SJR - International Science Ranking
> 
> India is ranked 9th in materials science, China is ranked 2nd.
> 
> Russia is ranked 6th.
> 
> Spain and Netherlands are not even in top 10.




Now please don't get me started on the murky world of these rankings and citations. If you are not from a research background you won't be able to comprehend the pressure to publish at a masters level. People add a twist to every known / working model and make it a new piece of work just to get a degree. That is remote and not the best measure for independent research. This ranking is nonsense to say the least but I am not someone who will argue for the sake of argument.

China at this point will edge both Japan and India in most field and material science is one of them. That however does not give a license for someone with a nut brain to ridicule Indian prowess. Check his post and read my reply. I was not comparing and neither was I saying anything about China. 

When the Russians are partnering with India, some of you thought it was a joke. And my response was to show that the theory of material science first came about in India from the steel produced in south India for the material of the sword. It is unfortunate that China may have the aptitude for being the best but from this forum, I get a sense that they lose out on the attitude.


----------



## below_freezing

ramu said:


> Now please don't get me started on the murky world of these rankings and citations. If you are not from a research background you won't be able to comprehend the pressure to publish at a masters level. People add a twist to every known / working model and make it a new piece of work just to get a degree. That is remote and not the best measure for independent research. This ranking is nonsense to say the least but I am not someone who will argue for the sake of argument.
> 
> China at this point will edge both Japan and India in most field and material science is one of them. That however does not give a license for someone with a nut brain to ridicule Indian prowess. Check his post and read my reply. I was not comparing and neither was I saying anything about China.
> 
> When the Russians are partnering with India, some of you thought it was a joke. And my response was to show that the theory of material science first came about in India from the steel produced in south India for the material of the sword. It is unfortunate that China may have the aptitude for being the best but from this forum, I get a sense that they lose out on the attitude.



of course. many scientists in the US get funding for purifying some useless protein and x-raying its structure, that is a new article. ever think about the huge inflated number of US biochemistry articles? materials science is a bit different in this regard.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ptldM3

Sanchez said:


> @ ptldM3
> 
> The link on Russian RAM tech doesn't seem to have any information. Can you repost one?



The artical was written in 2003; unfortunately, the original website no longer has a working link, google: Andrey Lagarjkov and you should find the same artical quoted by various sources.


----------



## Speeder 2

ptldM3 said:


> Yes you do misslead the readers, and this is how, you base everything on material science. Now you are claiming that Russia's RAM is inferior to China's because of material science, the less informed and narrow minded readership might actually beleive you.



What? who is misleading readers? 

RAM is based on materials science ! Yes or no?

And you tell me no.

When talking about RAM, one must talk about underlying materials science, not vodka unfortunately.



ptldM3 said:


> Makes no sence much like your other claims.



yeah right, talking about "area 51' like you do does make a hell lot of sense. 




ptldM3 said:


> I never said China doesn't, my point was that Russia has goverment insitutions or goverment funded institutions that conduct research and come up with new technologies opposed to just incorporating civilian technologies, thus not every scientific breakthrough that comes out of Russia is publicly revealed. Moreover, not all of the civilian projects have a use in the military world, so material science as a whole doesn't allways apply to the military.



Even though this point of yours might be true , it is invalid in this argument, because, as I said, most sensitive Chinese military tech(sci-tech breakthrus) neither have been put into cilvilian industry, just like Russia , like USA, like France, etc, etc. Most extremely high tech industry have always been controled by govenements, not only in russia, also everywhere else. So your point here is irrelevant.








ptldM3 said:


> Bingo--militaries don't disclose their technologies and this can be said for everyone, the point is Russia doesn't relly on civilian institutions as much as other countries, instead Russia has goverment institutions that usually receive more funding and have better access to technology than civil institutions, thus these goverment institutions can creat superior products--products that don't make it to the internation science gournals.



Bin what go?  the same can be said on China.




ptldM3 said:


> Look at it this way do you think that Japan which is ranked 3rd in material science can create better engines than Rolls Royce which is owned by this British and the British are ranked #7 in material science. Yes Japan has the brilliant minds, available funds, and is a science leader but because of Britan's experience in mlitary jet engines, Japan would have a difficult time building equivilants, the same apples for Russia, Russia has the experience.



Japan is NOT China. Hello? You need a map or not? This example is invalid for discussion at hand.





ptldM3 said:


> Spain is ranked 12th out of 174 countries and the Netherlands is ranked 2nd in material science journals, which i made very clear.



many sci-tech journals do various kinds of rankings with different criteria, that's why i don't quote one. But commone sense prevails. Leasve Spain aside, which is outiste top 5 anyway, I spent considerable part of my life in Nederlands - partially grew up there. I know very well that Uni Eindhoven, Technische Uni Delft and Uni Utrecht are very good in this field, but tell me they are world #2 according to whatever ranking? Don't be ridiculous! 





ptldM3 said:


> Well if this is the case then why are you saying Russia's RAM techology is inferior to China's?
> 
> i don't go by "educated guesses" I already mentioned Russia has established defence institutions that have extensive experience,



But you are "educated guessing" too !!!

Otherwise, you must have security clearance of Russian millitary,huh? because as you said repeatedly that Russia doesn't reveal its secrets? 





ptldM3 said:


> you really think that some country that may be higher ranked in material science is going to be able to produce superior technology eve though that country has less experience and less established defence institutions?



Yes I do, even for countries having relatively less prior experiences.

Because: 

1. RAM tech is cutting edge; which share little common knowledge with how you produce AK-47 alikes of the 20th century.

2. Modern technologies like materials science, unlike the knowldge how you launched your first satellite in the 50s ro 60s, is solely behind ram.

3. Since neither you nor I have security clearance of either Russia army or PLA, a country's general level of materials science is the BEST publicly avalaible proxy of RAM in an argument ( how many times I said this??? ), not other vague excuses such as "area 51".







ptldM3 said:


> Moreover, i gave you an actual link discribing Russia's RAM development...you, however, have gave me nothing other than "educated guesses".



I don't need to know it , because you youself have already discredited your own source by saying that "Russia doesn't reveal its sci-tech findings to the public or to civilian industries". So whatever source you post here must NOT be the real Russian army ram tech ! 

Got it?






ptldM3 said:


> It doesn't matter that it was half a centry ago, what matters is Russia was able to achieve what the US coundn't and did Russia rank higher in material science?



it doesn't matter ?  then I must introduce you to the Guiness record holder of materials science experiences, the Grandpa of ALL materials science of human civlisation ------> 

*gun powder that China invented !* 


At that time if one had asked those ancient Chinese inventors "whom are Russians? ", I bet they would have had pointed at some random trees in the North direction, murmuring " Russians? do you mean those creatures on the top? ". 

Now seriously, Russia might did sth better than yanks even ranked below them in Materials science, but that was NOT a norm! That was pure luck. In statistics, whoever ranks at the top should almost always be better. 

The very same statistics backs my claim (don't change my words) that


> China is *arguablely* at 2rd place on RAM tech *IMO*


, hence


> *most likely* better than T-50 on the related stealth tech".








ptldM3 said:


> Yea you got me, i'm Indian



Now time for bingo! I knew it. So honestly, which caste you belong to? A low caste by any chance ? 





ptldM3 said:


> . and there is no need to degrade India they are ranked 9th in material science although still considerabally less than the top 3 countries, but this is not the point, the point is India and Russia can share their findings, and as everyone knows India has some of the brightest minds in the world.



I was not aiming at degrading India/indians per see. It was you who draged them into the topic. I just followed your logic...






ptldM3 said:


> Having a high ranking in material science doesn't mean you can go around and say China is superior to Russia, well you can but you'll look ignorant.



Disagree.

1. Statistically, one can says so. It doesn't show ignorance, but prudence. The ones who say otherwise are actually ignorant, because they go arguing against statistics.

2. I never said China is superior to Russia or otherwise (in general sense). What I said : LOOK ABOVE QUOTE!




ptldM3 said:


> I guess since China is superior to Russia than it has to be superior to Germany, France, and the UK.




???




ptldM3 said:


> My logic is not wrong, a US scientists stated that Russia had superior rocket engines, thus the US uses them to power the Atlas rockets, and this fits in perfectly with my logic of material science and the ability to produce competitive products.
> 
> Sorry the engines for the T-50 have been able to produce as much as 40,000lbs thrust, and we alrady have engines in the SU-35 that can acheive supercruise as well as maintain a very long service life before overhauls are needed.
> 
> Now for your rediculous radar claim, the ZHUK-A AESA is 575mm, this should be small enough to fit in the nose of the JF-17 which is 640mm. Now lets look at the ZHUK's capabilities, the new model has a range of 200km and can track 60 targets and last i heard it should be able to engauged up to 18 targets at once.
> 
> And as for the "gerneral stealth designe" of the PAK-FA it has all the features that a stealth aircraft should, granted it's a prototype and things such as engine nozzles are still not 'stealthy' but it's a prototype and development work on Rapptor style nozzles is underway, so don't jump to any conlusions.
> 
> No it's related to a very high degree, look up all aspects of material science then go study the elements of a radar.
> 
> 
> 
> I think i already blew that claim out of the water when i mentioned the ZHUK-A, its size and its performance.



There're many claims on ZHU-AR out there by some engineers. 

Any official confirmations? I am afread no.

Is Zhuk-AE radar operational? If no, wait until it is and confirmed, then come back to claim that.

The same with T-50 engine. It's almost universally recognissed that Russia must keep working on the next gen engine ( from the core, not a simple upgrade) to fit it. After you've done that, come back to convince me.







ptldM3 said:


> What if Santa Claus is real? I gave you a link proving Russia's capabilitie in RAM developmnt, you, on the other hand, still maintain that China is superior to Russia based on material science. Either post a link proving China' RAM techology is superior or don't post at all, and i'm not interested in your "educated guesses".



I won't bother to provide any link, I won't look at your related source link neither, because ALL are non-official (without " top secret " marking) , ALL are "educated guesses" and opinion hersays. Clear enough?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SinoIndusFriendship

Speeder 2 said:


> What? who is misleading readers?
> 
> RAM is based on materials science ! Yes or no?
> 
> And you tell me no.
> 
> When talking about RAM, one must talk about underlying materials science, not vodka unfortunately.
> 
> 
> 
> yeah right, talking about "area 51' like you do does make a hell lot of sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even though this point of yours might be true , it is invalid in this argument, because, as I said, most sensitive Chinese military tech(sci-tech breakthrus) neither have been put into cilvilian industry, just like Russia , like USA, like France, etc, etc. Most extremely high tech industry have always been controled by govenements, not only in russia, also everywhere else. So your point here is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bin what go?  the same can be said on China.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Japan is NOT China. Hello? You need a map or not? This example is invalid for discussion at hand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> many sci-tech journals do various kinds of rankings with different criteria, that's why i don't quote one. But commone sense prevails. Leasve Spain aside, which is outiste top 5 anyway, I spent considerable part of my life in Nederlands - partially grew up there. I know very well that Uni Eindhoven, Technische Uni Delft and Uni Utrecht are very good in this field, but tell me they are world #2 according to whatever ranking? Don't be ridiculous!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you are "educated guessing" too !!!
> 
> Otherwise, you must have security clearance of Russian millitary,huh? because as you said repeatedly that Russia doesn't reveal its secrets?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do, even for countries having relatively less prior experiences.
> 
> Because:
> 
> 1. RAM tech is cutting edge; which share little common knowledge with how you produce AK-47 alikes of the 20th century.
> 
> 2. Modern technologies like materials science, unlike the knowldge how you launched your first satellite in the 50s ro 60s, is solely behind ram.
> 
> 3. Since neither you nor I have security clearance of either Russia army or PLA, a country's general level of materials science is the BEST publicly avalaible proxy of RAM in an argument ( how many times I said this??? ), not other vague excuses such as "area 51".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to know it , because you youself have already discredited your own source by saying that "Russia doesn't reveal its sci-tech findings to the public or to civilian industries". So whatever source you post here must NOT be the real Russian army ram tech !
> 
> Got it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it doesn't matter ?  then I must introduce you to the Guiness record holder of materials science experiences, the Grandpa of ALL materials science of human civlisation ------>
> 
> *gun powder that China invented !*
> 
> 
> At that time if one had asked those ancient Chinese inventors "whom are Russians? ", I bet they would have had pointed at some random trees in the North direction, murmuring " Russians? do you mean those creatures on the top? ".
> 
> Now seriously, Russia might did sth better than yanks even ranked below them in Materials science, but that was NOT a norm! That was pure luck. In statistics, whoever ranks at the top should almost always be better.
> 
> The very same statistics backs my claim (don't change my words) that , hence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now time for bingo! I knew it. So honestly, which caste you belong to? A low caste by any chance ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was not aiming at degrading India/indians per see. It was you who draged them into the topic. I just followed your logic...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree.
> 
> 1. Statistically, one can says so. It doesn't show ignorance, but prudence. The ones who say otherwise are actually ignorant, because they go arguing against statistics.
> 
> 2. I never said China is superior to Russia or otherwise (in general sense). What I said : LOOK ABOVE QUOTE!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There're many claims on ZHU-AR out there by some engineers.
> 
> Any official confirmations? I am afread no.
> 
> Is Zhuk-AE radar operational? If no, wait until it is and confirmed, then come back to claim that.
> 
> The same with T-50 engine. It's almost universally recognissed that Russia must keep working on the next gen engine ( from the core, not a simple upgrade) to fit it. After you've done that, come back to convince me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I won't bother to provide any link, I won't look at your related source link neither, because ALL are non-official (without " top secret " marking) , ALL are "educated guesses" and opinion hersays. Clear enough?



I was going to keep quite on this for strategic reason, but now I can speak my mind. Some Russians are finding it difficult to accept the reality that they are less advance than Chinese in *most fields, and at best competitive in a few select areas.* After listening to numerous Russian laypeople and scientists I am convinced.

Seasons change, and time changes my friends. It's a competitive world out there, you don't stay at #1 spot for long, especially when others strive harder than you. Why not join us and together we can become better?!


----------



## no_name

Thread is getting morbid. 

Since we all held our nations dear to our hearts, when we talk about news from one country we should try not to bring up unnecessary comparisons.

As hardly an agreement can be achieved, this is a time-tested result proven *everytime*.

regards


----------



## Moscow

> *Its Official: JXX is going to test fly in the next few days*




it has been while since the thread started any pics still of the event i did not go through the 11 pages of mine is better so asking or is the " official " claim another story


----------



## gambit

dingyibvs said:


> This is a concept art from the Shanghai Expo:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty strong resemblance to the other pics I posted. Again, it's just speculation, so don't jump on me for it
> 
> Also, Gambit, I won't pretend to understand everything you said, but I do have a degree in EE and I can understand some of it. I can see from your explanation how simply making the canard in line with the wings isn't enough, but it seems to me that there isn't a strong case for the canard being a distinct element by itself. It is, after all, connected to the rest of the plane and could, at least theoretically, be made to "conduct" the creeping wave along the fuselage and the wings to allow it to degenerate. *I noticed on the fanart/concept arts I posted that the fuselage extends out a bit to cover up a portion of the canard from the top, perhaps that is made in an effort to this end?*


I would not place too much value on those 'fan art' depictions. The majority of them focus on aerodynamics over RCS.

This is what an aircraft look like as far as radar detection goes...



I posted the above illustration here before.

Each dot represent a 'scattering point' and the ovals represent the radar reflectivity level of each scattering point. In radar detection, against a background, like the sky for example, those scattering points would stand out and would be in a cluster.

Subspace-based localization and inverse scattering of multiply scattering point targets


> The nonlinear inverse scattering problem of estimating the *locations and scattering strengths or reflectivities* of a number of small, point-like inhomogeneities (targets) to a known background...



This is what 'knife edge diffraction' look like...



It does not matter if the signal source is a music radio transmission or a seeking radar. A canard's position would be dictated more by aerodynamic needs than for RCS contribution factor. This is evident by the many shapes and angles, or dihedral, of the canards in different designs...

Dihedral (aircraft) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Dihedral angle is the upward angle from horizontal of the wings or tailplane of a fixed-wing aircraft. Anhedral angle is the name given to negative dihedral angle, that is, when there is a downward angle from horizontal of the wings or tailplane of a fixed-wing aircraft.



The EF-2000's canards has a downward, or anhedral, as seen below...

File:Eurofighter Typhoon line drawing.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We cannot have the canards interfere with the air flow over the wings. But on a 'normal' tailed aircraft, it is the rear stabs that changes the aircraft's angle-of-attack so they can be inline with the wings with little or no negative effects. Even so, the F-15 still has its rear stabs on a lower horizontal plane than the wings. For the F-16, the rear stabs are on a relatively same horizontal plane but they have a downward cant, or anhedral. The Rafale's canards are quite horizontal but they are on a higher horizontal plane than the wings. So it is very possible that canards can create distinct radar returns based upon the 'knife edge diffraction' effect.


----------



## ptldM3

Speeder 2 said:


> What? who is misleading readers?
> 
> RAM is based on materials science ! Yes or no?
> 
> And you tell me no.
> 
> When talking about RAM, one must talk about underlying materials science, not vodka unfortunately.



No one said RAM wasn't based on material science, my problem is that you label countries that are high on material science as "superior" and at the same time dissmiss countries that are ranked lower on material science----explain Israel, how does Israel come up with some of the best technologies?







Speeder 2 said:


> yeah right, talking about "area 51' like you do does make a hell lot of sense.



You have poor reading comprehension, i used Kopustin-Yar to demonstate that Russia doesn't always rely on civilian firms which usually patent their finds for marketing and profit, thus their work is know by everyone---and don't say China also has these firms because everyone know that already. My point is that established military firms usually create superior products compared to most civilian firms. Moreover, material science can mean anything from recycable toothbrushes to the soles in your shoes, so don't brag. 








Speeder 2 said:


> Japan is NOT China. Hello? You need a map or not? This example is invalid for discussion at hand.



Thanks for pointing out the obvious--captain obvious but i used Japan as an example, let me repeat myself since you couldn't understand the first time around. Japan is ranked 3rd in material science, the UK is ranked 9th, so can Japan create superior jet engines compared to the UK? 







Speeder 2 said:


> many sci-tech journals do various kinds of rankings with different criteria, that's why i don't quote one. But commone sense prevails. Leasve Spain aside, which is outiste top 5 anyway, I spent considerable part of my life in Nederlands - partially grew up there. I know very well that Uni Eindhoven, Technische Uni Delft and Uni Utrecht are very good in this field, but tell me they are world #2 according to whatever ranking? Don't be ridiculous!



Don't pick and choose what suits you best, by your logic me and everyone else can dissmiss China as not being ranked 2nd and claim it's all all lie just like you just did.







Speeder 2 said:


> But you are "educated guessing" too !!!
> 
> Otherwise, *you must have security clearance of Russian millitary*,huh? because as you said repeatedly that Russia doesn't reveal its secrets?




My grandfather spend most of his life in the KGB and an old family friend was in the FSB, not to mention i knew people in the Russian military everyone from pilots to tankers so i know a thing or two but how does this relate to anything? And how am i using uducated guesses when i say Russia has esstablished military institutions? That's not a guess but rather reality.








Speeder 2 said:


> 1. RAM tech is cutting edge; which share little common knowledge with how you produce AK-47 alikes of the 20th century.



No one is arguing RAM tech is not cutting edge, and i fail to see what you're trying to prove, Russia has RAM and very good RAM, parts of the SU-35 even utilizes RAM and if Russia can build cutting edge radars, engines and other technologies than why would Russia have problems with RAM?







Speeder 2 said:


> I don't need to know it , because you youself have already discredited your own source by saying that "Russia doesn't reveal its sci-tech findings to the public or to civilian industries". So whatever source you post here must NOT be the real Russian army ram tech !
> 
> Got it?



Don't put words in my mouth, although Russia has RAM and other technologies Russia doesn't reveal the science behind it, thus the technology doesn't get to scientific journals. Got it?








Speeder 2 said:


> it doesn't matter ?  then I must introduce you to the Guiness record holder of materials science experiences, the Grandpa of ALL materials science of human civlisation ------>
> 
> *gun powder that China invented !*
> 
> 
> At that time if one had asked those ancient Chinese inventors "whom are Russians? ", I bet they would have had pointed at some random trees in the North direction, murmuring " Russians? do you mean those creatures on the top? ".
> 
> Now seriously, Russia might did sth better than yanks even ranked below them in Materials science, but that was NOT a norm! *That was pure luck*. In statistics, whoever ranks at the top should almost always be better.
> 
> The very same statistics backs my claim (don't change my words) that , hence



Gun powder was discovered accidentally correct? Was the first rocket that reached outerspace accidental? Was the first satelite accidental? Was the first space station accidental? Was a Mars probe accidental? And don't compare something as simple as gunpower to space exploration.






Speeder 2 said:


> Disagree.
> 
> Statistically, one can says so. It doesn't show ignorance, but prudence. The ones who say otherwise are actually ignorant, because *they go arguing against statistics*.





Statistics mean nothing, how are countries such as France, Germany and the UK so advanced? Hell the UK is barely ahead on India on the material science ranking and their scientific discoveries and technologies are amazing, the same thing goes for Israel, so i think your argument is mute.







Speeder 2 said:


> ???



Let me repeat myself. Since China is well ahead of countries such as Israel, France, German, and the UK in material science shouldn't Chinese technology be way ahead of the said countries? According to you they should be, unfortunately things arn't black and white.





Speeder 2 said:


> There're many claims on ZHU-AR out there by some engineers.
> 
> Any official confirmations? I am afread no.
> 
> Is Zhuk-AE radar operational? If no, wait until it is and confirmed, then come back to claim that.
> 
> The same with T-50 engine. It's almost universally recognissed that Russia must keep working on the next gen engine ( from the core, not a simple upgrade) to fit it. After you've done that, come back to convince me.



The official range of the early ZHUK was 148km and it's an official quote. The 200km range was quoted by the companies general director. As for the radar being operational it was installed on a RAF Mig-29 and it's installed on a fleet of Mig-35's although they are not operational in the sence that they serve under the RAF, and full scale production of the radar has already begun earlier this year, so it's likely that the radar is equiped on operational fighters.


ASIAN DEFENCE: New Fazotron Zhuk-ME radars enter production




> New Fazotron Zhuk-ME radars enter production, Ready for India
> 
> The Fazotron-NIIR corporation has launched the serial production of Zhuk-ME onboard radar systems designed to be installed on the export version of Russia&#8217;s MiG-29 fighter jet.&#8220;The enterprise is expected to deliver approximately ten Zhuk-ME onboard radar systems in 2010,&#8221; Anatoly Kanashchenkov, Fazotron-NIIR first deputy general director and general designer, told Interfax-AVN.
> 
> Before the end of the year, the corporation will also have to manufacture spare parts sufficient to make &#8220;another ten Zhuk-ME radars,&#8221; Kanashchenkov said.Newly made MiG-29K/KUB and MiG-29SMT fighter jets will be fitted with such radars, he said.Fazotron-NIIR has also been &#8220;participating in the modernization of 64 MiG-29 fighter jets owned by the Indian Air Force,&#8221; he said.
> 
> &#8220;Flight tests of India&#8217;s modernized MiG-29 planes are expected to begin in Russia at the end of 2010 or at the start of 2011,&#8221; Kanashchenkov said.&#8220;In 2010, the corporation will also continue efforts to fine-tune Zhuk-ME radars installed on MiG-29SMT airplanes under a contract with Algeria,&#8221; he said.&#8220;The aforementioned MiG-29SMT planes have been returned to Russia by Algeria and will be sent to the Russian Air Force&#8217;s units after all the necessary adjustments are made,&#8221; he added.




Russia claims 200 km range for MiG-35's Phazotron Zhuk AE





> Vyacheslav Tishchenko, the company's general director, says the detection range of the radar could be increased from 148 km to 200 km.









Speeder 2 said:


> I won't bother to provide any link, I won't look at your related source link neither, because ALL are non-official (without " top secret " marking) , ALL are "educated guesses" and opinion hersays. Clear enough?



Again, stop picking and choosing what sources suit you best, the link i provided was with someone that actually worked on Russia's RAM technology. By your standards i can dissmiss 80&#37; of the Chinese claims because most are not official.


----------



## Sanchez

Before the May 1 holidays a top secret meeting has been held at CAC. No maiden flight took place as planned.


----------



## gambit

ptldM3 said:


> Gun powder was discovered accidentally correct?


Yes.



ptldM3 said:


> Was the first rocket that reached outerspace accidental? Was the first satelite accidental? Was the first space station accidental? Was a Mars probe accidental?


Not to all.



ptldM3 said:


> And don't compare something as simple as gunpower to space exploration.


The issue is not whether <something> is 'simple' or 'difficult' but on whether or not a *CONSCIOUS* effort was behind that <something>. Like it or not, the argument that an invention is an intellectual superior to a discovery has merit. Usually in the process of producing an invention, many peripheral discoveries are made and this make more valuable that invention. An invention imply foresight of a need, realized or not, that supposedly should be met by exploiting the current repository of human knowledge. If that current repository of knowledge prove inadequate, that does not mean the effort cease but rather the effort is intensified to satisfy that need and the result is a product and many peripheral discoveries about nature added to the current repository of human knowledge, leading to many more inventions, some of them can be met by the newly increased store of knowledge, some cannot and those efforts are intensified...And so on...And uncomfortably enough, there really is no legitimate comparison between the accidental discovery of gunpowder to space exploration where the latter is an effort from foresight and produced many inventions and discoveries.


----------



## Speeder 2

ptldM3 said:


> No one said RAM wasn't based on material science, my problem is that you label countries that are high on material science as "superior" and at the same time dissmiss countries that are ranked lower on material science



Correct that ranking matters, which is bang on in theory. 

I see you finally learned something,  in light of my shining examples of course.

That's what all those rankings for. 

That's why Putin is ranked as PM, you not.

As a consequence of that, *under normal circunstances*, *and mostly likely* that Putin is more authoritive than you, unless one day you somehow hit a "jackpot", or unless you rank considerablely higher than you are now being something like Deputy PM of Russia, in which case *probably *, *sometimes *you might have a better odds beating Putin (even though statistically you'll lose to him by a big margin); thus unless in the first scenario (hitting a jackpot), you would loss to Putin in most cases statistically speaking.

Got it?

Now use China replace Putin; and use Russia replace deputy PM or a lesser rank , setting the stage as General Materials Science.




ptldM3 said:


> ----explain Israel, how does Israel come up with *some of the best* technologies?



"some of the best", huh? why you dare not say the best?? becuase Isreal ranks in top 3 in materials science? LOL


That is because of US's massive millitary asistance and large economic aids to Israel mainly; with a tiny part due to Israel's "hit a jackpot" factor (a normal "bingo" in fact) .

Without the US, Israel? lol, Iswho? 





ptldM3 said:


> You have poor reading comprehension, i used Kopustin-Yar to demonstate that Russia doesn't always rely on civilian firms which usually patent their finds for marketing and profit, thus their work is know by everyone---and don't say China also has these firms because everyone know that already. My point is that established military firms usually create superior products compared to most civilian firms. Moreover, material science can mean anything from recycable toothbrushes to the soles in your shoes, so don't brag.



again and again, mind you again that russia is not the only one here, as *all other major countries act like this*, tell me ONE exception where a top military tech is used by a civilian industry ( of any country) and could be purchased in consumer market freely?? 

What's your point?







ptldM3 said:


> Thanks for pointing out the obvious--captain obvious



You're very welcome, soilder,  if that could make you wiser, by all means... -- but don't let me do it again as my patience and time here are limited.




ptldM3 said:


> but i used Japan as an example, let me repeat myself since you couldn't understand the first time around. Japan is ranked 3rd in material science, the UK is ranked 9th, so can Japan create superior jet engines compared to the UK?




I repeat: #3 is almost always better than #9 statisticaly; that's why it's called 3 , not 9. 

However, sometimes, when hitting a jackpot, even any dog could has its day, let along #9. That's not important; what's important, howevr, is the point that no every dog can hit jackpot every day.

So in the long run, #3 has still better odds than #9, ok?




Now let me tell you the long version of why:

Your engine example on Japan is an extreme case: no country can afford to stop top level millitary engine research for more than 10 years. When being completely cut off from the "best practice" of the market, almost no country could sustain its engine development along while maintaining at the top standard.

The best example for that is Germany of WWI and WWII. Germans in WWI got one of the best world class aero engine techs; but it had been CUT off from millitary reseach after losing WWI; in a short space of 10 years, German aero engines went from the top class to the most lousy one among its peer powers, which has been reflectly fully for the whole course of WWII , despite of its dire catch-up efforts. 

Japan is almost the same story - it has been cut off from top millitary engine research after WWII ( up to now, at least publicly), limited by its constitutions set up by the US, while the Brits have always maintained its own engine research throughout the course, particularly in combination with massive direct US imput due to " THE special relationship " branding of the two.


China's current bottleneck, namrly slow engine development, is almost the similar story again: despite of being a winner of WWII, China became communist and had soon been boycotted by both the US and int'l community (in both millitary and civilian techs); after split with Soviet in 60s, China was completely isolated until earlier 1980s, which made its millitary engine tech generations behind the world standard. The new US hi-tech embargo placed after 1989 is still ongoing today. 

China and mainland chinese even are not allowed to take a look at high tech a world-class western engine roadshow, let alone being allowed to purchase them and study them, hence there is no communication whatsoever btw PLA researchers and the rest of the world ( except some Russian assistance, but to a limited extent, as Russia itself also lacks behind the West in engine tech; further, Russians will not disclose their best to the Chinese either). 

This is the reason why China's engine tech is behind - don't raise another "example" on this point, because engines are an special case; it doesn't serve you well in your rebuttal case arguing against China's materials science.

Clear?






ptldM3 said:


> Don't pick and choose what suits you best, by your logic me and everyone else can dissmiss China as not being ranked 2nd and claim it's all all lie just like you just did.



What "pick and choose "? 

I quoted what I said and I mean what I say!






ptldM3 said:


> My grandfather spend most of his life in the KGB and an old family friend was in the FSB, not to mention i knew people in the Russian military everyone from pilots to tankers so i know a thing or two but how does this relate to anything? And how am i using uducated guesses when i say Russia has esstablished military institutions? That's not a guess but rather reality.




what, your grandpa?  

so no "area 51 " this time? 

I would appreciate your courage if you could copy above statement and send it to KGB HQ with your personal mailing address.







ptldM3 said:


> No one is arguing RAM tech is not cutting edge, and i fail to see what you're trying to prove, Russia has RAM and very good RAM, parts of the SU-35 even utilizes RAM and if Russia can build cutting edge radars, engines and other technologies than why would Russia have problems with RAM?




No one is dismissing Russia's ram tech entirely cuz that would be ignorant. I was saying statisticaly speaking, China would most likely edge ahead over Russia on that one.






ptldM3 said:


> Don't put words in my mouth, although Russia has RAM and other technologies Russia doesn't reveal the science behind it, thus the technology doesn't get to scientific journals. Got it?




Got what? Got my foot !

Again ? what's wrong with you?  China does that then? or US does that ? 

tell me on which civilian tech in the market you can find applications of top ram tech used by China (or by USA's F-22) ready 4 purchase ?






ptldM3 said:


> Gun powder was discovered accidentally correct? Was the first rocket that reached outerspace accidental? Was the first satelite accidental? Was the first space station accidental? Was a Mars probe accidental? And don't compare something as simple as gunpower to space exploration.




After consulting with those Chinese gunpowder inventors via telepathic communication, I regret to inform you that gun powder was not discovered by accident. So your further analogies from there are invalid. Sorry! 






ptldM3 said:


> Statistics mean nothing,




Man, do you go to college? 






ptldM3 said:


> how are countries such as France, Germany and the UK so advanced? Hell the UK is barely ahead on India on the material science ranking and their scientific discoveries and technologies are amazing, the same thing goes for Israel, so i think your argument is mute.



Learn what is called stastistics and what it's used for, then you 'll know.


One thing: 

I 'll get my PhD degree in Finance this year. Statistically speaking, as an imminent PhDer tup, I can beat any finance undergraduate hands down and with my eyes closed in most finance-related topics.

But, but, even some piece of sh*t finance understangrad or high schooler, somehow, might hit a jackpot by finding that he is more knowldgeable than I am in some very niche financial topics from some dark corners.


BUT STILL, in gerneal I'll beat him MOST of other times. This is decided by my "Finance or my _materials science_ ranking" and "statistics". *That's the WHOLE point !*

Say, isn't that beautiful?







ptldM3 said:


> Let me repeat myself. Since China is well ahead of countries such as Israel, France, German, and the UK in material science shouldn't Chinese technology be way ahead of the said countries? According to you they should be, unfortunately things arn't black and white.
> 
> 
> The official range of the early ZHUK was 148km and it's an official quote. The 200km range was quoted by the companies general director. As for the radar being operational it was installed on a RAF Mig-29 and it's installed on a fleet of Mig-35's although they are not operational in the sence that they serve under the RAF, and full scale production of the radar has already begun earlier this year, so it's likely that the radar is equiped on operational fighters.
> 
> Again, stop picking and choosing what sources suit you best, the link i provided was with someone that actually worked on Russia's RAM technology. By your standards i can dissmiss 80% of the Chinese claims because most are not official.



so most of above are your repeated claims which I have rebuttaled in my previous post.

See ya!


----------



## gambit

Speeder 2 said:


> tell me on which civilian tech in the market you can find applications of top ram tech used by China (or by USA's F-22) ready 4 purchase ?


Radar absorbers technology have been around for decades -- the radome. It is the formula for a specific application and its usage that are secrets. The formula's secrecy is like the Coca-Cola versus Pepsi versus Dr. Pepper rivalry. Absorbers are essentially pass through material be it in the usage of radomes worldwide, or on the surface of an aircraft.


----------



## gambit

Speeder 2 said:


> After consulting with those Chinese gunpowder inventors via telepathic communication, I regret to inform you that gun powder was not discovered by accident. So your further analogies from there are invalid. Sorry!


Still mired in superstitions? What next? Tea leaves? Animal entrails? Cracked bones? Gunpowder as we know and called it, came after the original formulation, which was for medicinal purposes -- immortality. The mixture has a property -- combustibility. The rate of combustibility and its exploitation give us 'gunpowder' as we know and call it today. So yes...The original mixture was very much a discovery and a peripheral one from the original intent -- immortality. The mixture's usage, based upon the exploitation of its property -- combustibility -- is the process, which implied foresight, that gave us fireworks and related inventions.


----------



## Speeder 2

gambit said:


> Still mired in superstitions? What next? Tea leaves? Animal entrails? Cracked bones? Gunpowder as we know and called it, came after the original formulation, which was for medicinal purposes -- immortality. The mixture has a property -- combustibility. The rate of combustibility and its exploitation give us 'gunpowder' as we know and call it today. So yes...The original mixture was very much a discovery and a peripheral one from the original intent -- immortality. The mixture's usage, based upon the exploitation of its property -- combustibility -- is the process, which implied foresight, that gave us fireworks and related inventions.



Superstitions? Nein! Gunpowder is the cumulative knowledge/knowhow & expericences for over millenium in materials science...  

Immortality is only a trival by-product. You should try it sometimes btw, it's cool!


----------



## no_name

^^ he was talking about you consulting with the ancestors


----------



## Sanchez

Speeder, one should not argue with idiots or fanatics. Just give it up to professional fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Speeder 2

no_name said:


> ^^ he was talking about you consulting with the ancestors



^^ never heard about parallel universe?


----------



## gambit

> gambit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still mired in superstitions? What next? Tea leaves? Animal entrails? Cracked bones? Gunpowder as we know and called it, came after the original formulation, which was for medicinal purposes -- immortality. The mixture has a property -- combustibility. The rate of combustibility and its exploitation give us 'gunpowder' as we know and call it today. So yes...The original mixture was very much a discovery and a peripheral one from the original intent -- immortality. The mixture's usage, based upon the exploitation of its property -- combustibility -- is the process, which implied foresight, that gave us fireworks and related inventions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speeder 2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Superstitions? Nein! Gunpowder is the cumulative knowledge/knowhow & expericences for over millenium in materials science...
> 
> Immortality is only a trival by-product. You should try it sometimes btw, it's cool!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no_name said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ he was talking about you consulting with the ancestors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speeder 2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ never heard about parallel universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Looky here...You have been proven wrong about gunpowder being an invention. Stop being silly. An invention imply foresight, deliberation, methodical processes and everything associated with a goal. A discovery is generally accidental and often is peripheral to the inventive and methodical processes. A discovery seldom has a specific goal in mind. There is no legitimate intellectual comparison between the discovery of 'gunpowder' and the deliberate and methodical processes of space exploration.


----------



## Speeder 2

gambit said:


> Looky here...You have been proven wrong about gunpowder being an invention. Stop being silly. An invention imply foresight, deliberation, methodical processes and everything associated with a goal. A discovery is generally accidental and often is peripheral to the inventive and methodical processes. A discovery seldom has a specific goal in mind. There is no legitimate intellectual comparison between the discovery of 'gunpowder' and the deliberate and methodical processes of space exploration.




then Speeder 2 must have invented gambit during his coffee break!


----------



## Speeder 2

Sanchez said:


> Speeder, one should not argue with idiots or fanatics. Just give it up to professional fighters.




Consider it done.



@ ptldM3

So we call it off here, shall we?


----------



## ptldM3

Speeder 2 said:


> Correct that ranking matters, which is bang on in theory.
> 
> I see you finally learned something,  in light of my shining examples of course.
> 
> That's what all those rankings for.




Material science could be literally anything and as so a country ranked high on material science doesn't mean it will produce superior products to countries that are ranked lower on material science. An esstablished and well funded defence industry, backed with previous knowlede and supported by experienced persons will beat out countries higher on material science--again lets look at Israel, Israel is ranked 31st on material science, yet their technology is ahead of most other countries ranked in the top ten in material science.




Speeder 2 said:


> "some of the best", huh? why you dare not say the best?? becuase Isreal ranks in top 3 in materials science? LOL




Saying someone is the best is subjective, there are a number of countries that are extreemly competitive in similar feilds, hence it would be difficult to say this country is better than that country (of course there are exceptions such as the F-22 for obvious reasons). Israeli UAV's, jammers, radars, tanks and everything else is considered world class even by Americans standards, i can honestly say that Israel makes some of the best systems in the world, and many military experts whether they are American, Russian or German will agree.




Speeder 2 said:


> That is because of US's massive millitary asistance and large economic aids to Israel mainly; with a tiny part due to Israel's "hit a jackpot" factor (a normal "bingo" in fact) .
> 
> Without the US, Israel? lol, Iswho?




And Israeli ingenuity and engineering had nothing to do with it? 







Speeder 2 said:


> I repeat: #3 is almost always better than #9 statisticaly; that's why it's called 3 , not 9.
> 
> However, sometimes, when hitting a jackpot, even any dog could has its day, let along #9. That's not important; what's important, howevr, is the point that no every dog can hit jackpot every day.
> 
> So in the long run, #3 has still better odds than #9, ok?





The probability of hitting a jackpot repeatedly is astronomically low, almost impossible. Israel and the UK need to go to Las Vagas with the odds they have.






Speeder 2 said:


> Now let me tell you the long version of why:
> 
> Your engine example on Japan is an extreme case: no country can afford to stop top level millitary engine research for more than 10 years. When being completely cut off from the "best practice" of the market, almost no country could sustain its engine development along while maintaining at the top standard.
> 
> The best example for that is Germany of WWI and WWII. Germans in WWI got one of the best world class aero engine techs; but it had been CUT off from millitary reseach after losing WWI; in a short space of 10 years, German aero engines went from the top class to the most lousy one among its peer powers, which has been reflectly fully for the whole course of WWII , despite of its dire catch-up efforts.
> 
> Japan is almost the same story - it has been cut off from top millitary engine research after WWII ( up to now, at least publicly), limited by its constitutions set up by the US, while the Brits have always maintained its own engine research throughout the course, particularly in combination with massive direct US imput due to " THE special relationship " branding of the two.
> 
> 
> China's current bottleneck, namrly slow engine development, is almost the similar story again: despite of being a winner of WWII, China became communist and had soon been boycotted by both the US and int'l community (in both millitary and civilian techs); after split with Soviet in 60s, China was completely isolated until earlier 1980s, which made its millitary engine tech generations behind the world standard. The new US hi-tech embargo placed after 1989 is still ongoing today.
> 
> China and mainland chinese even are not allowed to take a look at high tech a world-class western engine roadshow, let alone being allowed to purchase them and study them, hence there is no communication whatsoever btw PLA researchers and the rest of the world ( except some Russian assistance, but to a limited extent, as Russia itself also lacks behind the West in engine tech; further, Russians will not disclose their best to the Chinese either).
> 
> This is the reason why China's engine tech is behind - don't raise another "example" on this point, because engines are an special case; it doesn't serve you well in your rebuttal case arguing against China's materials science.
> 
> Clear?





I'm aware that Japan was restricted to a defence force but i'm also aware that Japan still had a military industry after WWII, Mitsubishi aviation ring a bell? What about Japanese tanks such as the Type 90?

If you don't like Japan we can always use different examples....say China, China is ranked second in material science but what about technology such as jet engines? Mind you China has had decades of experience with jet engines whether it was a licenced copies or Indigenous, so why arn't Chinese jet engines superior to 9th ranked UK and their Rolls-Royce engines?







Speeder 2 said:


> What "pick and choose "?
> 
> I quoted what I said and I mean what I say!




You dissmised my source because you felt the Netherlands was ranked too high, that is what's called picking and choosing what suits you best.








Speeder 2 said:


> After consulting with those Chinese gunpowder inventors via telepathic communication, I regret to inform you that gun powder was not discovered by accident. So your further analogies from there are invalid. Sorry!




Discovery of Gunpowder




> It is believed that the Chinese alchemists of the 9th Century, discovered gunpowder accidentally when an experiment for the search of elixir of life went haywire









Speeder 2 said:


> One thing:
> 
> I 'll get my PhD degree in Finance this year. Statistically speaking, as an imminent PhDer tup, I can beat any finance undergraduate hands down and with my eyes closed in most finance-related topics.
> 
> But, but, even some piece of sh*t finance understangrad or high schooler, somehow, might hit a jackpot by finding that he is more knowldgeable than I am in some very niche financial topics from some dark corners.
> 
> 
> BUT STILL, in gerneal I'll beat him MOST of other times. This is decided by my "Finance or my _materials science_ ranking" and "statistics". *That's the WHOLE point !*
> 
> Say, isn't that beautiful?




I think i speak for everyone when i say, i dont care about your personal life.









Speeder 2 said:


> so most of above are your repeated claims which I have rebuttaled in my previous post.
> 
> See ya!



How did you "rebutt" a source that i just posted? Also how do you rebutt the Fazotron deputy general director and general designer? He is a liar when he said the ZHUK went into serial production? Was general director Vyacheslav Tishchenko lying when he gave a quote for the range?


----------



## ptldM3

Speeder 2 said:


> Consider it done.
> 
> 
> 
> @ ptldM3
> 
> So we call it off here, shall we?



I didn't see this until my last post, i'm basically done, our arguments are counter productive and i got things to do.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SinoIndusFriendship

Speeder 2 said:


> Consider it done.
> 
> 
> 
> @ ptldM3
> 
> So we call it off here, shall we?



What someone "believes" may or may not be true. The core issue that is bothering many of our fellow PDFers is that:

(1) J-XX exists

(2) J-XX is set to fly 'soon'

(3) J-XX likely to surpass T-50, F-35 and possible F-22 (this is contentious)



Thus, their actions and remarks reflect their uneasiness to accept the 'possibility' any or all of the above may be true.

However, for PLA fans (and their beneficiaries) unless we can directly contribute our skills, our bantering is counter-productive (unless it is used as a stress relief).

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

SinoIndusFriendship said:


> What someone "believes" may or may not be true. The core issue that is bothering many of our fellow PDFers is that:
> 
> (1) J-XX exists
> 
> (2) J-XX is set to fly 'soon'
> 
> (3) J-XX likely to surpass T-50, F-35 and possible F-22 (this is contentious)
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, their actions and remarks reflect their uneasiness to accept the 'possibility' any or all of the above may be true.
> 
> However, for PLA fans (and their beneficiaries) unless we can directly contribute our skills, our bantering is counter-productive (unless it is used as a stress relief).


In other words, Chinese 'fanboys' should be as gullible as possible to whatever come out of China.


----------



## Speeder 2

gambit said:


> In other words, Chinese 'fanboys' should be as gullible as possible to whatever come out of China.




That is so typical of your BS! 

Anticipation, discussion, agree or disagree before news and after news are what any open forum is all about. It's perfectly legitimate and normal.


In fact, as the thread shows, it was mainly Speeder 2 alone, a pure millitary amateur, who has been engaging in this side of the argument, with other Chinese members reacting with a great contraint and a high degree of objectivity and humbleness.

On the contrary, it is you, a so called PRO in this field, has been engaging recklessly in cheap stunts and snides against any Chinese member when every tiny "opportunity" presents itself.

If the fact turns out not as I expected, so what? It'll be the fact against Speeder 2's expectation, not other Chinese members. 

Yet if the fact turns out to be closer to my side of the arguement, I 'll see in which dark corner you gonna hide your humiliated ugly "old" face, a "PRO" one on top?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

Speeder 2 said:


> That is so typical of your BS!
> 
> Anticipation, discussion, agree or disagree before news and after news are what any open forum is all about. It's perfectly legitimate and normal.
> 
> 
> In fact, as the thread shows, it was mainly Speeder 2 alone, a pure millitary amateur, who has been engaging in this side of the argument, with *other Chinese members reacting with a great contraint and a high degree of objectivity and humbleness.*
> 
> On the contrary, it is you, a so called PRO in this field, has been engaging recklessly in cheap stunts and snides against any Chinese member when every tiny "opportunity" presents itself.
> 
> If the fact turns out not as I expected, so what? It'll be the fact against Speeder 2's expectation, not other Chinese members.
> 
> Yet if the fact turns out to be closer to my side of the arguement, I 'll see in which dark corner you gonna hide your humiliated ugly "old" face, a "PRO" one on top?


In other words, they finally met someone who has relevant experience and can bring sources to support his arguments/criticisms so they have no choice but to shut up.


----------



## new wave

gambit said:


> In other words, they finally met someone who has relevant experience and can bring sources to support his arguments/criticisms so they have no choice but to *shut up*.



Hmmm, mr, is it necesary to be so rude, no offence, but by reading 
your post, correct me if i was wrong, you are not American origin,
Its good to be proud as American, but by misusing our country's flag to spread "Imperialism" is a shame.
Btw, "Fanboy"?, whats wrong with that, is that the reason for most of us to join a defence forum ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

new wave said:


> Hmmm, mr, is it necesary to be so rude, no offence, but by reading
> your post, correct me if i was wrong, *you are not American origin*,


True...Am Martian and my name is Marvin.



new wave said:


> Its good to be proud as American, but by misusing our country's flag to spread "Imperialism" is a shame.


No idea of what you are babbling about here.



new wave said:


> Btw, "Fanboy"?, whats wrong with that, is that the reason for most of us to join a defence forum ?


Nothing wrong with being a 'fanboy' at all. Am a 'fanboy' myself. Difference is that I can technically support my arguments/criticisms.


----------



## jagjitnatt

gambit said:


> Nothing wrong with being a 'fanboy' at all. Am a 'fanboy' myself. Difference is that I can technically support my arguments/criticisms.



Exactly, fanboism is ok, But we all better keep it to ourselves cause this is not cartoon network. It is a defense forum and we are not here to present our perspective, but the correct perspective.

Defense is not for kids, so they better leave it to the experienced.


----------



## Speeder 2

new wave said:


> Hmmm, mr, is it necesary to be so rude, no offence, but by reading
> your post, correct me if i was wrong, you are not American origin,
> Its good to be proud as American, but by misusing our country's flag to spread "Imperialism" is a shame.
> Btw, "Fanboy"?, whats wrong with that, is that the reason for most of us to join a defence forum ?



Thank you, new wave!

I got the same feeling the first week I was in this forum. Although this gambit did present some millitary knowledge and had some relevent good posts on millitary matters from time to time (see? I give credit where its due), his English sounds wierdo and forced, particularly the sentiments he has been promoting, which resembles much more a Hindi 7-Eleven store "Proboy" next to highway 93 of Montana, or a VietCom International wannabe.


----------



## Mahavira smiling

Communist said:


> *Sorry I am not allowed to disclose when Mother China will publicly disclose JXX. *
> 
> 
> *&#28207;&#23186;&#31216;&#35299;&#25918;&#20891;&#22235;&#20195;&#26426;&#21363;&#23558;&#23436;&#25104;&#30740;&#21046;*
> 2010&#24180;04&#26376;27&#26085; 13:25:52 &#12288;&#26469;&#28304;&#65306;&#29615;&#29699;&#26102;&#25253;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#32593;&#21451;&#21046;&#20316;&#30340;&#20013;&#22269;&#22235;&#20195;&#26426;&#24819;&#35937;&#22270;&#12290;
> 
> &#36817;&#26399;&#26377;&#28207;&#23186;&#31216;&#65292;&#20013;&#22269;&#31532;&#22235;&#20195;&#25112;&#26426;&#21363;&#23558;&#23436;&#25104;&#30740;&#21046;&#65292;&#20250;&#20808;&#34892;&#36827;&#34892;&#20869;&#37096;&#23567;&#33539;&#22260;&#35797;&#39134;&#65292;&#30446;&#21069;&#65292;&#31354;&#20891;&#27491;&#22312;&#21152;&#32039;&#30456;&#20851;&#39550;&#39542;&#21592;&#30340;&#35757;&#32451;&#12290;
> 
> &#12298;&#39321;&#28207;&#21830;&#25253;&#12299;&#32593;&#31449;4&#26376;14&#26085;&#21002;&#21457;&#39064;&#20026;&#31532;&#22235;&#20195;&#25112;&#26426;&#24555;&#30740;&#25104; &#21487;&#23218;&#32654;F-22 &#20891;&#26041;&#26089;&#24050;&#35757;&#32451;&#26426;&#24072;&#30340;&#25991;&#31456;&#65292;&#25991;&#20013;&#25552;&#21040;&#65292;&#20013;&#22269;&#31532;&#22235;&#20195;&#25112;&#26426;&#24456;&#24555;&#23601;&#35201;&#25581;&#24320;&#31070;&#31192;&#38754;&#32433;&#65292;*&#28040;&#24687;&#20154;&#22763;&#36879;&#38706;&#65292;&#32463;&#36807;&#22810;&#24180;&#30340;&#30740;&#21046;&#65292;&#30446;&#21069;&#24050;&#36827;&#20837;&#25910;&#25104;&#38454;&#27573;&#65292;&#20013;&#22269;&#20250;&#20808;&#34892;&#36827;&#34892;&#20869;&#37096;&#23567;&#33539;&#22260;&#35797;&#39134;&#12290;*
> 
> &#28207;&#23186;&#31216;&#65292;&#20026;&#37197;&#21512;&#26032;&#20195;&#25112;&#26426;&#65292;&#20013;&#22269;&#26089;&#24050;&#23494;&#38179;&#32039;&#40723;&#22320;&#21152;&#32039;&#23545;&#26032;&#25112;&#26426;&#26426;&#24072;&#30340;&#35757;&#32451;&#12290;&#20854;&#20013;&#21253;&#25324;&#25317;&#26377;&#20197;&#27516;-10&#34920;&#28436;&#38431;&#33879;&#21517;&#30340;&#31354;24&#24072;&#65292;&#20027;&#35201;&#26159;&#38024;&#23545;&#19981;&#21516;&#24615;&#33021;&#30340;&#19968;&#20123;&#24120;&#35268;&#24615;&#35757;&#32451;&#20064;&#12290;
> 
> &#28207;&#23186;&#24341;&#29992;&#19968;&#20301;&#20891;&#23448;&#30340;&#35805;&#25253;&#36947;&#35828;&#65292;&#25105;&#32477;&#23545;&#30456;&#20449;&#25105;&#20204;&#22269;&#23478;&#33322;&#31354;&#24037;&#19994;&#30340;&#23454;&#21147;&#65292;&#20250;&#20026;&#25105;&#20204;&#30740;&#21046;&#20986;&#26356;&#20986;&#33394;&#30340;&#25112;&#26426;&#65281;&#33267;&#20110;&#24403;&#21069;&#26159;&#21542;&#20855;&#22791;&#23454;&#21147;&#23545;&#20184;F-22&#65292;&#36825;&#20301;&#20891;&#23448;&#29992;&#20853;&#26469;&#23558;&#25377;&#27700;&#26469;&#22303;&#25513;&#22238;&#31572;&#12290;
> 
> &#25991;&#31456;&#36824;&#25552;&#21040;&#65292;&#26089;&#22312;&#21435;&#24180;&#24213;&#65292;&#20013;&#22269;&#31354;&#20891;&#21103;&#21496;&#20196;&#20309;&#20026;&#33635;&#23601;&#36879;&#38706;&#65292;&#31532;&#22235;&#20195;&#25112;&#26426;&#21363;&#23558;&#36827;&#34892;&#39318;&#39134;&#65292;&#20043;&#21518;&#39532;&#19978;&#36827;&#20837;&#35797;&#39134;&#38454;&#27573;&#65292;&#26681;&#25454;&#29616;&#26377;&#24773;&#20917;&#65292;&#22312;8&#21040;10&#24180;&#21518;&#21363;&#21487;&#35013;&#22791;&#37096;&#38431;&#12290;
> 
> &#12298;&#39321;&#28207;&#21830;&#25253;&#12299;&#36824;&#25552;&#21040;&#65292;&#28040;&#24687;&#20154;&#22763;&#25351;&#20986;&#65292;&#31532;&#22235;&#20195;&#25112;&#26426;&#36739;&#31532;&#19977;&#20195;&#25216;&#26415;&#20248;&#21183;&#21576;&#29616;&#20986;&#21069;&#25152;&#26410;&#26377;&#30340;&#20195;&#24046;&#65292;&#21487;&#23218;&#32654;&#32654;&#21046;F-22&#65292;&#20855;&#22791;&#38544;&#24418;&#12289;&#36229;&#38899;&#36895;&#24033;&#33322;&#12289;&#36229;&#26426;&#21160;&#24615;&#12289;&#30701;&#36317;&#36215;&#39134;&#31561;&#29305;&#24615;&#12290;&#27492;&#26426;&#19968;&#20986;&#65292;&#23558;&#22823;&#22823;&#25552;&#21319;&#20013;&#22269;&#31354;&#20891;&#23454;&#21147;&#65292;&#25289;&#36817;&#21644;&#27431;&#32654;&#22269;&#23478;&#30340;&#36317;&#31163;&#12290;



Copy of the F-22.I would like to congratulate the chinese designers as no one can beat them in copying.


----------



## mjnaushad

Mahavira smiling said:


> Copy of the F-22.I would like to congratulate the chinese designers as no one can beat them in copying.


Dont get me started.........


----------



## desiman

mjnaushad said:


> Dont get me started.........



and dont get me started too lol


----------



## TheWarriorIndian

mjnaushad said:


> Dont get me started.........



Why? No brakes to stop or No kicker to start?? low fuel kya? Ignition mein Kuch problem Hai?? Any problem visit "daruwalas Motor Shop-apko aur Apke Gadi,dono ko thik kare"


----------



## gpit

gambit said:


> ...
> 
> Subspace-based localization and inverse scattering of multiply scattering point targets
> 
> 
> This is what 'knife edge diffraction' look like...
> 
> ...



Funny! What are all these to do with the topic?

Knife edge diffraction for high schooler physics?


----------



## gpit

ptldM3 said:


> ...
> Gun powder was discovered accidentally correct? Was the first rocket that reached outerspace accidental? Was the first satelite accidental? Was the first space station accidental? Was a Mars probe accidental? And don't compare something as simple as gunpower to space exploration.
> 
> ...



Whether gun powder was discovered accidently or not is still in debate. So, please hold on for a while for the conclusion.

While not denying the great achievements by Soviet Union in modern times, let me bring the fact to you that it is the Chinese who first invented rockets and using the rockets to send human being into the space, albeit seemingly failed in the attempt. 

*This is so far believed to be the first human attempt for space travel.*







If I remember correctly, the Japanese, not the Chinese, have a copy of the original account for this piece of history. The picture above is perhaps more descriptive. as there are word descriptions like "Wan Hu invented a *kite-like monoplane *powered by 30 rockets, ..." 

BTW, I believe NASA web page WAN HOO AND HIS SPACE VEHICLE perhaps doesn&#8217;t give an accurate account on how this becomes known to us.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mahavira smiling

TheWarriorIndian said:


> Why? No brakes to stop or No kicker to start?? low fuel kya? Ignition mein Kuch problem Hai?? Any problem visit "daruwalas Motor Shop-apko aur Apke Gadi,dono ko thik kare"


----------



## gpit

gambit said:


> Yes.
> 
> &#8230;





gambit said:


> Looky here...You have been proven wrong about gunpowder being an invention. Stop being silly. An invention imply foresight, deliberation, methodical processes and everything associated with a goal. A discovery is generally accidental and often is peripheral to the inventive and methodical processes. A discovery seldom has a specific goal in mind. There is no legitimate intellectual comparison between the discovery of 'gunpowder' and the deliberate and methodical processes of space exploration.



Really!  The world becomes more and more amazing as we enter 2010. 

Let&#8217;s all hail a joker for his *newest,* and *the most conscious, foresighted, deliberated, methodical *INVENTION of Chinese history.


----------



## gambit

gpit said:


> Funny! What are all these to do with the topic?
> 
> Knife edge diffraction for high schooler physics?


It is about canards and how they are not very conducive in RCS reduction. Without explanations like mine, Chinese 'fanboys' like yourself would very likely get away with numerous violations, moving and non-moving, of the laws of physics. If you have problems following the discussion's progress, best to stay out of it...


----------



## dingyibvs

gambit said:


> I would not place too much value on those 'fan art' depictions. The majority of them focus on aerodynamics over RCS.
> 
> This is what an aircraft look like as far as radar detection goes...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted the above illustration here before.
> 
> Each dot represent a 'scattering point' and the ovals represent the radar reflectivity level of each scattering point. In radar detection, against a background, like the sky for example, those scattering points would stand out and would be in a cluster.
> 
> Subspace-based localization and inverse scattering of multiply scattering point targets
> 
> 
> This is what 'knife edge diffraction' look like...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does not matter if the signal source is a music radio transmission or a seeking radar. A canard's position would be dictated more by aerodynamic needs than for RCS contribution factor. This is evident by the many shapes and angles, or dihedral, of the canards in different designs...
> 
> Dihedral (aircraft) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> The EF-2000's canards has a downward, or anhedral, as seen below...
> 
> File:Eurofighter Typhoon line drawing.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> We cannot have the canards interfere with the air flow over the wings. But on a 'normal' tailed aircraft, it is the rear stabs that changes the aircraft's angle-of-attack so they can be inline with the wings with little or no negative effects. Even so, the F-15 still has its rear stabs on a lower horizontal plane than the wings. For the F-16, the rear stabs are on a relatively same horizontal plane but they have a downward cant, or anhedral. The Rafale's canards are quite horizontal but they are on a higher horizontal plane than the wings. So it is very possible that canards can create distinct radar returns based upon the 'knife edge diffraction' effect.



I can see what you're saying, but I don't see how it relates to stealth. Diffraction is not the same thing as reflection, and the diffracted signal, by definition of diffraction, cannot travel back toward the source. If anything, I'd think that diffraction can only help with regard to stealth for the very same reason.


----------



## gpit

gambit said:


> It is about canards and how they are not very conducive in RCS reduction. Without explanations like mine, Chinese 'fanboys' like yourself would very likely get away with numerous violations, moving and non-moving, of the laws of physics. If you have problems following the discussion's progress, best to stay out of it...



I understand your intention very well, but you citation is just way, way off the track.

Your citation of edge diffraction in the topic of radar detection is questionable in its relevance, as ding has pointed out above, radar signals to detect flying objects are based on reflections/scattering. *Are you going to put your radar detector after the object that you are detecting, or rather after some obstacles?* 

You first citation about randomly positioned active scattering centers in a know background has nothing to do with *diffraction*, and is also too remote to the topic of detecting a particular canard, causing we, the non-credulous, to question your sincerity.


----------



## gambit

dingyibvs said:


> I can see what you're saying, but I don't see how it relates to stealth. Diffraction is not the same thing as reflection, and the diffracted signal, by definition of diffraction, cannot travel back toward the source. If anything, I'd think that diffraction can only help with regard to stealth for the very same reason.


Let me give you another example...







Try to visualize a wave, not a laser like beam. In the example above, not only will there be a reflection from the underside, but there will be surface traveling wave on the top side. When that surface traveling wave run out of 'ground', in a manner of speaking, that wave will diffract, as in 'knife edge diffraction', and with the wave superposition principle, some of this signal will merge with some of the underside reflection and will travel back to source direction.

We know about this under controlled conditions...

RCS Pylons and Assemblies :: ORBIT/FR


> There are two other scattering mechanisms. The first is the result of *"creeping" waves which move around the shaded side, get diffracted by the trailing edge of the pylon, and emerge back towards the illuminated side.* The second scattering mechanism is the "traveling" wave scattering which occurs at the ogival cross section for the electric field component which is perpendicular to the surface.


The 'illuminated side' is that source direction.

Surface traveling and creeping waves have been known to add as much as 1 meter square to a body's total RCS value, depending on target aspect angle. So if under controlled laboratory condition, as shown above, the 'knife edge diffraction' effect is to be avoided, the effect is even more uncertain and hazardous to the RCS reduction efforts under 'real world' conditions. As if it is not bad enough, we are talking about a canard, a *MOVING* body in front of another body -- wing -- so some of the diffracted energy will reflect off the wing as well. More uncertainty.

The behavior of radar waves on a body is known since the early days of radar. But it was Ufimtsev who gave the world the *PREDICTIVE* equations of that behavior and vital to those predictive equations are...

Petr Ufimtsev - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> In the 1960s he began developing a high-frequency asymptotic theory for predicting the scattering of electromagnetic waves from two-dimensional and three-dimensional objects. Among such objects were the finite size bodies of revolution (disk, finite cylinder with flat bases, finite cone, finite paraboloid, spherical segment, finite thin wire). Now this theory is well known as *the Physical Theory of Diffraction (PTD).*


Specifically -- Edge diffraction.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

gpit said:


> I understand your intention very well, but you citation is just way, way off the track.


Please see post 198 and see how *YOU* are way off the knowledge track.



gpit said:


> Your citation of edge diffraction in the topic of radar detection is questionable in its relevance, as ding has pointed out above, radar signals to detect flying objects are based on reflections/scattering. *Are you going to put your radar detector after the object that you are detecting, or rather after some obstacles?*


Absolutely we could. It is called a 'bi-static' configuration and currently the US is only country that can wield a viable airborne bi-static radar system via secured data links.  Looks like the laugh is on you, fanboy.



gpit said:


> You first citation about randomly positioned active scattering centers in a know background has nothing to do with *diffraction*, and is also too remote to the topic of detecting a particular canard, causing we, the non-credulous, to question your sincerity.


See post 198, fanboy.


----------



## desiman

few days are over, where is the J-XX lol maybe the photoshop factory is down

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gpit

gambit said:


> Please see post 198 and see how *YOU* are way off the knowledge track.





There is no question that whenever there is a change, being gradual or abrupt, in permittivity and/or permeability of the medium in which electro-magnetic wave travels, there will be reflection/scattering or diffraction. This is well known fact and your pictures in 198 are all valid. But, what is the magnitude? Compared with direct reflection, those are secondary or higher order approximation.

And your (or whoever&#8217;s) statement of explanation &#8220;that wave will diffract, as in 'knife edge diffraction'&#8221; is completely wrong, as this is more of scattering by abrupt medium changes. 

Note: diffraction is a phenomenon that wave goes around barriers and into the shadow areas that geometric (straight line) theory fails to predict, but wave theory can. Thus, in your case, diffraction energy (only in the wing tipping edge) will mostly go upward, above the wings. Scattering energy from teh wing body will run into half space below the wing. In the wing tipping point, scattering energy will spread in full solid angle of 4 pi (roughly). In the tipping edge, scattering energy will go up and down.

Again, *in small size parameter approximation for scattering, forward scattering is the strongest.* Given the glancing incidence nature of the incoming light in your picture, even with bi-staic radar, a ground station wouldn&#8217;t get much signal due to the inhomogeity of the medium. Bi-static radar is mainly meant to captch the deflected (reflected in a way that contrary to enemy's expectation) waves not going to the direction as the shining wave (or the primary source, as optics will normally so term it.)

If stealth is achieved by coating certain absorption materials, EM waves are gradually let into the medium (to avoid in maximum being reflected) and are generally dissipated into heat in the material. So called &#8220;creeping wave&#8221; (assuming that you or whoever know the words) is the part that goes around and gets into the geometric shadows, which will diminishes exponentially. There are also waves that are in the material (skin effect) which reduces themselves also exponentially. Thus, when it runs out of medium, the effect would be about in third order, or perhaps in even higher order, approximation.




> Absolutely we could. It is called a 'bi-static' configuration and currently the US is only country that can wield a viable airborne bi-static radar system via secured data links.  Looks like the laugh is on you, fanboy.
> 
> 
> See post 198, fanboy.



OK, a) suppose a fundamentalist&#8217;s air plane invades a country of different believings from Ocean, as the fundamentalists can never tolerate the truth that the universe is a diverse entity, and the very existing of that country is a huge pain in their a$$. Does the defender have to place the receiving radar (of bi-static) 500 miles away in the ocean, without much protection, if it supposedly to get the &#8220;diffraction&#8221; signal in order to detect the target 500 miles off shore? 

b) even based on your great edge diffraction, how can a air plane or similar object behaves like an edge? Does your object occupy the half space of the universe? 

c) Suppose your object is so enormous, the diffraction signal from the edge is still fortuitous as depicted by your very own.

d) all right. Let chop off a part of the edge, and make it a double edge diffraction. That doesn&#8217;t make sense, either. As you perhaps know that if you add another branch of Cornus Spiral, it only reduces the diffraction signal in general.

e) perhaps only fundamentalist bi-static radars are the one that with one station behind the target? 

Let&#8217;s not talk about an amusing configuration of an offensive that attempts to sandwich an enemy target between a pair of friendly air born radars. 

BTW, I'm a fanboy of no country by only of facts and truth.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

gpit said:


> There is no question that whenever there is a change, being gradual or abrupt, in permittivity and/or permeability of the medium in which electro-magnetic wave travels, there will be reflection/scattering or diffraction. This is well known fact and your pictures in 198 are all valid. *But, what is the magnitude? Compared with direct reflection, those are secondary or higher order approximation.*


 Are you really that shortsighted? Do you really believe that radar detection is contingent upon only one part of a body? Is it possible that depending on certain factors of a body, such as shape and materical, specular reflections, aka direct reflections, can have the same signal strength as diffracted signal? Yes it is possible...The F-22 is sparing on RAM and most absorbers are on leading edges. That mean if taken as a standalone object, the specular reflection off the leading edge, as affected by absorber, will have the same or very similar signal strength as the diffracted field from the wing's trailing edge. If the entire wing's surface is coated with absorbers, then of course the diffracted field strength will be less than specular signal strength due to wave's energy loss as it traverse the wing.

That said...On a complex body, like an aircraft, all scattering points are *CONTRIBUTORY* elements towards the final total RCS, and we are not talking about just the geometric cross section, which is the surface area that is facing the transmitting radar. A scattering point could be from direct reflection *OR* from a diffraction field. If we confine the discussion to a geometric RCS, then one scattering point that exist in one aspect angle may not exist in another aspect angle. But no matter what, the signal magnitude of a diffraction field is still a *CONTRIBUTOR* to the body's total RCS. Not only that...On the same complex body, a diffraction signal could create a direct reflection signal. How? When the canard is in front of the wing, the canard's trailing edge create a diffraction field, which then impact the wing's leading edge. Is the wing on a different horizontal plane than the canard? Most likely. That mean part of the diffraction signal and the radar's signal may merge. Part of the diffraction signal may impact an area of the wing, leading edge or elsewhere, that is not impacted by the radar's transmission at all. So what we have here is a good possibility that the canard actually *ASSISTED* the seeking radar in revealing target information.

So for you to demand that we focus only the signal strength differences between direct reflection and diffraction field is utterly absurd in your feeble attempt to salvage a failed argument that the JXX's canards cannot be a negative in RCS reduction.



gpit said:


> And your (or whoevers) statement of explanation that wave will diffract, as in 'knife edge diffraction' is completely wrong, as this is more of scattering by abrupt medium changes.


 No...It is *YOU* who are wrong. As a surface wave travel, any disruption *IS* an abrupt medium change and will create a diffraction field. The term 'knife edge diffraction' is appropriate and is well used to describe such an abrupt medium change. Yours is typical of someone who has no relevant experience in the subject under discussion and is willing to impose his own flawed understandings of terminologies related to the subject. In radar detection, a 'scattering point' is a general descriptor for any disturbances in a radar signal's path, be it in open air or when there is a traveling surface wave. A flat plate directly facing the transmitter is a scattering point. A diffraction field *IS* a scattering point. A diffraction field *CREATE* a scattering point. On a wing, there are two edge diffraction fields: leading and trailing. So for a wing, we have direct reflections from the top and bottom surfaces combined with the two diffraction fields to make the wing one large scattering point.



gpit said:


> Note: diffraction is a phenomenon that wave goes around barriers and into the shadow areas that geometric (straight line) theory fails to predict, but wave theory can. Thus, in your case, diffraction energy (only in the wing tipping edge) will mostly go upward, above the wings. Scattering energy from teh wing body will run into half space below the wing. In the wing tipping point, scattering energy will spread in full solid angle of 4 pi (roughly). In the tipping edge, scattering energy will go up and down.
> 
> If stealth is achieved by coating certain absorption materials, EM waves are gradually let into the medium (to avoid in maximum being reflected) and are generally dissipated into heat in the material. *So called creeping wave (assuming that you or whoever know the words) is the part that goes around and gets into the geometric shadows, which will diminishes exponentially.* There are also waves that are in the material (skin effect) which reduces themselves also exponentially. Thus, when it runs out of medium, the effect would be about in third order, or perhaps in even higher order, approximation.


In the case of a wing, the diffraction field strength is affected by the angle of approach of the incident wave. If the incident wave is perpendicular to the surface, meaning directly facing it, then the diffraction field strength is statistically insignificant. But your argument, sections of which I grouped together for clarity, missed two points: that there are two surfaces that an incident wave can traverse, and that an airfoil is not a sphere where a creeping wave can exist. An airfoil is conducive to surface traveling waves, which do not lose energy as it traverse the wing's surface. A surface traveling wave is continuously supported, or kept alive, by the transmission power itself. So for an airfoil, if the incident wave has a low grazing angle, we will have two surface traveling waves and when they meet at the airfoil's trailing edge, they will merge and the diffraction field created will have some backscatter. In the case of an aircraft, a highly complex body, creeping waves can be statistically insignificant, on the other hand, if we take a look at the F-15 from its frontal profile, the cylindrical nose section can create creeping waves if the aircraft is being scanned from the side. Looks like I know what a 'creeping wave' is better than you do...



gpit said:


> Again, *in small size parameter approximation for scattering, forward scattering is the strongest.* Given the glancing incidence nature of the incoming light in your picture, even with bi-staic radar, a ground station wouldnt get much signal due to the inhomogeity of the medium. *Bi-static radar is mainly meant to captch the deflected (reflected in a way that contrary to enemy's expectation)* waves not going to the direction as the shining wave (or the primary source, as optics will normally so term it.)


 If there is a god of radar physics, he must be laughing his guts out when he read the nonsense about bi-static radar operation from you. Anyway...What the hell does this...'_inhomogeity of the medium_'...mean? The 'medium' here is air, or rather relatively 'empty space'. A bi-static configuration exploits the greater forward scatter signals. So by your argument here..._the inhomogeity of the medium_...whatever the hell that mean...make a bi-static configuration inefficient, then that would make the mono-static configuration completely worthless. And yet mono-static radars are prevalent. As I have pointed out before and will repeat, in theory, a bi-static configuration is low observable aircrafts' best detector precisely because of those forward scatter signals. So in trying to prove me wrong about canards, you just ended up calling bi-static radars worthless against 'stealth'. Am beginning to suspect that these are not your words but someone else's that you are trying to pass off as your own. There seems to be no technical consistency.



gpit said:


> Does the defender have to place the receiving radar (of bi-static) 500 miles away in the ocean, without much protection, if it supposedly to get the diffraction signal in order to detect the target 500 miles off shore?


 That is why bi-static radars are no panacea to 'stealth' despite what some chinese fanboys would like believe whenever they tried to downplay the F-22. This is not because bi-static sensor systems, like the Kolchuga or Silent Sentry, do not work but because a bi-static configuration is inherently structurally intensive, requiring physically distinct transmitter and receiver stations.



gpit said:


> OK, a) suppose a fundamentalists air plane invades a country of different believings from Ocean, as the fundamentalists can never tolerate the truth that the universe is a diverse entity, and the very existing of that country is a huge pain in their a$$.
> 
> b) even based on your great edge diffraction, how can a air plane or similar object behaves like an edge? Does your object occupy the half space of the universe?
> 
> c) Suppose your object is so enormous, the diffraction signal from the edge is still fortuitous as depicted by your very own.
> 
> d) all right. Let chop off a part of the edge, and make it a double edge diffraction. That doesnt make sense, either. As you perhaps know that if you add another branch of Cornus Spiral, it only reduces the diffraction signal in general.
> 
> e) perhaps only fundamentalist bi-static radars are the one that with one station behind the target?


Meaningless drivel. The point I am making is that diffraction energy in a contributor to a body's total RCS. So far you have yet to show the readers a source that says otherwise.



gpit said:


> Lets not talk about an amusing configuration of an offensive that attempts to sandwich an enemy target between a pair of friendly air born radars.


Sandwich?  When a fighter launches a semi-active radar guided missile, we have an airborne bi-static configuration.






The parent aircraft illuminated the target, the missile is the receiver and its position is an offset from the parent's position, thereby creating a 'bi-static triangle'...

Bistatic radar noncooperative illumination synchronization techniques


> Synchronization techniques used in the Bistatic Alerting and Cueing (BAC) program are examined. Particular attention is given to illuminator search, target search synchronization, RF synchronization, PRF (pulse repetition frequency) synchronization, range gate synchronization, and solution of the *bistatic triangle*.


When we have data link capability, the transmitter aircraft is one leg of that triangle, the target is another leg, and the receiver aircraft is the final leg. It does not matter if there is one or ten receiver aircrafts, for each receiver there is only one bi-static triangle. That mean we can have ten bi-static triangles from one transmitter. The receivers do not have to be directly opposite of the transmitter. Forward scatter does not mean literally straight forward but can be angular as the signal is deflected off the target. If anything, the ideal bi-static position is when the transmitter-target-receiver triangle is like below...






...But since airborne targets are in motion we know this is not possible. A bi-static configuration can exploit diffraction or deflection or both. So once again your ignorance and pretense is exposed.



gpit said:


> BTW, I'm a fanboy of no country by only of facts and truth.


More like made up 'facts' and 'truths'. But hey...Since when is a communist an honest person?

The JXX is supposedly equipped with canards. Naturally the question would be if canards are detrimental to its RCS reduction. I presented arguments and sources that say leading and trailing edges produces diffraction fields that are detrimental to RCS reduction.

RCS Pylons | Antenna Measurement Solutions

The product guide state...



> The *diffraction from the leading edge* is dominant, if the incident rays are perpendicular to the edge.
> 
> There are two other scattering mechanisms. The first is the result of *"creeping" waves* which move around the shaded side, get diffracted by the trailing edge of the pylon, and emerge back towards the illuminated side. The second scattering mechanism is the *"traveling" wave* scattering which occurs at the ogival cross section for the electric field component which is perpendicular to the surface.


Nowhere have I asserted with absolute certainty that canards are detrimental to RCS reduction, only that conventional technical wisdom from decades of laboratory and field experience showed that edge diffraction fields are detrimental to RCS reduction if the aircraft design does not take them into consideration. There is no shortage of those literature...

Marietta Scientific, Inc. - RCS Reduction Short Course


> RADAR REFLECTIVITY MECHANISMS:
> 
> SCATTERING MECHANISMS (1 hour): Scattering from complex targets; aircraft scattering mechanism overview; general aircraft model example; everything you ever wanted to know about specular scattering: specular point definition, planar surfaces, singly curved surfaces, doubly curved surfaces, *leading and trailing edges*, rims, and multiple bounce; frequency characteristics of various scattering mechanisms; and hierarchy of scattering mechanisms. Suitability: DE, LOT
> 
> SURFACE WAVE MECHANISM (1 hour): Surface wave definition and requirements for existence; *types of surface waves: traveling, creeping, and edge*; where surface waves cause scattering; surface wave reduction approaches. Suitability: DE, LOT


Got that? There are different types of traveling waves and that a leading edge does produce a diffraction field.

But here you are trying in vain to dismiss decades worth of technical experience and literature in trying to support the JXX. You are a fanboy of lies and deceit.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Cityboy

Thread is worth reading when gambit is on interdiction mission against chinese fanboy. .thanx gambit for bursting propanganda and giving dose of reality


----------



## chinapakistan

Maulik said:


> Thread is worth reading when gambit is on interdiction mission against chinese fanboy. .thanx gambit for bursting propanganda and giving dose of reality



So, why not make him indian PM? He would never be mad to say "let the world forget shanghai only remember mombai in 5 years.


----------



## Cityboy

gambit said:


> Are you really that shortsighted? Do you really believe that radar detection is contingent upon only one part of a body? Is it possible that depending on certain factors of a body, such as shape and materical, specular reflections, aka direct reflections, can have the same signal strength as diffracted signal? Yes it is possible...The F-22 is sparing on RAM and most absorbers are on leading edges. That mean if taken as a standalone object, the specular reflection off the leading edge, as affected by absorber, will have the same or very similar signal strength as the diffracted field from the wing's trailing edge. If the entire wing's surface is coated with absorbers, then of course the diffracted field strength will be less than specular signal strength due to wave's energy loss as it traverse the wing.
> 
> That said...On a complex body, like an aircraft, all scattering points are *CONTRIBUTORY* elements towards the final total RCS, and we are not talking about just the geometric cross section, which is the surface area that is facing the transmitting radar. A scattering point could be from direct reflection *OR* from a diffraction field. If we confine the discussion to a geometric RCS, then one scattering point that exist in one aspect angle may not exist in another aspect angle. But no matter what, the signal magnitude of a diffraction field is still a *CONTRIBUTOR* to the body's total RCS. Not only that...On the same complex body, a diffraction signal could create a direct reflection signal. How? When the canard is in front of the wing, the canard's trailing edge create a diffraction field, which then impact the wing's leading edge. Is the wing on a different horizontal plane than the canard? Most likely. That mean part of the diffraction signal and the radar's signal may merge. Part of the diffraction signal may impact an area of the wing, leading edge or elsewhere, that is not impacted by the radar's transmission at all. So what we have here is a good possibility that the canard actually *ASSISTED* the seeking radar in revealing target information.
> 
> So for you to demand that we focus only the signal strength differences between direct reflection and diffraction field is utterly absurd in your feeble attempt to salvage a failed argument that the JXX's canards cannot be a negative in RCS reduction.
> 
> 
> No...It is *YOU* who are wrong. As a surface wave travel, any disruption *IS* an abrupt medium change and will create a diffraction field. The term 'knife edge diffraction' is appropriate and is well used to describe such an abrupt medium change. Yours is typical of someone who has no relevant experience in the subject under discussion and is willing to impose his own flawed understandings of terminologies related to the subject. In radar detection, a 'scattering point' is a general descriptor for any disturbances in a radar signal's path, be it in open air or when there is a traveling surface wave. A flat plate directly facing the transmitter is a scattering point. A diffraction field *IS* a scattering point. A diffraction field *CREATE* a scattering point. On a wing, there are two edge diffraction fields: leading and trailing. So for a wing, we have direct reflections from the top and bottom surfaces combined with the two diffraction fields to make the wing one large scattering point.
> 
> 
> In the case of a wing, the diffraction field strength is affected by the angle of approach of the incident wave. If the incident wave is perpendicular to the surface, meaning directly facing it, then the diffraction field strength is statistically insignificant. But your argument, sections of which I grouped together for clarity, missed two points: that there are two surfaces that an incident wave can traverse, and that an airfoil is not a sphere where a creeping wave can exist. An airfoil is conducive to surface traveling waves, which do not lose energy as it traverse the wing's surface. A surface traveling wave is continuously supported, or kept alive, by the transmission power itself. So for an airfoil, if the incident wave has a low grazing angle, we will have two surface traveling waves and when they meet at the airfoil's trailing edge, they will merge and the diffraction field created will have some backscatter. In the case of an aircraft, a highly complex body, creeping waves can be statistically insignificant, on the other hand, if we take a look at the F-15 from its frontal profile, the cylindrical nose section can create creeping waves if the aircraft is being scanned from the side. Looks like I know what a 'creeping wave' is better than you do...
> 
> 
> If there is a god of radar physics, he must be laughing his guts out when he read the nonsense about bi-static radar operation from you. Anyway...What the hell does this...'_inhomogeity of the medium_'...mean? The 'medium' here is air, or rather relatively 'empty space'. A bi-static configuration exploits the greater forward scatter signals. So by your argument here..._the inhomogeity of the medium_...whatever the hell that mean...make a bi-static configuration inefficient, then that would make the mono-static configuration completely worthless. And yet mono-static radars are prevalent. As I have pointed out before and will repeat, in theory, a bi-static configuration is low observable aircrafts' best detector precisely because of those forward scatter signals. So in trying to prove me wrong about canards, you just ended up calling bi-static radars worthless against 'stealth'. Am beginning to suspect that these are not your words but someone else's that you are trying to pass off as your own. There seems to be no technical consistency.
> 
> 
> That is why bi-static radars are no panacea to 'stealth' despite what some chinese fanboys would like believe whenever they tried to downplay the F-22. This is not because bi-static sensor systems, like the Kolchuga or Silent Sentry, do not work but because a bi-static configuration is inherently structurally intensive, requiring physically distinct transmitter and receiver stations.
> 
> 
> Meaningless drivel. The point I am making is that diffraction energy in a contributor to a body's total RCS. So far you have yet to show the readers a source that says otherwise.
> 
> 
> Sandwich?  When a fighter launches a semi-active radar guided missile, we have an airborne bi-static configuration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The parent aircraft illuminated the target, the missile is the receiver and its position is an offset from the parent's position, thereby creating a 'bi-static triangle'...
> 
> Bistatic radar noncooperative illumination synchronization techniques
> 
> When we have data link capability, the transmitter aircraft is one leg of that triangle, the target is another leg, and the receiver aircraft is the final leg. It does not matter if there is one or ten receiver aircrafts, for each receiver there is only one bi-static triangle. That mean we can have ten bi-static triangles from one transmitter. The receivers do not have to be directly opposite of the transmitter. Forward scatter does not mean literally straight forward but can be angular as the signal is deflected off the target. If anything, the ideal bi-static position is when the transmitter-target-receiver triangle is like below...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...But since airborne targets are in motion we know this is not possible. A bi-static configuration can exploit diffraction or deflection or both. So once again your ignorance and pretense is exposed.
> 
> 
> More like made up 'facts' and 'truths'. But hey...Since when is a communist an honest person?
> 
> The JXX is supposedly equipped with canards. Naturally the question would be if canards are detrimental to its RCS reduction. I presented arguments and sources that say leading and trailing edges produces diffraction fields that are detrimental to RCS reduction.
> 
> RCS Pylons | Antenna Measurement Solutions
> 
> The product guide state...
> 
> 
> Nowhere have I asserted with absolute certainty that canards are detrimental to RCS reduction, only that conventional technical wisdom from decades of laboratory and field experience showed that edge diffraction fields are detrimental to RCS reduction if the aircraft design does not take them into consideration. There is no shortage of those literature...
> 
> Marietta Scientific, Inc. - RCS Reduction Short Course
> 
> Got that? There are different types of traveling waves and that a leading edge does produce a diffraction field.
> 
> But here you are trying in vain to dismiss decades worth of technical experience and literature in trying to support the JXX. You are a fanboy of lies and deceit.


 great post. . Thanx for the technicalities. . Jxx propaganda busted.


----------



## new wave

Maulik said:


> Thread is worth reading when gambit is on interdiction mission against chinese fanboy. .thanx gambit for bursting propanganda and giving dose of reality



Hmmm, to my humble opinion, this thread getting real hot after someone performing "Lip Service" to an so-called American, exciting i must say.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

I would like the readers to take a look at this experiment conducted, not by US, but by India...

http://www.atmsindia.org/tp/2010/se...g wave effect in RADAR images ofTurntable.pdf


> When the angle of incidence is a small grazing angle off the surface, and there is a component of the incident electric field tangential to the surface and in the plane of incidence, surface traveling waves can be induced. The surface wave travels toward the rear of the body and is backscattered by any discontinuity that it encounters along its journey (*Figure 11*). Reflected traveling waves radiate back very strongly in the monostatic backscatter direction when the incident angle is in the neighbourhood of the so-called Peters angle, calculated from end-fire antenna theory, typically about 15 to 20 degrees [2]. *At these angles, traveling wave echoes at low grazing angles are reportedly nearly as significant as specular echoes at normal incidence.*


Please look carefully at figure 11 as it give the readers a visual example of how surface traveling waves behave when confronted with a 'disruption' in the travel path. This is not a new experiment but a confirmation of many previous one, from field to laboratory. As the highlighted summarized -- That if the radar signal's angle of approach is below 90 deg, or closer to parallel, as in grazing angle, then the diffraction field created by the trailing edge would create a scattering point whose signal strength could be equal to that which came from a flat surface. If this diffraction field came from a canard's trailing edge, which situated in front of a wing, then we could have constructive interference where the diffraction field's signal merged with the radar signal that impact the wing's leading edge to create a stronger return of that leading edge. Or depending on the canard's attitude in flight we may have destructive interference where the diffraction field's signal partially canceling out the same radar signal. We do not know. But the argument presented so far in favor of the JXX's canards as an RCS non-factor does not stand up to technical literature.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Speeder 2

gambit said:


> ... But the argument presented so far in favor of the JXX's canards as an RCS non-factor does not stand up to technical literature.



Unless, of course, you take preliminary technical literatures as technical bibles.


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Its been like month where is the flight pictures


----------



## SinoIndusFriendship

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> Its been like month where is the flight pictures



 Buddy! Knowing the PLA, it will be year(s) before the photos are leaked. But rest assured it's coming along nicely.


----------



## desiman

SinoIndusFriendship said:


> Buddy! Knowing the PLA, it will be year(s) before the photos are leaked. But rest assured it's coming along nicely.



ya the photoshop guys are working hard, we shall see the jet soon

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 4MothaChina

desiman said:


> ya the photoshop guys are working hard, we shall see the jet soon



This coming from an elite member? Wow... Guess what? FGFA involves India so I guess that's a fail... Un-oh...


----------



## ao333

4MothaChina said:


> This coming from an elite member? Wow... Guess what? FGFA involves India so I guess that's a fail... Un-oh...



It will fail... expect critical design flaws... The Russians have always been angry about India's inability to keep its end of the bargin. And you guys' "over-ability."

Though, the WS-10A is yet to enter service after 8 years of testing. What will be the fate of Kaveri?


----------



## 4MothaChina

ao333 said:


> It will fail... expect critical design flaws... The Russians have always been angry about India's inability to keep its end of the bargin. And you guys' "over-ability."
> 
> Though, the WS-10A is yet to enter service after 8 years of testing. What will be the fate of Kaveri?



Cheers for your kind words, and I certainly hope the engine went through 8 years, otherwise, your sources will have fooled you again, just like all the other speculative crap you posted before based on the J-XX etc.


----------



## gambit

Speeder 2 said:


> Unless, of course, you take preliminary technical literatures as technical bibles.


Why should I not? Once again, we can only wonder what would motivate people to make claims that are contrary to the laws of physics. Let us take a look at this claim...



dingyibvs said:


> Diffraction is not the same thing as reflection, and the diffracted signal, by definition of *diffraction, cannot travel back toward the source.* If anything, I'd think that diffraction can only help with regard to stealth for the very same reason.


Whose definition are we seeing here that say a diffraction field, unless physically blocked, cannot return to source direction? Where is the *TECHNICAL* source to support this claim? I have presented at least two sources that said otherwise.

The behavior of a diffraction field occurs on all surfaces on an aircraft, but the issue here is the location of a flight control surface that may, or may not, be detrimental to the goal of low RCS. The canards themselves move, but the wings do not, only the trailing edges of the wings move. And by virtue of the canards' being the foremost moving bodies on a larger complex body, the potential for the canards to be the greater, if not greatest, contributor to the overall RCS is very real. Nowhere have I said that the JXX's canards will or will not be detrimental, but what the readers have seen so far are Chinese fanboys' attempts to violate the laws of physics, as shown, to make it 'will not'. At least when I present my criticisms, I am honest to say that we are uncertain at this time.


----------



## BJlaowai

One query. what does the 'xx' in Jxx denote? Is it a simply a space holder/variable for unknown number, like in algebra? Some number will replace the'xx' in future? 
Roman numeral XX = 20 in decimal. So is Jxx = J-20??


----------



## desiman

4MothaChina said:


> This coming from an elite member? Wow... Guess what? FGFA involves India so I guess that's a fail... Un-oh...



lol its was a joke, dont take it so seriously, cheers mate


----------



## SinoIndusFriendship

^^^ A joke would be the LCA Tejas.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gpit

gambit said:


> ...
> 
> If there is a god of radar physics, he must be laughing his guts out when he read the nonsense about bi-static radar operation from you. Anyway...What the hell does this...'_inhomogeity of the medium_'...mean? The 'medium' here is air, or rather relatively 'empty space'. A bi-static configuration exploits the greater forward scatter signals. So by your argument here..._the inhomogeity of the medium_...whatever the hell that mean...make a bi-static configuration inefficient, then that would make the mono-static configuration completely worthless. And yet mono-static radars are prevalent. As I have pointed out before and will repeat, in theory, a bi-static configuration is low observable aircrafts' best detector precisely because of those forward scatter signals. So in trying to prove me wrong about canards, you just ended up calling bi-static radars worthless against 'stealth'. Am beginning to suspect that these are not your words but someone else's that you are trying to pass off as your own. There seems to be no technical consistency.
> 
> 
> That is why bi-static radars are no panacea to 'stealth' despite what some chinese fanboys would like believe whenever they tried to downplay the F-22. This is not because bi-static sensor systems, like the Kolchuga or Silent Sentry, do not work but because a bi-static configuration is inherently structurally intensive, requiring physically distinct transmitter and receiver stations.
> 
> 
> Meaningless drivel. The point I am making is that diffraction energy in a contributor to a body's total RCS. So far you have yet to show the readers a source that says otherwise.
> 
> 
> Sandwich? When a fighter launches a semi-active radar guided missile, we have an airborne bi-static configuration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The parent aircraft illuminated the target, the missile is the receiver and its position is an offset from the parent's position, thereby creating a 'bi-static triangle'...
> 
> Bistatic radar noncooperative illumination synchronization techniques
> 
> When we have data link capability, the transmitter aircraft is one leg of that triangle, the target is another leg, and the receiver aircraft is the final leg. It does not matter if there is one or ten receiver aircrafts, for each receiver there is only one bi-static triangle. That mean we can have ten bi-static triangles from one transmitter. The receivers do not have to be directly opposite of the transmitter. Forward scatter does not mean literally straight forward but can be angular as the signal is deflected off the target. If anything, the ideal bi-static position is when the transmitter-target-receiver triangle is like below...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...But since airborne targets are in motion we know this is not possible. A bi-static configuration can exploit diffraction or deflection or both. So once again your ignorance and pretense is exposed.
> 
> 
> More like made up 'facts' and 'truths'. But hey...Since when is a communist an honest person?
> 
> The JXX is supposedly equipped with canards. Naturally the question would be if canards are detrimental to its RCS reduction. I presented arguments and sources that say leading and trailing edges produces diffraction fields that are detrimental to RCS reduction.
> 
> RCS Pylons | Antenna Measurement Solutions






As I always find: too many people are just too much letting themselves entangled with trivial details but forget the essences of principles. Those people include federal employees, defense expertise, national lab leaders, and even some university professors... Frankly, I&#8217;m fed up with those fools. And I don&#8217;t understand why you make such a simple thing so complex, provided that you want to fool the credulous.

a)	any inhomogeneity of the media will cause EM wave to going in a bent way (roughly speaking). 

Canards do introduce the inhomogeneity in general.

If you have any language problems because of your upbringings, from EM point of view, just let you know that dialectic property can be described with permittivity and permeability of the medium, including vacuum. In general they are the function of space (x,y,z) and EM frequencies. If they are constants in terms of space (x,y,z), they are spatially homogenous. If EM wave travels within such a homogenous medium, no scattering, and thus, loosely speaking, no diffraction/reflection will happen. 

Why I say it loosely speaking? Because any other phenomena (reflection, diffraction, etc.) are part of scattering. Reflection is specular scattering, diffraction is interference among (in general) forward scattering waves. Diffusion is non-specular scattering. Strictly speaking, when waves move to next position in a medium, it is a result of diffraction (or interference) of all waves from their previous position(s). Thus, we can say all earlier waves are &#8220;primary sources&#8221; of next waves, and next waves are &#8220;secondary sources&#8221; to yet the third waves. This is how the &#8220;snapshots&#8221; are when we strictly and correctly visualized the EM propagation.

If you have a sense of quantum mechanics, those perturbations (inhomogeneity ) to the medium function like potential wells that cause waves to scatter (reflection/scattering/diffraction, what ever you name it.)


b)	In general, direct reflection (specular part) contains the majority of the energy, unless the surface/interface where the wave encountered is very rough. Rough or not is compared with the wavelength. If the size of &#8220;humps&#8221; or &#8220;dents&#8221; are comparable with the EM wavelength it is rough. Thus for longer wavelength, a surface usually looks more smooth.

Physically, it is very easy to understand, as specular part of the energy comes as zero-th order approximation from *Born Approximation*. Any diffuse scattering are in higher order. 

This is perhaps why the first order correction for stealth, in general, should be geometrical to deflect the specular part of the energy. Even it will introduce aerodynamic instability, the cost is still comparatively low.

If specular energy is absent due to absorption or deflection or strong diffusion, people may then consider higher order approximations.

Even according you, diffractive energy goes off the front canards and happens(!) to be caught by the wings, yes it serves as a signal, but still 1) in general diffracted energy is weak compared with specular energy, 2) second reflection will make it even weaker. 3) the weak signal may well be intermittent or fortuitous due to the precise match of the paths. Above talk is in absence of specular part.

c) RAM still may/may not substantially diminishes diffraction, depending on the physical nature/structure of the material and the shining wavelength. Moreover, if only leading edges are RAM coated, it helps but perhaps still not enough as multiple scattering may hit somewhere other than the leading edge!


&#8220;An airfoil is conducive to surface traveling waves, which do not lose energy as it traverse the wing's surface.&#8221; 

Man, you are so reckless! Hahahaha, the mere &#8220;conductive&#8221; can sustain a traveling wave to stay forever. Gee, you are the person to get *fa(ke)sics Nobel Prize* soon, as you are in open defiant of energy conservation!

Just for your EM abc, check out formula (8.12) in Chapter 8 of J.D. Jackson&#8217;s <Classical Electrodynamics>, 2nd Edition, published by John Wiley & Sons 1975:
*Energy of surface wave dissipated in a unit area da in a conductor is* dP(loss)/da = [1/(4pi)](nu_e*omega*delta/4)(H_parallel)^2, where delta is inversely proportional to sqrt(conductivity) (formula 8.8 of the same chapter)

Unless your airplane has wings of superconductor,  the delta will never be zero as the conductivity is always finite and the wave energy will ALWAYS diminish in the skin of surface.

For non-conductive composite materials, this phenomenon normally may not even exist.



> The product guide state...
> 
> 
> Nowhere have I asserted with absolute certainty that canards are detrimental to RCS reduction, only that conventional technical wisdom from decades of laboratory and field experience showed that edge diffraction fields are detrimental to RCS reduction if the aircraft design does not take them into consideration. There is no shortage of those literature...
> 
> Marietta Scientific, Inc. - RCS Reduction Short Course
> 
> Got that? There are different types of traveling waves and that a leading edge does produce a diffraction field.
> 
> But here you are trying in vain to dismiss decades worth of technical experience and literature in trying to support the JXX. You are a fanboy of lies and deceit.




No wonder you have so many foolish statement with respect to EM theory, because you are a student of Marietta Scientific, Inc. Hahahaha&#8230;. But if those people want to talk serious academics, I&#8217;ll kick their @ss out of my office door. *Those are the parasites of interest groups that suck our taxpayers&#8217; money into their pocket *and hoax your credulous boys into nowhere. 

I&#8217;m telling you that those physics ignorant Indians thanked you not because you were right in physics, but rather because you are anti-China, as they usually foolishly demonstrate themselves. And *you physics are deadly wrong in lots of places*, including, but not limited to your previous statements about Bernoulli equation. As a typical low-key Chinese descendant, I normally refuse to be dragged into an academic debase with pseudo-professional and false-expert. Does anyone try to discuss physics with a more ideological fundamentalist than a physicist? *Tell us how can one convert Pope into Judaism?* 

If your type of fundamentalists are in lead of this country (USA), second &#8220;Christmas go home&#8221; farce will certainly and unfortunately advent in near future, and more innocent people will suffer...

BTW, when can we marlvel you sandwiching an enemy plane of superconductor with your bi-statis radar planes to form a triangle?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gpit

gambit said:


> I would like the readers to take a look at this experiment conducted, not by US, but by India...
> 
> http://www.atmsindia.org/tp/2010/se...g wave effect in RADAR images ofTurntable.pdf
> 
> Please look carefully at figure 11 as it give the readers a visual example of how surface traveling waves behave when confronted with a 'disruption' in the travel path. This is not a new experiment but a confirmation of many previous one, from field to laboratory. As the highlighted summarized -- That if the radar signal's angle of approach is below 90 deg, or closer to parallel, as in grazing angle, then the diffraction field created by the trailing edge would create a scattering point whose signal strength could be equal to that which came from a flat surface. If this diffraction field came from a canard's trailing edge, which situated in front of a wing, then we could have constructive interference where the diffraction field's signal merged with the radar signal that impact the wing's leading edge to create a stronger return of that leading edge. Or depending on the canard's attitude in flight we may have destructive interference where the diffraction field's signal partially canceling out the same radar signal. We do not know. But the argument presented so far in favor of the JXX's canards as an RCS non-factor does not stand up to technical literature.



Physics wise, I don't see any thing new in the article. It only confirms my earlier statement that EM wave will scatter when inhomogeneity of the medium is encountered.

In glancing incidence situation, as show by the experiment configuration, &#8220;roughness&#8221; of low (spatial) frequency of the surface is more pronounced. 

In X-rays band, most condensed matters will have refractive index <1, a more amazing phenomenon (yoneda wings) will appear.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

desiman said:


> ya the photoshop guys are working hard, we shall see the jet soon





4MothaChina said:


> This coming from an elite member? Wow... Guess what? FGFA involves India so I guess that's a fail... Un-oh...





ao333 said:


> It will fail... expect critical design flaws... The Russians have always been angry about India's inability to keep its end of the bargin. And you guys' "over-ability."
> 
> Though, the WS-10A is yet to enter service after 8 years of testing. What will be the fate of Kaveri?





desiman said:


> lol its was a joke, dont take it so seriously, cheers mate





SinoIndusFriendship said:


> ^^^ A joke would be the LCA Tejas.



This thread is hardcore


----------



## gambit

gpit said:


> An airfoil is conducive to surface traveling waves, which do not lose energy as it traverse the wing's surface.
> 
> Man, you are so reckless! Hahahaha, the mere conductive can sustain a traveling wave to stay forever. Gee, you are the person to get *fa(ke)sics Nobel Prize* soon, as you are in open defiant of energy conservation!
> 
> <snipped>
> 
> Unless your airplane has *wings of superconductor*,  the delta will never be zero as the conductivity is always finite and the wave energy will ALWAYS diminish in the skin of surface.


Superconductor...??? 

Readers...This is too funny...!!!



gambit said:


> An airfoil is conducive to surface traveling waves,...


Here is the definition for 'conducive'...

Conducive - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
: tending to *promote* or assist

A surface traveling wave cannot exist unless there is a...hmmm...errr...surface...??? So when I said that an airfoil is 'conducive' I do not mean that the airfoil is made up of a 'superconductive' construct but that the airfoil, when it is in interference with an EM wave, the airfoil's surfaces, top and bottom, will *PROMOTE* the creation and existence of surface traveling waves.

Take a water hose and spray it into empty space. There are no surface traveling waves. Aim that water hose on your car and behold...you will see surface traveling waves all over. Does that mean your car is made up of 'superconductive' materials...?!?!?

Do the readers see how desperate some of these fanboys become? Not only are they willing to violate the laws of physics but in their flawed understanding of the subject under discussion they ended up mocking themselves.


----------



## gambit

gpit said:


> Physics wise, I don't see any thing new in the article. *It only confirms my earlier statement that EM wave will scatter when inhomogeneity of the medium is encountered.*
> 
> In glancing incidence situation, as show by the experiment configuration, roughness of low (spatial) frequency of the surface is more pronounced.
> 
> In X-rays band, most condensed matters will have refractive index <1, a more amazing phenomenon (yoneda wings) will appear.


Yes...But the point of the experiment, as confirmation of many previous, that a diffraction field is a scattering point, or that it created a scattering point, and that the diffraction field's signal can and usually does return to source direction, contrary to this claim...



dingyibvs said:


> ...the diffracted signal, by definition of diffraction, cannot travel back toward the source.



...Which is a blatant violation of the laws of physics, which seems to be the common theme among the Chinese members of this forum. I read a fantasy novel a long time ago in my youth about an alternate universe involving China with weapons like the 'chi lance'. You might want to look up the title, which escape me for the moment, and check it out for further creative references.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

gpit said:


> As I always find: too many people are just too much letting themselves entangled with trivial details but forget the essences of principles. Those people include federal employees, defense expertise, national lab leaders, and even some university professors... Frankly, Im fed up with those fools. And I dont understand why you make such a simple thing so complex, provided that you want to fool the credulous.
> 
> a)	any inhomogeneity of the media will cause EM wave to going in a bent way (roughly speaking).
> 
> Canards do introduce the inhomogeneity in general.
> 
> If you have any language problems because of your upbringings, from EM point of view, just let you know that dialectic property can be described with permittivity and permeability of the medium, including vacuum. In general they are the function of space (x,y,z) and EM frequencies. If they are constants in terms of space (x,y,z), they are spatially homogenous. If EM wave travels within such a homogenous medium, no scattering, and thus, loosely speaking, no diffraction/reflection will happen.
> 
> Why I say it loosely speaking? Because any other phenomena (reflection, diffraction, etc.) are part of scattering. Reflection is specular scattering, diffraction is interference among (in general) forward scattering waves. Diffusion is non-specular scattering. Strictly speaking, when waves move to next position in a medium, it is a result of diffraction (or interference) of all waves from their previous position(s). Thus, we can say all earlier waves are primary sources of next waves, and next waves are secondary sources to yet the third waves. This is how the snapshots are when we strictly and correctly visualized the EM propagation.
> 
> If you have a sense of quantum mechanics, those perturbations (inhomogeneity ) to the medium function like potential wells that cause waves to scatter (reflection/scattering/diffraction, what ever you name it.)


The one who is trying to fool the credulous here is *YOU*. This is what I asked about...



gpit said:


> ...even with bi-staic radar, a ground station wouldnt get much signal due to the inhomogeity of the medium.


What the hell is this _inhomogeity_ of the medium when the medium itself is empty space, or air, in a bi-static configuration? A deflected signal off a surface, in a bi-static configuration, travels in empty space. You cannot even keep track of your own argument.



gpit said:


> b)	In general, direct reflection (specular part) contains the majority of the energy, unless the surface/interface where the wave encountered is very rough. Rough or not is compared with the wavelength. If the size of humps or dents are comparable with the EM wavelength it is rough. Thus for longer wavelength, a surface usually looks more smooth.
> 
> Physically, it is very easy to understand, as specular part of the energy comes as zero-th order approximation from *Born Approximation*. Any diffuse scattering are in higher order.
> 
> This is perhaps why the first order correction for stealth, in general, should be geometrical to deflect the specular part of the energy. Even it will introduce aerodynamic instability, the cost is still comparatively low.
> 
> If specular energy is absent due to absorption or deflection or strong diffusion, people may then consider higher order approximations.
> 
> Even according you, diffractive energy goes off the front canards and happens(!) to be caught by the wings, yes it serves as a signal, but still 1) *in general diffracted energy is weak compared with specular energy*, 2) second reflection will make it even weaker. 3) the weak signal may well be intermittent or fortuitous due to the precise match of the paths. Above talk is in absence of specular part.


Fine...Now all you have to do is how the readers a credible source that says diffraction field energy are *NOT* relevant in RCS calculations. Everything you posted above sounds like a copy/paste job off a textbook. But all it does is explain the energy differences between types of scattering modes, or points. I want to see a credible source that says in RCS calculations, diffraction fields are irrelevant.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Cityboy

desiman said:


> ya the photoshop guys are working hard, we shall see the jet soon



kya post mari he. Rly enjoyd lol. .


----------



## new wave

Maulik said:


> kya post mari he. Rly enjoyd lol. .



And lay lomo choiheight, hope you will agree to disagree.


----------



## Luftwaffe

*gubbi..Chinese 'indigenous' aircraft are either stolen airframes*

worst assessment and *poor english*..China can take the design or get a plane to make a replica but "stolen airframes" are you suggesting without russians knowledge China got hundreds of fighters out of russian factory or the airframes? how did you reach colonel pea brainer!
genius things are difficult not impossible...J-11B has come into existence, J-10 is in full boom..you will come to know in years of JXX..

*gubbi..it really difficult to create a VLO airframe and make it fly. *

Leave it to Chinese they're working on something..difficult not impossible!

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## dingyibvs

gambit said:


> Why should I not? Once again, we can only wonder what would motivate people to make claims that are contrary to the laws of physics. Let us take a look at this claim...
> 
> 
> Whose definition are we seeing here that say a diffraction field, unless physically blocked, cannot return to source direction? Where is the *TECHNICAL* source to support this claim? I have presented at least two sources that said otherwise.
> 
> The behavior of a diffraction field occurs on all surfaces on an aircraft, but the issue here is the location of a flight control surface that may, or may not, be detrimental to the goal of low RCS. The canards themselves move, but the wings do not, only the trailing edges of the wings move. And by virtue of the canards' being the foremost moving bodies on a larger complex body, the potential for the canards to be the greater, if not greatest, contributor to the overall RCS is very real. Nowhere have I said that the JXX's canards will or will not be detrimental, but what the readers have seen so far are Chinese fanboys' attempts to violate the laws of physics, as shown, to make it 'will not'. At least when I present my criticisms, I am honest to say that we are uncertain at this time.



No need to get all up in arms about things, I'm fully educated in the U.S., so no national bias in education here. It is my understanding that if a wave heads back to the source, it would be reflection. While interference patterns similar to diffraction can still exist in reflected waves, it would be reflection rather than diffraction. I was mainly referring to your example of knife edge diffraction, which obviously does not have components that are directed back toward the source, although if the wave travels along the surface of the "knife", I can see how it does. Feel free to correct me, of course.

I can see from your creeping wave descriptions how the wave changes its direction when it hits the surface and travels along the surface, and thus a diffracted wave can indeed head back to the source because the new "source" is now from a different direction. Still, I don't see how that's a problem specific to canards. Can there not be a slanted surfaced added to the canard to ensure that the diffracted signals will head to other directions? Honest question here, no need to be all agitated


----------



## desiman

SinoIndusFriendship said:


> ^^^ A joke would be the LCA Tejas.



or the fact that you dont know what google is


----------



## gpit

gambit said:


> Superconductor...???
> 
> Readers...This is too funny...!!!



Indeed very funny! 

The funny part is how a clownish pseudo-expert dares to be in defiance of the laws of Physics in public!

Lets just focus on one point at a time: energy of surface traveling waves.



gambit said:


> ...
> 
> An airfoil is conducive to surface traveling waves, which do not lose energy as it traverse the wing's surface. A surface traveling wave is continuously supported, or kept alive, by the transmission power itself.
> 
> ...



Watch arefully, I quote your statement in its entirety, unlike you who can chop off the most important supporting part of my statement and then impose a false accusation, like most fundamentalist or McCarthyists would do. 

There is a ready, quantitative amount of energy loss unit time unit area in a conductor which is well known (but seems not to you): dP(loss)/da = [1/(4pi)](nu_e*omega*delta/4)(H_parallel)^2. I cited Jacksons book in such a precision for you to easily learn it in my previous post. Tell us how could a fundamentalist surface traveling wave be differ from the normal surface traveling wave so that the former doesn't loss energy?

And even funnier, in your quote you removed this piece of important formula! 

Why dont you first answer couple of questions before you attempt to do any more foolish thing:

a)	If the surface traveling energy does not loss energy, why it needs support? 
b)	Suppose the wave losses energy and needs support, will the supporting wave loss energy? 
c)	Is the supporting wave also contributing to form the surface wave other than support?




> Take a water hose and spray it into empty space. There are no surface traveling waves. Aim that water hose on your car and behold...you will see surface traveling waves all over. Does that mean your car is made up of 'superconductive' materials...?!?!?



This is really a clownish demonstration of your lack in knowledge of EM in the fullest! 

*How could you compare water from a hose against car surface with EM wave on an interface of MEDIUM!*

1)	fluids and EM waves follow different laws.
2)	fluids and EM waves abide by different boundary conditions with an interface is met.

Can you tell us what is host waters boundary condition when it meets the car surface and what is the boundary condition when EM waves meets an interface of medium? Hope after doing this homework, your physics IQ will be enhanced a little bit. Or maybe the hope is in vain. 



> Do the readers see how desperate some of these fanboys become? Not only are they willing to violate the laws of physics but in their flawed understanding of the subject under discussion they ended up mocking themselves.



Oh yeah, in a ferocious fundamentalists eyes even J.D. Jackson is a fanboy of China. 

J. D. Jackson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

gpit said:


> Indeed very funny!
> 
> The funny part is how a clownish pseudo-expert dares to be in defiance of the laws of Physics in public!
> 
> Let&#8217;s just focus on one point at a time: energy of surface traveling waves.
> 
> 
> 
> Watch arefully, I quote your statement in its entirety, unlike you who can chop off the most important supporting part of my statement and then impose a false accusation, like most fundamentalist or McCarthyists would do.


Of course it is very funny and the laugh is still on you. Yes, you quoted me entirely, but you took out the intended meaning and context of the word 'conducive', which is to 'promote', and you imposed the electronic or physics related context. A surface wave cannot exist unless there is a surface, therefore a surface is 'conducive' or tends to 'promote' the creation and existence of a surface wave. Get it?

You are a joke.



gpit said:


> a)	If the surface traveling energy does not loss energy, why it needs &#8221;support&#8221;?


If we are talking about surface impedance or the pass through rate of the material, then of course there will be some energy loss. Not all surface material are pass through, like a radome, and all surfaces have some measurable impedance. But in general, a surface wave is continuously supported as long as the transmitter wave exist. It is the creeping wave on the shadow side that will eventually die if the electrical path, or the object's dimension, is long enough. If we go back to the surface wave, if the material's pass through, or absorption rate, and surface impedance, are not greater than the energy level of the original transmission wave, then the surface wave does not die.



gpit said:


> b)	Suppose the wave losses energy and needs support, will the supporting wave loss energy?


What the hell...??? That 'supporting wave' is the incident wave, or the radar transmission itself...!!! So why would it lose energy unless it is turned off...???



gpit said:


> c)	Is the supporting wave also contributing to form the surface wave other than support?


No...It is the surface, or the body, that create, or is 'conducive' to the creation of surface waves. Get it? There is no need to address the rest of your gibberish because it is based upon your flawed understanding of the word 'conducive'.

You are trying to salvage the argument that the JXX's canards are not detrimental to its RCS. I am saying that they can -- not must -- be and the potential is high based upon diffraction fields created by 'knife edge' diffraction behavior. I presented sources that supported my arguments. So where are your sources that says diffraction fields are irrelevant in RCS prediction? You cannot find such sources because *THEY DO NOT EXISTS*...!!! All RCS predictive methods take into consideration diffraction fields locations, potential or otherwise. If 'knife edge' diffractions does not matter, why does Ufimtsev created pretty much the definitive text about them?

So where are your sources that says diffraction fields do not matter in RCS predictive and possibly reduction methods?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## indiarocks

this link should help u to determine the level of stealth of j-xx....canards
www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/canardsS03.pd


----------



## wali87

SinoIndusFriendship said:


> ^^^ A joke would be the LCA Tejas.



HHAHAHAHAHAHAH... thats all i m gonna say.


----------



## wali87

indiarocks said:


> this link should help u to determine the level of stealth of j-xx....canards
> www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/canardsS03.pd





LINK does not exist..


----------



## Cityboy

gambit said:


> Of course it is very funny and the laugh is still on you. Yes, you quoted me entirely, but you took out the intended meaning and context of the word 'conducive', which is to 'promote', and you imposed the electronic or physics related context. A surface wave cannot exist unless there is a surface, therefore a surface is 'conducive' or tends to 'promote' the creation and existence of a surface wave. Get it?
> 
> You are a joke.
> 
> 
> If we are talking about surface impedance or the pass through rate of the material, then of course there will be some energy loss. Not all surface material are pass through, like a radome, and all surfaces have some measurable impedance. But in general, a surface wave is continuously supported as long as the transmitter wave exist. It is the creeping wave on the shadow side that will eventually die if the electrical path, or the object's dimension, is long enough. If we go back to the surface wave, if the material's pass through, or absorption rate, and surface impedance, are not greater than the energy level of the original transmission wave, then the surface wave does not die.
> 
> 
> What the hell...??? That 'supporting wave' is the incident wave, or the radar transmission itself...!!! So why would it lose energy unless it is turned off...???
> 
> 
> No...It is the surface, or the body, that create, or is 'conducive' to the creation of surface waves. Get it? There is no need to address the rest of your gibberish because it is based upon your flawed understanding of the word 'conducive'.
> 
> You are trying to salvage the argument that the JXX's canards are not detrimental to its RCS. I am saying that they can -- not must -- be and the potential is high based upon diffraction fields created by 'knife edge' diffraction behavior. I presented sources that supported my arguments. So where are your sources that says diffraction fields are irrelevant in RCS prediction? You cannot find such sources because *THEY DO NOT EXISTS*...!!! All RCS predictive methods take into consideration diffraction fields locations, potential or otherwise. If 'knife edge' diffractions does not matter, why does Ufimtsev created pretty much the definitive text about them?
> 
> So where are your sources that says diffraction fields do not matter in RCS predictive and possibly reduction methods?



great post gambit..fanboys r geting dose of reality. Propoganda yet anothr time.bursed


----------



## gpit

gambit said:


> Of course it is very funny and the laugh is still on you. Yes, you quoted me entirely, but you took out the intended meaning and context of the word 'conducive', which is to 'promote', and you imposed the electronic or physics related context. A surface wave cannot exist unless there is a surface, therefore a surface is 'conducive' or tends to 'promote' the creation and existence of a surface wave. Get it?
> 
> You are a joke.
> 
> 
> If we are talking about surface impedance or the pass through rate of the material, then of course there will be some energy loss. Not all surface material are pass through, like a radome, and all surfaces have some measurable impedance. But in general, a surface wave is continuously supported as long as the transmitter wave exist. It is the creeping wave on the shadow side that will eventually die if the electrical path, or the object's dimension, is long enough. If we go back to the surface wave, if the material's pass through, or absorption rate, and surface impedance, are not greater than the energy level of the original transmission wave, then the surface wave does not die.
> 
> 
> What the hell...??? That 'supporting wave' is the incident wave, or the radar transmission itself...!!! So why would it lose energy unless it is turned off...???
> 
> 
> No...It is the surface, or the body, that create, or is 'conducive' to the creation of surface waves. Get it? There is no need to address the rest of your gibberish because it is based upon your flawed understanding of the word 'conducive'.
> 
> You are trying to salvage the argument that the JXX's canards are not detrimental to its RCS. I am saying that they can -- not must -- be and the potential is high based upon diffraction fields created by 'knife edge' diffraction behavior. I presented sources that supported my arguments. So where are your sources that says diffraction fields are irrelevant in RCS prediction? You cannot find such sources because *THEY DO NOT EXISTS*...!!! All RCS predictive methods take into consideration diffraction fields locations, potential or otherwise. If 'knife edge' diffractions does not matter, why does Ufimtsev created pretty much the definitive text about them?
> 
> So where are your sources that says diffraction fields do not matter in RCS predictive and possibly reduction methods?



All right, tell me wether a conductive surface is &#8216;conducive&#8217; to surface waves?

Again for your easy reading, at popular science level, refer to the following article:


> Electromagnetic Surface Waves
> 
> J. Zenneck [1], in 1907, was the first to analyze a solution of Maxwell's equations that had a "surface wave" property. This so-called Zenneck wave is simply a vertically polarized plane wave solution to Maxwell's equations in the presence of * a planar boundary that separates free space from a half space with a finite conductivity*.
> 
> &#8230;
> 
> More accurately, for the case of vertical polarization, the presence of the conducting boundary allows the energy of the wave to extend down to the boundary in a significant manner (in contrast to the horizontally polarized case where the boundary condition mostly excludes the wave from the region near the surface). When we allow the boundary to be curved, as in the case of propagation around a sphere, the curvature of the surface leads to diffraction effects, yielding propagation of the wave beyond the geometrical horizon&#8230;
> 
> 
> NOTE ON THE TERM "SURFACE WAVE": There is no agreement on the name for this subject. The term ``ground wave'' is also used, as are other terms. Furthermore, the meanings of these terms vary from one author to another. *We also note that the phenomenon of surface waves is closely related to that of creeping waves and traveling waves in electromagnetic scattering theory.*



In fact, surface EM waves (SEMWs) are still not fully understood. Attempting to change the fact by being a fundamentalist just won&#8217;t work:



> http://iopscience.iop.org/1063-7869/51/1/L06/pdf/PHU_51_1_L06.pdf
> 
> &#8230;
> Many aspects of excitation and propagation of the
> SEMWs still remain uninvestigated. We know bulk (three-
> dimensional) electromagnetic waves, slow surface waves, and
> rapid surface waves, among which the Zenneck surface
> electromagnetic waves occupy a special place [1]. The theory
> of these waves was worked out by Zenneck [1] and
> Sommerfeld [2]. Many physicists both in this country and
> abroad [3 &#177; 6] have published contradictory data concerning
> the Zenneck surface electromagnetic waves and go as far as
> `proving' theoretically that they cannot and do not exist [7].



I feel really sorry that you made another joke when I asked you about the &#8220;supporting wave&#8221; in my leading questions. 

There is no such thing called &#8220;supporting wave&#8221;. Incident EM field and free electron distribution in a conductor (or polarization of the medium if not conductive) are at equilibrium instantly (in general), through the interface. They affect each other in the establishment of the EM wave around the interface and beyond. The field in the vacuum is caused by Hertz radiation of the (radar) source and by excited electrons in the medium (a good approximation is dipole approximation). If the incident wave and excited wave are in phase, the field in the vacuum(or the medium where the source is) but close to the interface will be enhanced; if they are out of phase, they&#8217;ll be cancelled. So-called Brewster&#8217;s angle Brewster's angle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is when incident wave and wave excited by the dipoles in the medium happen to cancel each other completely. In this case, a radar (or whatever) detector will not get any reflection, if the polarization of the source is parallel (or is a &#8216;P&#8217; wave).

Exception about the &#8220;instant&#8221; equilibrium mentioned above dose exist but rarely. A well know is so called &#8220;Cherenkov radiation&#8221; honored after Soviet Physicist Pavel Cherenkov Pavel Cherenkov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia where radiation source (charged particles) move faster than the speed of light in the medium. This is of course out of our scope, but we must bear exceptions in our mind when we talk.

In general, if the EM frequency is <10^17 Hz, many conductors behave like an ideal conductor. In EM sense, this means free electrons only exist on the surface, not in the body of the conductor. In this case, all above statements can be applied to our radar discussion, except (yes, another except) the radar&#8217;s pulse is extremely short that it only lasts one or two wavelength. In centimeter band, it means the pulse lasts only 10^-10 second. Well, I for the moment can&#8217;t see practical use of this equipment, as (the Fourier Transformation will see) there are lots of noises due to the short duration.

Now, let&#8217;s go back to hose water shooting a car vs EM wave shining an interface, since you avoided my questions.

The dynamics of (source-less) fluid motion follows Laplace equation &#916;&#934;= 0. Boundary conditions, among others, are that the speed of the fluid layer that contacts the car surface has to be 0. This is because continuity of speed has to preserve so to make it the same speed as the car surface, which is 0. Thus, it doesn&#8217;t matter how fast your host water is, an infinitesimal thin layer of water attached on the car surface is always with 0 speed.

In classical EM theory, the dynamics is described by Maxwell equations. Please check out this good wiki page, Maxwell's equations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia it gives the boundary conditions as well. See how different they are!

Only for static EM case and with no free charges, can the behaviors of the two (fluid and EM) be described with the same Laplace equation, of course with different interpretations of the function &#934;. They nonetheless still have different boundary conditions to constrain, which may lead to different solutions.

BTW, I&#8217;m glad that you first admitted that a &#8220;sandwich&#8221; configuration is not fit for offensive, now admit that EM surface wave does damp in energy. So, there is no need for a superconductor enemy airplane&#8230;

BTW again, I never asserted, nor did I deny the existence of XX. As a canard adds inhomogeneity of the medium, as I said, it will in general introduce more radar scattering. 

in&#183;ho&#183;mo&#183;ge&#183;ne&#183;i&#183;ty ( n-h m -j -n -t , -n -, h m -) 
n. pl. in&#183;ho&#183;mo&#183;ge&#183;ne&#183;i&#183;ties 
1. Lack of homogeneity.
2. Something that is not homogeneous or uniform.

inhomogeneity - definition of inhomogeneity by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Bottom line: science is a hard reality, so host water!= radar wave; democracy is persuasion, you can fool a majority via fundamentalist approach to build the vote bank by making host water = radar wave.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## indiarocks

wali87 said:


> LINK does not exist..



sorry ifeel the university changed its location......


----------



## topjumper

gpit said:


> The dynamics of (source-less) fluid motion follows Laplace equation &#916;&#934;= 0. Boundary conditions, among others, are that the speed of the fluid layer that contacts the car surface has to be 0. This is because continuity of speed has to preserve so to make it the same speed as the car surface, which is 0. *Thus, it doesn&#8217;t matter how fast your host water is, an infinitesimal thin layer of water attached on the car surface is always with 0 speed*.



Yep, boundary layer theory 101. That's why you cannot get rid of the thin layer of dust on the surface of a car by simply driving fast, the air inside the boundary layer remains static to the car frame.


----------



## gubbi

luftwaffe said:


> *gubbi..Chinese 'indigenous' aircraft are either stolen airframes*
> 
> worst assessment and *poor english*..China can take the design or get a plane to make a replica but "stolen airframes" are you suggesting without russians knowledge China got hundreds of fighters out of russian factory or the airframes? how did you reach colonel pea brainer!
> genius things are difficult not impossible...J-11B has come into existence, J-10 is in full boom..you will come to know in years of JXX..


Yup, poor English. See the context (or you really dont understand English comprehension). J-11B is a new design? By stolen airframes, I meant the design and not a whole airframe. Without paying royalties or acknowledging the original creator, that too patented tech/designs, the Chinese just copied the aircraft and named it J11B. So ingenious!
So, do spare me your apparently 'sarcastic' drivel.


> *gubbi..it really difficult to create a VLO airframe and make it fly. *
> Leave it to Chinese they're working on something..difficult not impossible!


Read Gambit's posts to get a reality check. Apparently they haven't got their hands on any designs or tech yet! And I guess they are working hard at it.

btw, its been days since this thread has been created. For all the lofty claims, where in the world is the J-XXxxxxxx?


----------



## applesauce

gubbi said:


> btw, its been days since this thread has been created. For all the lofty claims, where in the world is the J-XXxxxxxx?



probably in service and flying only to be reviled 8 years after induction


----------



## below_freezing

gubbi said:


> Yup, poor English. See the context (or you really dont understand English comprehension). J-11B is a new design? By stolen airframes, I meant the design and not a whole airframe. Without paying royalties or acknowledging the original creator, that too patented tech/designs, the Chinese just copied the aircraft and named it J11B. So ingenious!
> So, do spare me your apparently 'sarcastic' drivel.
> 
> Read Gambit's posts to get a reality check. Apparently they haven't got their hands on any designs or tech yet! And I guess they are working hard at it.
> 
> btw, its been days since this thread has been created. For all the lofty claims, where in the world is the J-XXxxxxxx?



have you ever taken a physics class in your life?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## jagjitnatt

applesauce said:


> probably in service and flying only to be reviled 8 years after induction



or may be its scrapped. 

Joking. BTW, this is not the first time we've heard a news that J-XX is going to fly and then nothing.


----------



## gambit

below_freezing said:


> have you ever taken a physics class in your life?


Have you? Watch...


----------



## gambit

gpit said:


> I never asserted, nor did I deny the existence of XX.


But...That is not what I asked. I do not care if you believe the JXX's existence or not. I repeatedly asked for sources that said canards are irrelevant to RCS prediction and reduction. Where are they?



gpit said:


> All right, tell me wether a conductive surface is conducive to surface waves?


Of course it does. Your deception so far is to impose the word and meaning of 'superconduction' and associates to what I originally said. Here is the proper definition of the word 'conducive'...

Superconductivity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> When superconductive, a material has an electrical resistance of exactly zero.



Conducive - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
: tending to promote or assist

Nothing of 'conducive' is about 'superconductivity', does it? A surface wave, by definition, cannot exist unless there is a surface. So when I said that a surface is conducive to surface waves, that does not mean I equate superconductivity with any surface. It mean exactly what the dictionary said -- to promote. But regarding the question of whether any surface can be a conductor or be conducive/conductive to surface waves, there are no shortages of popular literature using the word 'conductive' *WITHOUT* associating the word with 'superconductivity'...

RADIO SURFACE WAVE ANTENNA - Patent 3705407


> An antenna for radio *surface waves* may be constructed from a *conductor* such as a tube or a flat plate which is an even multiple of wavelengths long.



Radio propagation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> *Surface modes*
> 
> In this mode the radio wave propagates by interacting with the semi-*conductive* surface of the earth. The wave "clings" to the surface and thus follows the curvature of the earth.



Low-power radar stations enhance maritime-domain awareness | SPIE Newsroom: SPIE


> HFDR exploits ducting (or tunneling) of radio waves along the conductive seawater surface.


Do you see any associations to 'superconductivity' in the examples above? We have water, ground and unnamed materials as being conducive -- promoting -- surface waves. But nothing at all about superconductivity. You need to fire whoever is coaching you in this debate. Neither of you know what you are talking about and so both of you end up grasping at this language straw in trying to prove me wrong.



gpit said:


> Again for your easy reading, at popular science level, refer to the following article:
> 
> Electromagnetic Surface Waves
> 
> In fact, surface EM waves (SEMWs) are still not fully understood. Attempting to change the fact by being a fundamentalist just wont work:
> 
> http://iopscience.iop.org/1063-7869/51/1/L06/pdf/PHU_51_1_L06.pdf


Just because we do not fully understood surface wave properties, that does not mean we cannot exploit it, and you have not proved I changed any facts. If anything, I have exposed more Chinese fanboys' made up 'facts' than you care to admit.



gpit said:


> I feel really sorry that you made another joke when I asked you about the supporting wave in my leading questions.
> 
> There is no such thing called supporting wave.


The 'supporting wave' wording is *YOURS*. Not mine. I said that a surface wave is supported or kept alive or sustained by the power of the transmission itself, whereas the creeping wave eventually die from energy loss *IF* the electrical path is long enough.



gpit said:


> Incident EM field and free electron distribution in a conductor (or polarization of the medium if not conductive) are at equilibrium instantly (in general), through the interface. They affect each other in the establishment of the EM wave around the interface and beyond. The field in the vacuum is caused by Hertz radiation of the (radar) source and by excited electrons in the medium (a good approximation is dipole approximation). If the incident wave and excited wave are in phase, the field in the vacuum(or the medium where the source is) but close to the interface will be enhanced; if they are out of phase, theyll be cancelled. So-called Brewsters angle Brewster's angle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is when incident wave and wave excited by the dipoles in the medium happen to cancel each other completely. In this case, *a radar (or whatever) detector will not get any reflection, if the polarization of the source is parallel (or is a P wave).*


If...???   

Here is what the Brewster's Angle, or polarization, said...

Brewster's angle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Brewster's angle (also known as the polarization angle) is an angle of incidence at which light with *a particular polarization is perfectly transmitted through a surface, with no reflection.*
> 
> The polarization that cannot be reflected at this angle is the polarization for which the electric field of the light waves lies in the same plane as the incident ray and the surface normal (i.e. the plane of incidence).


In effect, you are saying that a canard should be dismissed as a factor in RCS prediction/reduction methods because of the *CHANCE* that a properly polarized radar transmission with respect to the canard itself will not produce any reflection. You are asking radar engineers the world over to disregard, not just the canard, but effectively *ANY* flight control surface as a factor in RCS prediction/reduction just on this *CHANCE*?

*Readers,*

This is what I mean about making up facts and distortions of ideas by many of the Chinese members of this forum and their exposure. The question is whether or not canards on an aircraft -- JXX -- is a contributor to its overall RCS. All the world's technical literature, derived from controlled laboratory experiments to field experience, says -- Yes. *Mr. gpit* so far have been unable to bring to the debate not even a single credible source that says -- No. Although two or more sources are desirable. So in order to equate the JXX to the F-22's stature, thereby also elevating Chinese aviation, he resort to the tactic of 'data mining' in breaking down a scattering point's components, of which polarization is part, and bring to the fore only the component(s) that, no matter how specious, will support his assertion or belief. Am not saying that polarization does not exist, am saying that *Mr. gpit* deliberately discard everything else that are at least of equal, if not more, important factors.

So according to *Mr. gpit* here, the JXX will analyze the seeking radar's polarization, continuously adjust its aspect angle to match, and proceed to the target totally undetected because the aircraft will not produce any reflections. Considering we are dealing with the speed of light for the radar transmission and the constant flight attitude readjustments to match polarizations by the aircraft, these Chinese pilots must be nothing short of Supermen to withstand the physical stresses.

But there is an interesting component regarding polarization that *Mr. gpit* conveniently omit...Anisotropic material...

Isotropy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> *Isotropy is uniformity in all directions*. Precise definitions depend on the subject area. The word is made up from Greek iso (equal) and tropos (direction). Exceptions, or inequalities, are frequently indicated by the prefix an, hence anisotropy. Anisotropy is also used to describe situations where properties vary systematically, dependent on direction.



Anisotropy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> ...is the property of being directionally dependent, as opposed to isotropy, which implies homogeneity in all directions. It can be defined as a difference, when measured along different axis, in a material's physical property (absorbance, refractive index, density, etc.) An example of anisotropy is the light coming through a polarizer.
> 
> *Wood is a naturally anisotropic material.* Its properties vary widely when measured with the growth grain or against it. For example, wood's strength and hardness will be different for the same sample if measured in differing orientation.


Wood is an anisotropic material. Iron is an isotropic material.

Synthetic aperture radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Radar waves have a polarization. Different materials reflect radar waves with different intensities, but *anisotropic materials* such as grass often *reflect different polarizations with different intensities*. Some materials will *also convert one polarization into another.* By emitting a mixture of polarizations and using receiving antennae with a specific polarization, several different images can be collected from the same series of pulses.


Composites such as those used in aviation are usually anisotropic materials. When an EM wave penetrate an anisotropic material to any degree, that portion of the wave become a 'trapped wave'. Composites can -- not must -- be stratified, meaning the different materials that made up said composite resides at different layers. Stratifications in a composite are conducive to trapped waves. I hope *Mr. gpit* does not associate the word 'conducive' here to 'superconductivity'  Anyway...As the readers can also infer, composites are radar absorbers to some degree. Vegetation is considered anisotropic with stratifications and is a natural radar absorber to some degree.

RADAR Overview


> In the context of forest vegetation mapping, the wavelength of the RADAR system will determine whether the SAR backscatter is dominated by surface scattering or volume scattering. When relatively short-wavelength (i.e. 3 cm for X-band) microwave energy interacts with the surface of the forest canopy, the energy is scattered by small-scale components of the canopy, such as the foliage and small branches. Therefore at these wavelengths the RADAR energy reflects mainly from the surface of the canopy (Figure 2). In contrast, RADAR energy with relatively long wavelengths (i.e. 74 cm for P-band) will penetrate into the canopy and reflect from large scale components composing the canopy, including large branches, stems, and the terrain surface.


The above is an excellent example of how different freqs behave in a composite with stratifications of diverse materials.

Composites also have what is called the 'permitivity matrix'...

MRS Website : The permittivity at X-band frequencies of nickel-coated graphite fibers in an epoxy matrix


> In this study, we have investigated the microwave dielectric behavior of a composite formed by embedding nickel-coated graphite fibers in an epoxy *matrix. Permittivities of composites* in the X-band frequency range as a function of fiber concentration, fiber length, and the degree of fiber aggregation were studied. Fiber aggregation was reduced significantly by the addition of silica particles to the composite mixture before epoxy curing. Predictions from the mean field theory fit the experimental data well at dilute fiber concentrations.


At the much smaller scale in this debate, when we have a trapped wave in a composite, the different materials in the composite, with their different levels of permitivity, will alter the wave's polarization, and we have already seen how that is possible on the larger scale with vegetation. When the wave can no longer penetrate the composite, the wave will be re-radiated to free space and will most likely have an elliptical polarization, making this particular diffraction field, or scattering point, a contributor to an aircraft's RCS. But no matter what, the Brewster's Angle effect is best when the material is isotropic and the surface is *STATIONARY*. An aircraft is a complex body with diverse shapes and surfaces and in flight, it cannot be stationary. Of course, to *Mr. gpit* and his fellow Chinese members here, the JXX will be operating in an alternate universe under different laws of physics.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

gpit said:


> In general, if the EM frequency is <10^17 Hz, many conductors behave like an ideal conductor. In EM sense, this means free electrons only exist on the surface, not in the body of the conductor. In this case, all above statements can be applied to our radar discussion, except (yes, another except) the radars pulse is extremely short that it only lasts one or two wavelength. *In centimeter band, it means the pulse lasts only 10^-10 second. Well, I for the moment cant see practical use of this equipment*, as (the Fourier Transformation will see) there are lots of noises due to the short duration.


 Right...That mean the world is wrong in using centrimetric radars...???  The X-band, which is common among fighter aircraft radars, is centimetric...

Radar Bands


> X band radars operate on a wavelength of 2.5-4 *cm* and a frequency of 8-12 GHz.


AN/APG-66 Radar System


> The AN/APG-66 is a pulse doppler X-band multi-mode radar used in the F-16.



As if that is not bad enough, you are seriously confused between wavelength and pulse length. There are X-band continous wave radars on the market. A pulse means a begining and an end. The shortest pulse possible, for any freq, is one wavelength's worth, meaning one cycle. A continuous wave radar, at any freq, mean there are *NO* pulses. The CW radar is on a constant transmit mode. So I cannot see how in the world can you make the above paragraph with a straight face. Further...A series of pulses is called a 'pulse train' and that is how we can use the centimetric bands, despite what you think. Give it up, the hole is getting deeper for you.

*Readers,*

I see no need to address the rest of *Mr. gpit*'s drivel, especially after reading that bit about the uselessness of centimetric freq. I hope he take my advice and fire whoever coaching him in this debate. Neither one of them have any clue about the subject. To recap the discussion...The JXX is supposedly with canards so it begs the question of whether or not canards will have a negative effect on the aircraft's RCS. I say that they can -- not must -- be negative factors due to them being the foremost moveable bodies and because of the diffraction fields all surfaces produce, canards can have detrimental effects.

Diffraction fields create scattering points and this was pointed out in popular media ten years ago...

2 Rival Designers Led the Way To Stealthy Warplanes - NYTimes.com


> By MALCOLM W. BROWNE
> *Published: May 14, 1991*
> 
> Mastery of diffraction control is not the only secret of stealth. Dr. Cashen of Northrop said that in addition to direct reflection and diffraction, radar echoes result from two other scattering mechanisms: traveling waves, in which a part of an airplane acts as an antenna that receives and reradiates a radar signal, and multiple scattering, in which a radar signal is diffused.
> 
> *Presenting an enemy with only jagged edges that deflect radar off to the sides rather than back to the antenna is part of this technique.* Mr. Rich said that everything must be saw-toothed rather than straight, even things like seams where a transparent cockpit canopy attaches to the fuselage. Engines are buried deep inside fuselages to shield the highly reflective turbine rotors from radar, and the lips of air intakes, normally highly visible to radar, must be concealed. Engine exhausts, which are radar targets as well as attractants for infrared-guided missiles, are also concealed.









In the above example, the creeping wave is a form of surface wave. The surface area is called the electrical path. If the electrical path is sufficiently long, the creeping wave eventually die, else the creeping wave will return to source direction. The original surface wave, on the other hand, with the original radar transmission behind it, even though it will continue to lose energy due to radiation or surface impedance or even absorption, as long as those losses are not greater than the radar transmission itself, this original surface wave will not die. These are not made up facts but the truth in plain layman language.











In the above example, we are looking at an airfoil in the motion familiar with flight, either in the horizontal or vertical axis. As the aspect angle changes, deflections are created and at the airfoil's trailing edge, we have the 'knife edge' diffraction effect. Diffraction fields are scattering points. With multiple flight control surfaces creating many diffraction fields, the scattering points can merge as destructive interference or constructive interference. The latter will contribute to the aircraft's total RCS. There will be some reflections on the leading edge that will return to source direction, they are called 'specular reflections'.

Scattering points from diffraction fields are serious enough to warrant a major design factor for the B-2...






The goal is to redirect those trailing edge scattering points away from transmission direction as much as possible, hence the 'saw tooth' pattern for the aircraft itself. Whatever diffraction field signals the seeking radar may receive, the energy level would be so small that the radar would dismiss them as part of the clutter environment. The flying wing's low RCS proved itself in controlled laboratory experiments and eventually as the B-2 itself.

Repeated requests to *Mr. gpit* to provide at least a couple of credible sources that will categorically reject canards, or the diffraction fields they create, as irrelevant factors have gone unanswered. Instead we are given absurd claims that defied the known laws of physics and opinions, like the one about centimetric freqs, that can be easily refuted by current practices.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Luftwaffe

gubbi...understand that my post already explained leave it to China they are working on something days years you will come to know do you understand simple english?

don't justify you wrong assessment afterwards you've blundered already, make things clear in you initial posts so to save yourself from embarrassment on an International defense forum. That was really poor way of explaining "Stolen airframes" how can you make someone get to your context of explaining about "stolen airframes". Copying is not stealing air frames. Read my post no where did I say J-11 is new design..
copypaste grandpa aka gambit is on my ignore list for the past 5 months and will remain ignored. whether Chinese have their hands on something or not only Chinese defense insiders know not even that grandpa gambit is aware of what Chinese have or are acquiring legally or illegally..Now next time be clear in your posts..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

luftwaffe said:


> gubbi...understand that my post already explained leave it to China they are working on something days years you will come to know do you understand simple english?
> 
> don't justify you wrong assessment afterwards you've blundered already, make things clear in you initial posts so to save yourself from embarrassment on an International defense forum. That was really poor way of explaining "Stolen airframes" how can you make someone get to your context of explaining about "stolen airframes". Copying is not stealing air frames. Read my post no where did I say J-11 is new design..
> copypaste grandpa aka *gambit is on my ignore list for the past 5 months and will remain ignored*. whether Chinese have their hands on something or not only Chinese defense insiders know not even that grandpa gambit is aware of what Chinese have or are acquiring legally or illegally..Now next time be clear in your posts..


 You cannot ignore me. You can chose not to respond to me but you cannot ignore the contents of what I post. Still...Anyone who is 'ignored' by you should take it as a mark of pride that their arguments are over your head.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gpit

gambit said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the above example, we are looking at an airfoil in the motion familiar with flight, either in the horizontal or vertical axis. As the aspect angle changes, deflections are created and at the airfoil's trailing edge, we have the 'knife edge' diffraction effect. Diffraction fields are scattering points. With multiple flight control surfaces creating many diffraction fields, the scattering points can merge as destructive interference or constructive interference. The latter will contribute to the aircraft's total RCS. There will be some reflections on the leading edge that will return to source direction, they are called 'specular reflections'.
> 
> Scattering points from diffraction fields are serious enough to warrant a major design factor for the B-2...
> 
> ...





Is the picture about EM wave scattering off an airfoil? 

It doesn't even looks like that. *Are you sure what you are talking about?* 

Stop showing off your stupidity in public! 

I waste too much time with this fool. FK off!  



> *THE VELOCITY FIELD *
> 
> This animation shows again the *flow field*, now described in terms of thr velocity vectors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FLOW AROUND AN AIRFOIL - 2

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

gpit said:


> Is the picture about EM wave scattering off an airfoil?
> 
> It doesn't even looks like that. *Are you sure what you are talking about?*
> 
> Stop showing off your stupidity in public!
> 
> I waste too much time with this fool.  FK!


It is to visually demonstrate for the readers where you failed -- *EPIC* fail -- at that. Am going to ask you again...Where are your sources to say that diffraction fields from canards are irrelevant? Me stupid? Coming from someone who mixes up wavelength with pulse length...??? Give us all a break from your stupidity.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gpit

I have to agree that this guy has blatantly played foolhardiness to an extreme shamelessness.

Evidence 1): He clownishly claimed *host water would cause surface wave the same or similar as EM would on medium interface*. 

Evidence 2): He clownishly claimed *EM surface wave would not dissipate its energy on the interface*. 

Evidence 3): He clownishly claimed *airflow velocity distribution around an airfoil could be used to demonstrate EM scattering field around an airfoil*. 

Evidence 4): He pitifully *has zero knowledge about the relationship between pulse duration, speed and wavelength of EM wave in a medium*. 

This guy also proved himself to be a blatant liar:
 
a)	He failed to point out where I declared that canards do not contribute to EM scattering. 

Conclusion: initially I thought he probably had some high school education but either never attended college or failed in earlier years of college. Now it seems that he&#8217;s not event mastered his high school materials: he doesn&#8217;t know even the law of energy conservation. He doesn&#8217;t even know what it is &#8220;inhomogeneity&#8221;.

I feel bad for the United States Army if this guy is indeed serving in the army. No wonder the Army failed in Korea first, then in Vietnam second, then has been bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan now. One word: Too many fools in the Army who believe just being fundamentalist or otherwise jingoist can resolve problems.


Now final question to this &#8220;expert&#8221; or otherwise &#8220;professional&#8221;: *can we use airflow velocity distribution to demonstrate EM field distribution?* 

*If yes, what if the airfoil is palced in vaccum.*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

gpit said:


> Is the picture about EM wave scattering off an airfoil?
> 
> It doesn't even looks like that. *Are you sure what you are talking about?*
> 
> Stop showing off your stupidity in public!
> 
> I waste too much time with this fool. FK off!


If you can show everyone a better graphics demonstrating what is under discussion, do so. Else FK off...Fool...!!!


----------



## gambit

gpit said:


> a)	He failed to point out where I declared that canards do not contribute to EM scattering.


But that is not what I asked. Am asking you to provide a source that says diffraction fields, as scattering points, do not matter in RCS prediction and reduction techniques. Where...???

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SinoIndusFriendship

gpit said:


> I have to agree that this guy has blatantly played foolhardiness to an extreme shamelessness.
> 
> Evidence 1): He clownishly claimed *host water would cause surface wave the same or similar as EM would on medium interface*.
> 
> Evidence 2): He clownishly claimed *EM surface wave would not dissipate its energy on the interface*.
> 
> Evidence 3): He clownishly claimed *airflow velocity distribution around an airfoil could be used to demonstrate EM scattering field around an airfoil*.
> 
> Evidence 4): He pitifully *has zero knowledge about the relationship between pulse duration, speed and wavelength of EM wave in a medium*.
> 
> This guy also proved himself to be a blatant liar:
> 
> a)	He failed to point out where I declared that canards do not contribute to EM scattering.
> 
> Conclusion: initially I thought he probably had some high school education but either never attended college or failed in earlier years of college. Now it seems that hes not event mastered his high school materials: he doesnt know even the law of energy conservation. He doesnt even know what it is inhomogeneity.
> 
> I feel bad for the United States Army if this guy is indeed serving in the army. No wonder the Army failed in Korea first, then in Vietnam second, then has been bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan now. One word: Too many fools in the Army who believe just being fundamentalist or otherwise jingoist can resolve problems.
> 
> 
> Now final question to this expert or otherwise professional: *can we use airflow velocity distribution to demonstrate EM field distribution?*
> 
> *If yes, what if the airfoil is palced in vaccum.*



Excellent scientific critique.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

SinoIndusFriendship said:


> Excellent scientific critique.


 As if you know enough to answer what your pal consistently avoided.


----------



## Cityboy

Gambit bro.leave it. .propoganda doesnt hv the source . .he cant post the source based on physics but yaa fanboys can post several photoshop images of jxx.. braging out the yet anothr propaganda..


----------



## below_freezing

i only see one quantitative argument here, and its gpits. show me the numbers.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

below_freezing said:


> i only see one quantitative argument here, and its gpits. show me the numbers.


The man said he cannot see any use for centimetric radars. Except that centimetric radars are common...You go right ahead and suck it up.


----------



## Frankenstein

hope it does sooner


----------



## gpit

gambit said:


> If you can show everyone a better graphics demonstrating what is under discussion, do so. Else FK off...Fool...!!!



If you were smarter or otherwise higher in IQ, you would have left the thread and kept quite about EM scattering, and let the thread happily sink&#8230;

The tragedy of your foolhardiness is that *the more often you attempt to bring it up, the more a high school drop-out you prove yourself to be,* to the public! 

Tell us how could you justify yourself by using velocity field to fool people, because there is no proper graph to show EM field around an airfoil? *You still shouldn&#8217;t eat crap if there is no suitable food.* 

Please don&#8217;t leave one more laughing stock, not again!

I told you time and again that fluid and EM follow different dynamics with different boundary conditions. These are the truths proven by hundreds and thousands people smarter than you and I, and work(ed) harder than you and I. 

What&#8217;s wrong to say &#8220;Sorry, my bad.&#8221; to the public when indeed you&#8217;re wrong?

If you still think you are right, the only explanation is that you attempted to fool the mass of the forum.

Fooling people is an easy cake in democracy, with fundamentalistic slogans or jingoistic agitations. *Through presenting fake pictures or misleading graphs, oil or milk trucks can become missile launchers, and airflow velocity can be EM field.* 



> *Gen. BUSTER C. GLOSSON:* _let you look into the night sky of Iraq, as we are attacking mobile Scuds. And now the pilot is maneuvering to drop laser-guided bombs on this target. There are a total of 11 vehicles in this area and all of these are already loaded with Scud missiles, as you can see. These have already been fired.
> 
> *RICK ATKINSON, Author Crusade:* Washington, at Langley in Virginia at the CIA headquarters, this was being watched on CNN, as it was everywhere else. And CIA analysts looked at it and they said, "Oh, my God. Those are *oil trucks*." And elsewhere, there was even a suspicion that they may have been milk trucks. *As far as the American public was concerned, they remained Scud launchers. They were never told otherwise.*
> 
> frontline: the gulf war: transcript: part one



But fundamentalism doesn&#8217;t work with Physics. *EM follows its own principle regardless Saddam uses it or Rumsfeld use it, or whether it travels in Iraq or in US.*

Smart brains don&#8217;t have to resort to graphs to visualize physics. Famous mathematician Joseph-Louis Lagrange Joseph Louis Lagrange - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia wrote his masterpiece &#8220;M&#233;canique analytique&#8221; which summerized all classical mechanics of his time with such an elegancy. Yet, there is not a single diagram in his works. The greatest genius of that time Willian Rowen Hamilton called it a &#8220;scientific peom&#8221;. 

*In sharp contrast, a so-called &#8220;professional&#8221; today tried to show food to the public but held up a crap in his raised hand instead.* 

So listen to your post child Maulik and quit it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

New Chinese fighter jet expected by 2018: U.S. intelligence | Reuters

"*New Chinese fighter jet expected by 2018: U.S. intelligence*

Jim Wolf
WASHINGTON
Thu *May 20, 2010* 10:46pm EDT

(Reuters) - *China is building an advanced combat jet that may rival within eight years Lockheed Martin Corp's F-22 Raptor, the premier U.S. fighter, a U.S. intelligence official said.*

World | China

*The date cited for the expected deployment is years ahead of previous Pentagon public forecasts and may be a sign that China's rapid military buildup is topping many experts' expectations.*

*"We're anticipating China to have a fifth-generation fighter ... operational right around 2018," Wayne Ulman of the National Air and Space Intelligence Center testified on Thursday to a congressionally mandated group* that studies national security implications of U.S.-China economic ties.

*"Fifth-generation" fighters feature cutting-edge capabilities, including shapes, materials and propulsion systems designed to make them look as small as a swallow on enemy radar screens.*

Defense Secretary Robert Gates had said last year that China "is projected to have no fifth-generation aircraft by 2020" and only a "handful" by 2025.

He made the comments on July 16 to the Economic Club of Chicago while pushing Congress to cap F-22 production at 187 planes in an effort to save billions of dollars in the next decade.

*Ulman is China "issues manager" at the center that is the U.S. military's prime intelligence producer on foreign air and space forces, weapons and systems.* He said China's military was eyeing options for possible use of force against Taiwan, which Beijing deems a rogue province.

The People's Liberation Army, as part of its Taiwan planning, also is preparing to counter "expected U.S. intervention in support of Taiwan," he told the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.

*He said the PLA's strategy included weakening U.S. air power by striking air bases, aircraft carrier strike groups and support elements if the U.S. stepped in.*

*Attacks against U.S. "basing infrastructure" in the western Pacific would be carried out by China's air force along with an artillery corps' conventional cruise missile and ballistic missile forces*, he said outlining what he described as a likely scenario.

He described China as a "hard target" for intelligence-gathering and said there were a lot of unknowns about its next fighter, a follow-on to nearly 500 4th generation fighters "that can be considered at a technical parity" with older U.S. fighters.

*"It's yet to be seen exactly how (the next generation) will compare one on one with say an F-22," Ulman told the commission. "But it'll certainly be in that ballpark."*

Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon's No. 1 supplier by sales, is in the early stages of producing another fifth-generation fighter, the F-35. Developed with eight partner countries in three models with an eye to achieving economies of scale and export sales, it will not fly as fast nor as high as the F-22.

Gates has argued that the United States enjoys a lopsided advantage in fighters, warships and other big-ticket military hardware. Some U.S. congressional decisions on arms programs amount to overkill, out of touch with "real-world" threats and today's economic strains, he said in two speeches on the issue this month.

"For example, should we really be up in arms over a temporary projected shortfall of about 100 Navy and Marine strike fighters relative to the number of carrier wings, when America's military possesses more than 3,200 tactical combat aircraft of all kinds?" Gates said on May 8.

"Is it a dire threat that by 2020 the United States will have only 20 times more advanced stealth fighters than China?" he added at the Eisenhower presidential library in Abilene, Kansas.

Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, discounted the gap between the timelines cited by Gates and Ulman. He declined to comment on whether China had made enough progress since last July to change intelligence on the next fighter's debut.

Richard Fisher, an expert on the Chinese military at the private International Assessment and Strategy Center, said Gates' decision to end F-22 production is proving to be "potentially very wrong."

"We will need more F-22s if we are going to adequately defend our interests," he said in an interview on Thursday at the hearing.

Bruce Lemkin, a U.S. Air Force deputy undersecretary for ties to foreign air forces, told the commission he had visited Taiwan twice in his official capacity and that the capabilities of Taiwan's aging F-16s, also built by Lockheed, were not "keeping up."

Whether to meet Taiwan's request for advanced F-16 fighters or upgrade the old ones was still under review by the Obama administration, he said before Ulman spoke."

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## new wave

Bro, should post it as a new thread since its a quite important article regarding our 5 gen fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

Communist said:


> *Sorry I am not allowed to disclose when Mother China will publicly disclose JXX. *



You know what? Stop being such a fuking Communist and just tell me the truth.

I heard from numerous sources that the J-13 will debut in 2010 and that the J-14 will also make its maiden flight in 2010.

Is it true?


----------



## zagahaga

^^ LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLL LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA


----------



## desiman

a few days ended a few months ago, nothing happened lol


----------



## SomeGuy

desiman said:


> a few days ended a few months ago, nothing happened lol



And since when are top secret projects officially publicised just to satisfy your curiosity?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## desiman

SomeGuy said:


> And since when are top secret projects officially publicised just to satisfy your curiosity?



my friend you cant hide such things from the world. There will be many people working on tracking such a product if its out there. 80% of the time such so called "Secret Projects"only exist on the internet and in the hearts and minds of few.


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

I heard the stealth plane flew right over india and landed in pakistan the chinese pilot took a delivery of tandoori chicken and flew back to bejing right over india 

Now that is true stealth

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SomeGuy

desiman said:


> my friend you cant hide such things from the world. There will be many people working on tracking such a product if its out there. 80&#37; of the time such so called "Secret Projects"only exist on the internet and in the hearts and minds of few.



Sure you can.

F-117 was secret until it was used to bomb Iraq - long after it entered service.

There were only rumours of J-10 since late 90's and early 2000's but no pictures until 2007 - Nearly 3 years after entering service!!!!

And this is China we're talking about - If they want something kept secret, it WILL BE SECRET.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## desiman

SomeGuy said:


> Sure you can.
> 
> F-117 was secret until it was used to bomb Iraq - long after it entered service.
> 
> There were only rumours of J-10 since late 90's and early 2000's but no pictures until 2007 - Nearly 3 years after entering service!!!!
> 
> And this is China we're talking about - If they want something kept secret, it WILL BE SECRET.



F-117 happened at the time when Internet and global communications were just starting up. The Cold War was still present and The defense Industry was still fine tuning itself with the media. Interest in the Chinese industry has been low because the media does not expect a huge innovation from them as of yet. But with all the hype around the J-xx and it being a possible rival for the F-22 and PAKFA, all eyes are on China and keeping such a project under raps is almost impossible. The F-117 was not even thought of being a reality until it was seen unlike the J-xx which has had rumors on the internet for almost 5 years now.

---------- Post added at 07:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:07 AM ----------




AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> I heard the stealth plane flew right over india and landed in pakistan the chinese pilot took a delivery of tandoori chicken and flew back to bejing right over india
> 
> Now that is true stealth



i hope thats a joke lol


----------



## Frankenstein

SomeGuy said:


> And since when are top secret projects officially publicised just to satisfy your curiosity?



it does in India


----------



## applesauce

desiman said:


> F-117 happened at the time when Internet and global communications were just starting up. The Cold War was still present and The defense Industry was still fine tuning itself with the media. Interest in the Chinese industry has been low because the media does not expect a huge innovation from them as of yet. But with all the hype around the J-xx and it being a possible rival for the F-22 and PAKFA, all eyes are on China and keeping such a project under raps is almost impossible. The F-117 was not even thought of being a reality until it was seen unlike the J-xx which has had rumors on the internet for almost 5 years now.



i dont think so, jxx is not a rumor it is the code name for the next generation chinese plane which pla confirmed before that it will, at some point, have a next generation plane.
beijing is very good at keeping its secrets so far we have seen that other secrets have been kept(by beijing and others) and your counter argument is the world was not in the internet/global communications age yet but even in this age what important state secrets have been leaks from china in the last 20 years?


----------



## Inst

gambit, if you're still here, I'd like to apologize for the behavior of certain others; I'm peripherally connected to them and I'm quite embarrassed.

Aside from that, thank you for the interesting comments. I was not previously aware that canards could actually be a positive factor, provided that they are designed correctly, in radar stealth. I was also previously not aware of diffraction control on the B-2 Spirit Bomber; the serration on current generation US combat aircraft seems interesting enough for PS-ers to copy, but I had no idea as to what their actual function was.

Incidentally, this is my favorite XXJ photoshop.

omploader.organization/vNHJoeQ/1004132356bc504d8407c6e7f0.jpg

What do you think about the viability of this design? For example, compared to the F-22 the LERXes are more rounded, whereas the F-22 has a clean angular LERX. The back ailerons seem derivative of the B-2, but compared to the B-2 the back engines jut out far more.

Regarding the LERX, if you are correct, then the "rounded" looking LERX will significantly increase RCS due to an excess of facets.

I also have a theory going on right now; the XXJ was seriously being designed as a tail-less delta canard fighter, akin to the X-36 experimental fighter. Unfortunately, without mastery of TVC technology, control would be impossible without a tail-fin so despite the Shenyang triplane design being rejected (canards, pelikan tail, delta wing), tails may be necessary on the device. At a later stage, the tails may be removed as a modification once TVC engines and the coupled FBW systems are brought to maturity.

What do you think about that theory? Would it be impossible to design the XXJ as a tail-less delta canard, meet design failures, then staple on a removable pelikan tail for later removal? I understand the design features of a modern jet fighter emphasizing both aerodynamics and stealth are quite complex, and the basic aerodynamic shape must be selected at inception.

It would also explain some of the rumors going around, for example, the rumors of the tail-less design failure, and the postponement of the pre-May flight.

added: I should also mention the rumors of actually having lower RCS than the F-22. Ditching the tail-fin would easily explain how the J-XX, from a country with minimum stealth experience, could outdo the United States. Of course, unfortunately, this solution has apparently failed.


----------



## Indian-Devil

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> I heard the stealth plane flew right over india and landed in pakistan the chinese pilot took a delivery of tandoori chicken and flew back to bejing right over india
> 
> Now that is true stealth



Yessss , it flew and almost every week it flew but in *your dreams*. Pls donot tell me you only given the Tandoori chicken delivery to chinese pilot.


----------



## booo

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> I heard the stealth plane flew right over india and landed in pakistan the chinese pilot took a delivery of *tandoori chicken* and flew back to bejing right over india
> 
> Now that is true stealth



hope that tanduri chicken was not too spicy for him


----------



## revu

Here some of new JXX CG, i think it based on J-11

First Page

Second Page

Third Page

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## no_name

it's CG. But it's good CG


----------



## Akasa

People, you have to understand.

*The J-XX is not ONE plane. It's mainly comprised of two different fighters, the J-13 and J-14.*

J-13 will be a multirole fighter, taking on bombing missions and defense.

J-14 will be an air superiority fighter for shooting down aircraft

J-13 has a tri-plane design, will enter service 2010-2011
J-14 has a canard-delta design, looks like bigger version of J-10, twin vertical stabilizers, will enter service 2012-2015


----------



## Rajput Warrior

SinoSoldier said:


> People, you have to understand.
> 
> *The J-XX is not ONE plane. It's mainly comprised of two different fighters, the J-13 and J-14.*
> 
> J-13 will be a multirole fighter, taking on bombing missions and defense.
> 
> J-14 will be an air superiority fighter for shooting down aircraft
> 
> J-13 has a tri-plane design, will enter service 2010-2011
> J-14 has a canard-delta design, looks like bigger version of J-10, twin vertical stabilizers, will enter service 2012-2015




How do u know?links sources?


----------



## no_name

Communist do you have source for your info?


----------



## chauism

Rajput Warrior said:


> How do u know?links sources?



Forget it, it is all his wishful thinking.

There is no indication that there will be any test flight of the aircraft he had mentioned in the foreseeable future. It will take years if not decade from the first test flight until it actually enter the service in the air force.

I think the first test flight of any next generation aircraft will be somewhere around 2015, that is more reasonable assumption.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## footmarks

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> I heard the stealth plane flew right over india and landed in pakistan the chinese pilot took a delivery of tandoori chicken and flew back to bejing right over india
> 
> Now that is true stealth



Hahaha, good joke mate. Let me add mine contribution to it. On its flight back to Pakistan the next morning, IAF spotted it and contacted the pilot. He said he's going to pakistan for sh!tt!ng after eating tandoori chicken the previous night (pay back in kind!!).


----------



## Tajdar adil

PAF stealth fighter


----------



## IndianRobo

Tajdar adil said:


> PAF stealth fighter



Its PLAAF, People Liberation Army Air Force , Not PAF


----------



## topjumper

I know one country's defence is more than just a plane, but I'm so eager to see China producing an indigenous jet that only 2 other superpower countries are capable of, that'll rid us of those "copy cat" labels for good.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

topjumper said:


> I know one country's defence is more than just a plane, but I'm so eager to see China producing an indigenous jet that only 2 other superpower countries are capable of, that'll rid us of those "copy cat" labels for good.



Well the "copy cat" label is more of a psychological thing. I think that when the J-XX comes out regardless of how original it is some people will still accuse it of a rip off of anything from the F-22 to the TIE Fighter. Once they are accustomed to the fact that China has indeed built an original plane they'll probably bury their heads deeper into the sand and call it "cheap Chinese trash".


----------



## prototype

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> I heard the stealth plane flew right over india and landed in pakistan the chinese pilot took a delivery of tandoori chicken and flew back to bejing right over india
> 
> Now that is true stealth



yes infact we also agree that,that plane is only good for tandoori transfer job,take my advise u should also purchase some,so that ur pilots can go over India and have some plates of chowmeen


----------



## Jungibaaz

Great News 
Congratz China


----------



## WAQAS119

Hey! When will these *few days* over???????????


----------



## British_Bangladeshi

Is it me or does that look exactly like the F-22 Raptor?


----------



## Jungibaaz

British_Bangladeshi said:


> Is it me or does that look exactly like the F-22 Raptor?



It looks more like a stealthy variant of j-11


----------



## no_name

Looks like cross between raptor, su-27 and rafale.

But we all know that probably cannot be the actual plane that PLAAF is working on.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dragon Emperor

"few days"? More like "few months".


----------



## razgriz19




----------



## a_chinese

YouTube - RC Plane FIRST J XX Chinese Jet ever built, flown, and crashed

OMFG JXX 1st flight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111


----------



## monitor

all the above picture looks awsome but when will the 'few days' over who knows .


----------



## dingyibvs

monitor said:


> all the above picture looks awsome but when will the 'few days' over who knows .



According to the big shrimps on chinese boards, it's undergoing taxi runs right now and should test fly probably late this year or early next year.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

J-13 and J-14 are to be China's full 5th-generation fighters.

J-13 "Peng Lung" supposedly made its maiden flight in 2009. It is mainly for strike role.

J-14 "Peregrine Falcon" supposedly made its maiden flight in May 2010. It is an air-superiority fighter.

Both planes adopt delta-canard configuration.

Service time expected 2015.


----------



## Vimana1

China has learnt alot from the secret stealth technology acquired from the former chinese B-2 bomber engineer and more recent an indian employee was caught selling classified defence secrets to China.


----------



## S.U.R.B.

This airframe looks new to me. (or have i missed something?)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mughal-Prince

S.U.R.B. said:


> This airframe looks new to me. (or have i missed something?)


Yeah you are right at least its in china  and neither do I saw ny thing like this before  looks like we have just seen the hidden one


----------



## kashith

princeiftikharmirza said:


> Yeah you are right at least its in china  and neither do I saw ny thing like this before  looks like we have just seen the hidden one




it is a clear cut photoshop, cant you see that the plane does not has a nose, it has been chopped off during photoshopping.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dragon Emperor

China's JXX will be better than Russia's PAK-FA, which doesn't even matches F-35's stealthy shape.


----------



## Ammyy

Dragon Emperor said:


> China's JXX will be better than Russia's PAK-FA, which doesn't even matches F-35's stealthy shape.



Really buddy you are right 
Even JXX will be batter than American 6th gen F-XX project 

Buddy how can you compare fighter which is on drawing board with existing fighters.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Why are we still talkin about the F-22 P.S.? The photo has been debunked on Chinese military BBS weeks ago. If the CCP doesn't want you to see something you probably won't see it.


----------



## no_name

princeiftikharmirza said:


> Yeah you are right at least its in china  and neither do I saw ny thing like this before  looks like we have just seen the hidden one



This PS looks exactly like F-22 it's not even funny lol.


----------



## Jungibaaz

Dragon Emperor said:


> China's JXX will be better than Russia's PAK-FA, which doesn't even matches F-35's stealthy shape.



I say this to all the people who compare the J-XX to other 5th gen planes, whether they argue it's better or worse;

PAK FA is stealthy, it does not need to have the f-35 like shape simply because that's not the only stealthy airframe.

and saying it will be better or worse than PAK FA is pretty hard unless your Nostredamus.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Jigs

Shouldn't we wait till some solid info comes out first before we start saying what is better then what. Till then all this is empty talk.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gypgypgyp

&#29615;&#29699;&#26102;&#25253; is not a credit source, just some kind of hotel talk

rumour say J-20 take several low speed taxi run this month, if it is ture I think it will have its first flight in next 10 month. because J-10 spend 8 month from taxi run to first flight

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## no_name

What kind of stuff do they test for taxi runs?


----------



## Water Car Engineer

S.U.R.B. said:


> This airframe looks new to me. (or have i missed something?)



wtf


----------



## maxx

no_name said:


> What kind of stuff do they test for taxi runs?


They probably test the landing gear turning & braking, engines responsiveness and control surfaces movements. Not that I'd know but these are the only things possible to test on ground. I think they do do taxi runs to make sure the aircraft is ready to take flight and return, that is everything essential during take-off, in flight and landing is in proper working order.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dragon Emperor

gypgypgyp said:


> &#29615;&#29699;&#26102;&#25253; is not a credit source, just some kind of hotel talk
> 
> rumour say J-20 take several low speed taxi run this month, if it is ture I think it will have its first flight in next 10 month. because J-10 spend 8 month from taxi run to first flight



Very good news. How about the engine? What engine will be used to power the first jet? When will the next-gen engine be ready to power the JXX?


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Dragon Emperor said:


> Very good news. How about the engine? What engine will be used to power the first jet? When will the next-gen engine be ready to power the JXX?



I think they could use the prototype of WS-15(160kN of thrust) for the flight test, but the final version of WS-15 would have 180kN of thrust with afterburner.


----------



## Dragon Emperor

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> I think they could use the prototype of WS-15(160kN of thrust) for the flight test, but the final version of WS-15 would have 180kN of thrust with afterburner.



WOW WS-15 ready so soon!?? I thought it will take at least another 3 years before first prototype of WS-15 is ready to be tested, considering how long it took WS-10A to achieve mass-production. If so, good news Chinese aviation industry is getting more better than 10 years ago.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Dragon Emperor said:


> WOW WS-15 ready so soon!?? I thought it will take at least another 3 years before first prototype of WS-15 is ready to be tested, considering how long it took WS-10A to achieve mass-production. If so, good news Chinese aviation industry is getting more better than 10 years ago.



The prototype of WS-15 was finished in end of 2009, now they are working on the 180kN final version, it seems that it would have been accomplished that pretty soon.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## aimarraul

Dragon Emperor said:


> What engine will be used to power the first jet?


AL31



Dragon Emperor said:


> When will the next-gen engine be ready to power the JXX?


initial version 2015-18


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

I am sure everything would be ready before 2018.


----------



## Nomenclature

Yeah the WS-15 engine project is going much more smoothly than WS10. Apparently that's because there is fewer corrupted bureaucrats and their lackeys standing in the way.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Nomenclature said:


> Yeah the WS-15 engine project is going much more smoothly than WS10. Apparently that's because there is fewer corrupted bureaucrats and their lackeys standing in the way.



SAC is in charge of WS-10. Who is in charge of the WS-15?


----------



## Nomenclature

siegecrossbow said:


> SAC is in charge of WS-10. Who is in charge of the WS-15?



Big shrimps on 9ifly (which has a good reputation) think Institute 624 (CGTE) in Sichuan is doing the bulk of the R&D. 

As for overall project management, according to this poster





The WS15 project is directly managed by AVIC's engine division from Beijing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Merilion

siegecrossbow said:


> SAC is in charge of WS-10. Who is in charge of the WS-15?



no, SAC is not in charge of ws10 but liming is.


----------



## huzihaidao12

&#22909;&#65292;&#26410;&#26469;&#19968;&#20010;&#26376;&#21487;&#33021;&#26159;&#37325;&#35201;&#30340;&#26102;&#38388;&#65292;&#25105;&#20204;&#38656;&#35201;&#24320;&#19968;&#20010;J20&#30340;&#32447;&#31243;&#21435;&#35265;&#35777;&#21382;&#21490;&#65311;


----------



## gypgypgyp

no_name said:


> What kind of stuff do they test for taxi runs?



WS-15 can not catch up with J-20 schedule, there will be a initial type J-20 either use rassian engine(99m2 most likely) or WS-10G(idea engine for J-10B) for test and small amount production. Due the engine difference, J-20 initial type will has some compromise on detail design, formal type will use WS-15

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gypgypgyp

regarding with WS-15

1&#65294; 1984 start T/W ratio 10 turbofan engine technical analyse, April 1988 hold the pre-study meeting, 1990 WS-15 project formally launched 
2&#65294; 1994 finish 6 different concept design. 1993&#65374;1996 start co-coperation will rassian( Due USSR turn parts, China recruit decent amount technician who work for former USSR.) 
3&#65294; 1995 decide the final design.

14th April 2005 core engine test done

In 2006, China start use WS-15 core engine + WS-10 parts test the engine, and graduately replace WS-10 parts by WS-15 parts.

By now ,there is no true WS-15 exist, however WS-15 development is much more smooth than WS-10, because WS-15 is the first engine originally designed in China.(WS-10/WS-10A use CMF-56 core engine from Boeing 737)



Regarding with test engine WS-10G/&#1040;&#1051;-31&#1060;&#1052;2

Due J-10A suffer quiet a lot from low T/W ratio of AL-31FN, and engine failure. PLAAF need a new engine replace AL-31FN for J-10B. IF WS-10G can meet the schedure of J-20 then it will be the initial type engine, otherwise use &#1040;&#1051;-31&#1060;&#1052;2


----------



## gypgypgyp

WS-10G also the essential parts for when can J-10B get into service. PLAAF does not satisfy with &#1040;&#1051;-31&#1060;&#1052;2 performance, and &#1040;&#1051;-31&#1060;&#1052;3 is not ready for use yet. If J-20 use WS-10G in first flight, then J-10B will get into service at the mean time.


----------



## unicorn

Doesn't it looks JXX


----------



## siegecrossbow

unicorn said:


> Doesn't it looks JXX



That's MIG-1.44. From what I heard Russia sold the plan to China during the 90s. I don't know how much it will affect the design of the J-XX.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## farhan_9909

J-XX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
'
'
File:First airframe of Chinese J14.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
'
'
what about this

is this is true?


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

farhan_9909 said:


> J-XX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> '
> '
> File:First airframe of Chinese J14.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> '
> '
> what about this
> 
> is this is true?



I think it is fake, it can't look exactly like a F-22. But don't worry, it is coming soon.


----------



## SBD-3

unicorn said:


> Doesn't it looks JXX



the insignia on the plane is still russian... and the source of picture also indicates that the pic is posted by Russian Website (most likely taken in Russia Also)
YouTube - Mikoyan Gurevich Mig-1.42/1.44 - Aviões de Guerra


----------



## houshanghai

j-xx cockpit

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## houshanghai

j-xx cockpit

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

houshanghai said:


> j-xx cockpit



Those are some huge LCD monitors!


----------



## kingofkings

Ya this monitors are very large .... May be the pilot's gonna watch movie after firing missile .... 


I can see a wire mouse on the right .... Hope that's not the case with the real fighter 


The cockpit is impressive ....


----------



## kingofkings

houshanghai said:


> j-xx cockpit




F-35's cockpit


----------



## Vimana1

Looks like something out of the Star Trek Enterprise ship


----------



## Dragon Emperor

JXX to testflight soon.


----------

