# The clearest J-20 pictures.



## lawxx

?????????20???? ?????????_??_???


----------



## xuxu1457



Reactions: Like Like:
18


----------



## Pakistanisage

I would love to see this baby in action. Is there a two seater version ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rai_kamal

This fighters definetly looks more stealthier than pakfa, but looking at the canards and huge tails I may be wrong with my perception..


----------



## feilong

Anywhere Indian posted, the thread either is sh!t or BS. Don't have to reply to them.


----------



## Ulysses

I'm sure an F-15SE would give this J-20 such a hard time

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ashokdeiva

Its a mean machine, hope that will get head ache to the designers in the US to get back to the drawing boards to design some thing thats invisible to naked eye as well. or they already have a more sophesticated design.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cybertron

beautiful pics


----------



## GR!FF!N

Ulysses said:


> I'm sure an F-15SE would give this J-20 such a hard time



i think J-20's canard will increase its rcs multifold.correct me if i wrong..

@Ulysses

can you tell me is F-15 SE's frontal rcs as low as F-35???and I don't think its all around stealth counts much(though low observable paint was used)..


----------



## Safriz

Ulysses said:


> I'm sure an F-15SE would give this J-20 such a hard time



Tes 15 F-15 will give one J-20 a hard time....By falling all over the place and J-20 trying to avoid the debris

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Esc8781

Safriz said:


> Tes 15 F-15 will give one J-20 a hard time....By falling all over the place and J-20 trying to avoid the debris


 It would have a hard time with the EA-18G Growler, which shot the f-22 down in practice

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## DANGER-ZONE

Ulysses said:


> I'm sure an F-15SE would give this J-20 such a hard time



What I see right now, that F-15SE already giving a HARD TIME to get a confirmed customer.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## terranMarine

Always comments from Indians about the J-20 being a copy of the F-22. Sure it has some similarities to the F-22 if you look at the cockpit and intake, but that 's about it. However the Tejas looks almost identical to the mirage 2000.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ulysses

danger-zone said:


> What I see right now, that F-15SE already giving a HARD TIME to get a confirmed customer.



that's because there's better options out there of course... This J-20 is not battle tested as the F15s


What customers does Pakistan have?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bilal587

Stealth Stealth Stealth 

When this beast fully operational ???
and
Does PAF keens to buy these beasts and does China will allow this to export ???


----------



## ashokdeiva

terranMarine said:


> Always comments from Indians about the J-20 being a copy of the F-22. Sure it has some similarities to the F-22 if you look at the cockpit and intake, but that 's about it. However the Tejas looks almost identical to the mirage 2000.


you assumed and wrote these comments or you read the thread and wrote the post.
I dont see any Indian posting such thing and if and if any INdian posted such thing, Its not there right now. 
As far as your comment on Tejas is concerned, it might look like even Mig-s in your imagination but the world knows that it has a different air frame, a different and unique fly by wire and avionics.



Bilal587 said:


> Stealth Stealth Stealth
> 
> When this beast fully operational ???
> and
> Does PAF keens to buy these beasts and does China will allow this to export ???


PFA will be of course interested in getting its hands on this mean machine, but the question is, will China sell it just like that to expose its R&D that it spent in developing a 5th generation plane to any country that soon

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## terranMarine

The posts were deleted by mods that's why you don't see those troll posts DUH

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GR!FF!N

terranMarine said:


> The posts were deleted by mods that's why you don't see those troll posts DUH



so why are you ranting now???


@topic..

i'm more interested on J-15.is there any confirmed pic of J-15???

and another question..why J-20 uses canards when it'll increase rcs multifold???not a single stealthy aircraft uses canard.


----------



## ashokdeiva

ashokdeiva said:


> you assumed and wrote these comments or you read the thread and wrote the post.
> I dont see any Indian posting such thing and if and if any INdian posted such thing, *Its not there right now*.
> As far as your comment on Tejas is concerned, it might look like even Mig-s in your imagination but the world knows that it has a different air frame, a different and unique fly by wire and avionics.


 


terranMarine said:


> The posts were deleted by mods that's why you don't see those troll posts DUH


did i not tell it in the bolded part of my comment, acting smart is ok, but you are trying to act over smart and its not going to reflect good

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## terranMarine

Over smart?, it's called pointing out that Indian race is arrogant who often looks down on others by calling them copy cats when they can't even make state of the art products. You may think the tejas has a TOTALLY different air frame, but why don't you check out yourself what the mirage 2000 looks like and you see what i'm talking about.

Mirage 2000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mirage_2000C_3-view.gif


So before some of you referring the J-20 as a copy of the F-22. First look at your own Tejas because it has like > 95% similar look.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## GR!FF!N

terranMarine said:


> Over smart?, it's called pointing out that Indian race is arrogant who often looks down on others by calling them copy cats when they can't even make state of the art products. You may think the tejas has a TOTALLY different air frame, but why don't you check out yourself what the mirage 2000 looks like and you see what i'm talking about.
> 
> Mirage 2000
> File:Mirage 2000C 3-view.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> So before some of you referring the J-20 as a copy of the F-22. First look at your own Tejas because it has like > 95% similar look.



the thread is on J-20..i think its humiliation for others Chinese members that you are trying to discuss Tejas in a thread related to mighty 5th gen J-20..  

by the way...why are you started trolling when nobody is trolling right now????

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Imran Khan

its ser#2002 its mean second bird?? as i remember first one was 2001


----------



## isro2222

Pak-fa, F-22, Jf-20, JSF-35.... None can match power of starship ATHENA and its 1 million battleships which are deployed inside Starship ATHENA.... All of them are Light speed with powerful beam weapons that can melt any Jetfighter in nano second....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LTE-TDD

Imran Khan said:


> its ser#2002 its mean second bird?? as i remember first one was 2001


Yes, this is the second J20. Now we have two of them, 2001 & 2002.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Edevelop



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## RazorMC

Maybe I'm wrong, but the J-20's design doesn't seem to be as stealthy as PAK-FA, let alone the Raptor.
Canards and engine-nozzle are the killers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PERSIAN GOD KING

RazorMC said:


> Maybe I'm wrong, but the J-20's design doesn't seem to be as stealthy as PAK-FA, let alone the Raptor.
> Canards and engine-nozzle are the killers.



Don't know about the raptor, but the j-20 is more stealth than PAK-FA and the f-35.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## timetravel

PERSIAN GOD KING said:


> Don't know about the raptor, but the j-20 is more stealth than PAK-FA and the f-35.



nice joke. J-20 wont be able to match mig-29 or MKI of India. forget rest.


----------



## Pak47

timetravel said:


> nice joke. J-20 wont be able to match mig-29 or MKI of India. forget rest.



A list of best fighter planes according to Indians.

1. Pak-Fa
2. Su-30 Mki
3. lca
4. Mig-29
5. Mirage-2000
6. Mig-21 bison

Then.. everything else.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## The SC

Have anyone noticed that the tails are multidirectional?
Does it compensate for the multidirectional engine nozzles of some sophisticated fighter airplanes?
All in all it is an original design with surprising technologies. And when China is done with the tests and produces enough for its air forces, it will make some to the specifications of Pakistan and soon, just like the Qing class submarines already in production.


----------



## sweetgrape

I found, many indians seem to play as a expert, always focus on the stealth character, I don't know the 4th generation plane only have only stealth character? 
For me, J20 is breakthrough for China military development, If you judge it, you should think of that what do the designer of J20 want to? Maybe you are right, The canard will increase the RCS, but it will increase the maneuverability, with the special material, the RCS will decrease some! We also can cut the CANARD, but, why should we must follow USA fully?
Except f22, which plance has less RCS than J20 in asian? yes, we want J20 can rival F22, but we also are realistic, IF RCS can be the only factor to decide the war, why not make WOOD plane?
I am not expert, You indian more, from the appearance of it you can judge it is "copy" of other? as you logic, why your own plany is not? You military industry suck, from most of indian comment, you can find the result and reason. RCS, compare J20 with F22, so what about you? or after you buying F22, then we talk! J20 is only the absorber of eyes, China pull it out, Do you think we just want to increase the so-called "transparency? EXCEPT J10 and J20, other projects are not revealed formally!!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## timetravel

sweetgrape said:


> I found, many indians seem to play as a expert, always focus on the stealth character, I don't know the 4th generation plane only have only stealth character?
> For me, J20 is breakthrough for China military development, If you judge it, you should think of that what do the designer of J20 want to? Maybe you are right, The canard will increase the RCS, but it will increase the maneuverability, with the special material, the RCS will decrease some! We also can cut the CANARD, but, why should we must follow USA fully?
> Except f22, which plance has less RCS than J20 in asian? yes, we want J20 can rival F22, but we also are realistic, IF RCS can be the only factor to decide the war, why not make WOOD plane?
> I am not expert, You indian more, from the appearance of it you can judge it is "copy" of other? as you logic, why your own plany is not? You military industry suck, from most of indian comment, you can find the result and reason. RCS, compare J20 with F22, so what about you? or after you buying F22, then we talk! J20 is only the absorber of eyes, China pull it out, Do you think we just want to increase the so-called "transparency? EXCEPT J10 and J20, other projects are not revealed formally!!



PAKFA is so superior to ur J-20 that it is a non comparison. Russia is China's grand father's grand father's grandfatger in making fighter aircrafts... But i suppose chinese have to create such sensationalism that J-20 is there with f-22 (when in reality it wont be able to face MKI or mig 29 even) to satisfy their public..

so J-20 neither has RCS... (goes the stealth).. neither it will have the weapons nor the ecm of the other advanced fighters like MKI or MIG-29 as no one gave them any of that...
so J-20 is china's attempt to say hey other's got 5th Gen how come we also dont have. so lets say to public we have j-20 which is also 5th gen (when it cant even face MKI/mig 29) to keep them quite.. thats all about j-20.


----------



## UKBengali

timetravel said:


> *PAKFA is so superior to ur J-20 that it is a non comparison*. Russia is China's grand father's grand father's grandfatger in making fighter aircrafts... But i suppose chinese have to create such sensationalism that J-20 is there with f-22 (when in reality it wont be able to face MKI or mig 29 even) to satisfy their public..
> 
> so J-20 neither has RCS... (goes the stealth).. neither it will have the weapons nor the ecm of the other advanced fighters like MKI or MIG-29 as no one gave them any of that...
> so J-20 is china's attempt to say hey other's got 5th Gen how come we also dont have. so lets say to public we have j-20 which is also 5th gen (when it cant even face MKI/mig 29) to keep them quite.. thats all about j-20.




You really have no idea what you are talking about.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## terranMarine

I really don't know why you people love comparing the J-20 to Mig-29. The J-20 is a stealth bomber not a superiority fighter. The Mig-29's role is a Air-superiority fighter, multirole fighter and is similar to the Su-27. These fighters are very agile and have many purposes such as intercept and dogfight. The bulky J-20 isn't designed for a dogfight. Do you also proudly compare the Mig-29 with the F-117 because their mission was bombing targets at night and quickly returning back to base afterwards.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## April.lyrics

GR!FF!N said:


> so why are you ranting now???
> 
> 
> @topic..
> 
> i'm more interested on J-15.is there any confirmed pic of J-15???
> 
> and another question..why J-20 uses canards when it'll increase rcs multifold???not a single stealthy aircraft uses canard.



google KFC200.....sorry,it's KFX200. > <


----------



## GR!FF!N

April.lyrics said:


> google KFC200.....sorry,it's KFX200. > <



lol..i googled kfx 200 and i got kawasaki bike to internet shopping sites..what do you want to talk about??  J-15??


----------



## GR!FF!N

sweetgrape said:


> I found, many indians seem to play as a expert, always focus on the stealth character, I don't know the 4th generation plane only have only stealth character?
> For me, J20 is breakthrough for China military development, If you judge it, you should think of that what do the designer of J20 want to? Maybe you are right, The canard will increase the RCS, but it will increase the maneuverability, with the special material, the RCS will decrease some! We also can cut the CANARD, but, why should we must follow USA fully?
> Except f22, which plance has less RCS than J20 in asian? yes, we want J20 can rival F22, but we also are realistic, IF RCS can be the only factor to decide the war, why not make WOOD plane?
> I am not expert, You indian more, from the appearance of it you can judge it is "copy" of other? as you logic, why your own plany is not? You military industry suck, from most of indian comment, you can find the result and reason. RCS, compare J20 with F22, so what about you? or after you buying F22, then we talk! J20 is only the absorber of eyes, China pull it out, Do you think we just want to increase the so-called "transparency? EXCEPT J10 and J20, other projects are not revealed formally!!



1st.. J-20(as it appears) will not be most stealthy aircraft in the sky of asia..it'll be Japan's(and maybe Korea's) F-35.

2nd..J-20 has a lot of flaws..sawtooth design is missing,canards,engine,tail fins etc etc(i think a senior member can help more than me..i can only post you links where it was studied in details)

3rd.nobody said you to follow americans.but stealth is a major features of a 5th gen aircraft.what is the point to add a canard to a fighter bomber for maneuverability when it'll make this jet as visible as Rafale???

4th..this thread is not about Indian arms industry.ignore the trolls and move on.

5th.if my questions are annoying..you may ignore me too..but i don't have any trolling intension.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## RazorMC

terranMarine said:


> ... The J-20 is a stealth bomber not a superiority fighter ... The bulky J-20 isn't designed for a dogfight.



The J-20 is designed primarily as a stealth air-superiority fighter, not just a bomber.

Not even the F-22 was designed specifically for a dogfight, but it can still stand its ground in that field, owing to its power and manoeuvrebility (even without canards  )

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

GR!FF!N said:


> 1st.. J-20(as it appears) will not be most stealthy aircraft in the sky of asia..it'll be Japan's(and maybe Korea's) F-35.
> 
> 2nd..J-20 has a lot of flaws..sawtooth design is missing,canards,engine,tail fins etc etc(i think a senior member can help more than me..i can only post you links where it was studied in details)
> 
> 3rd.nobody said you to follow americans.but stealth is a major features of a 5th gen aircraft.what is the point to add a canard to a fighter bomber for maneuverability when it'll make this jet as visible as Rafale???
> 
> 4th..this thread is not about Indian arms industry.ignore the trolls and move on.
> 
> 5th.if my questions are annoying..you may ignore me too..but i don't have any trolling intension.


 
Thatss bullshit. j20 lack in term of stealth is only cannardd existance, but thats minor. Expert say j20 shape suggest it is more stealthy than PAKFA (Carlo Copp). I have explain that in some threats.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Alphacharlie

No proofs to substantiate comments on 3 pages so FAR.

SPEAK facts RCS IN M3 Specs. Else, I consider every thing as imaginary HOLLOWs


----------



## Martian2

I thought I put an end to the silly idea that the Pak-Fa was comparable to the J-20 Mighty Dragon stealth fighter? Does anybody bother to read my posts and look carefully at my labeled diagrams?

*Su-30 is not stealthy. Therefore T-50/Pak-Fa is not stealthy.*

Everyone agrees the Su-30 is not stealthy. In the following picture, I have identified 10 important non-stealth features of the Su-30. Interestingly, the T-50/Pak-Fa has the exact same 10 non-stealth features.

It seems to me there are only two logical choices. Either you agree with me that the T-50/Pak-Fa is not stealthy. Or you can make the incredible claim that both the T-50 and Su-30 are stealthy. I leave the choice to you.






Su-30 is not stealthy. Here are 10 non-stealth features.





In an interesting coincidence, the T-50/Pak-Fa shares all ten Su-30 non-stealth features.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> *Su-30 is not stealthy. Therefore T-50/Pak-Fa is not stealthy.*
> 
> Everyone agrees the Su-30 is not stealthy. In the following picture, I have identified 10 important non-stealth features of the Su-30. Interestingly, the T-50/Pak-Fa has the exact same 10 non-stealth features.
> 
> It seems to me there are only two logical choices. Either you agree with me that the T-50/Pak-Fa is not stealthy. Or you can make the incredible claim that both the T-50 and Su-30 are stealthy. I leave the choice to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Su-30 is not stealthy. Here are 10 non-stealth features.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In an interesting coincidence, the T-50/Pak-Fa shares all ten Su-30 non-stealth features.






Anyone that that proclaims things such as the pak-fa has &#8216; same round and tall fuselage as the SU-30&#8217; is an imbecile and should be treated as such.

For one, the two fuselages share little to no similarities, and two, what &#8216;stealth&#8217; principle does the fuselage violate? What you think is irrelevant and if I&#8217;m quite frank, retarded.

Did you still not realize your fault and backwards logic? If the pak-fa&#8217;s (single) IRST is &#8216;not stealthy&#8217; than the J-20&#8217;s (4 large) under-wing pods should be disatererous, after all there are four of them, they are many times larger than an IRST, they a spherical/cylindrical and they go against your &#8216;continuous curvature&#8217; principle, but of course the J-20 is excused from basic physics.

Further, the pak-fa as you point out has an &#8216;uneven fuselage&#8217; yet why is this important? Perhaps because it can present a corner reflector, be it small. Yet what about the J-20&#8217;s tail fins? If the pak-fa&#8217;s uneven fuselage is a corner reflector than the J-20&#8217;s tail fins are equally corner reflectors, and if we are fair they are worse because not only do you get a corner reflector from the side but from underneath the aircraft.




Martian2 said:


> I thought I put an end to the silly idea that the Pak-Fa was comparable to the J-20 Mighty Dragon stealth fighter?




Give it a rest with the might drag-queen chest thumping and call it the J-20.








Martian2 said:


> Does anybody bother to read my posts and look carefully at my labeled diagrams?




No because your post and diagrams are imaginary and have little scientific backing. If seen children's books with more scientific explanations

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Martian2

*T-50/Pak-Fa is not stealthy. You can't argue your way out of it.*

A tall fuselage is like a wall. It is a giant surface to reflect radar. Hence, it is not stealthy.

Aileron pods under the J-20 are stealthy, because of tapered shaping. Also, they are coated with RAM material.

In contrast, the IRST pod on the T-50/Pak-Fa cannot be coated with RAM material. It looks just like a normal non-stealthy IRST pod from the Su-30. The J-20 IRST sensors are recessed into the body of the fuselage and cannot be compared to the gigantic protruding orb on both the Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa.

----------





J-20 Mighty Dragon stealth fighter has a very low fuselage height behind the cockpit. This enhances side-profile stealth. Compare the non-existent fuselage height behind the J-20 with the "wall" behind the Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa fuselages.





Tall fuselage "wall" behind the T-50/Pak-Fa cockpit will reflect radar in the side-aspect. This is not stealthy. Compare the J-20 and the T-50/Pak-Fa pictures. You have to be blind if you can't see the difference.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

ptldM3 said:


> Anyone that that proclaims things such as the pak-fa has &#8216; same round and tall fuselage as the SU-30&#8217; is an imbecile and should be treated as such.
> 
> For one, the two fuselages share little to no similarities, and two, what &#8216;stealth&#8217; principle does the fuselage violate? What you think is irrelevant and if I&#8217;m quite frank, retarded.
> 
> Did you still not realize your fault and backwards logic? If the pak-fa&#8217;s (single) IRST is &#8216;not stealthy&#8217; than the J-20&#8217;s (4 large) under-wing pods should be disatererous, after all there are four of them, they are many times larger than an IRST, they a spherical/cylindrical and they go against your &#8216;continuous curvature&#8217; principle, but of course the J-20 is excused from basic physics.
> 
> Further, the pak-fa as you point out has an &#8216;uneven fuselage&#8217; yet why is this important? Perhaps because it can present a corner reflector, be it small. Yet what about the J-20&#8217;s tail fins? If the pak-fa&#8217;s uneven fuselage is a corner reflector than the J-20&#8217;s tail fins are equally corner reflectors, and if we are fair they are worse because not only do you get a corner reflector from the side but from underneath the aircraft.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give it a rest with the might drag-queen chest thumping and call it the J-20.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No because your post and diagrams are imaginary and have little scientific backing. If seen children's books with more scientific explanations


 
Then explain us, on what reason Carlo Copp saying this:

*Stealth*

*Carlo Kopp has suggested that the J-20's overall stealth shaping is "without doubt considerably better" than the F-35 and PAK FA[59*]

Chengdu J-20 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> A tall fuselage is like a wall. It is a giant surface to reflect radar. Hence, it is not stealthy.





Your head is like a wall too. Perhaps you do not notice but the pak-fa has a thiner profile from the side. If engineers were to flatten the J-20&#8217;s aft of the fuselage it would have the very same &#8216;bumpt&#8217;.






Martian2 said:


> Aileron pods under the J-20 are stealthy, because of tapered shaping. Also, they are coated with RAM material.





Don&#8217;t kid yourself, everyone can see that from underneath they are cylindrical, and give it a rest with this &#8216;RAM&#8217; nonsense. 





Martian2 said:


> The J-20 IRST sensors are recessed into the body of the fuselage and cannot be compared to the gigantic protruding orb on both the Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa.





Assuming that the J-20 even has anything close to an IRST.







J-20 Mighty Dragon stealth fighter has a very low fuselage height behind the cockpit. This enhances side-profile stealth. Compare the non-existent fuselage height behind the J-20 with the wall behind the Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa fuselage.





Tall fuselage "wall" behind the T-50/Pak-Fa cockpit will reflect radar in the side-aspect. This is not stealthy. [/QUOTE]



Sorry but your horse crap cant stand up to real science, physics or whatever you like to call it. That &#8216;wall&#8217; behind the pak-fa&#8217;s cockpit is no different than the &#8216;walls&#8217; on the side of the J-20, or the J-20&#8217;s droopy long chin. Fact&#8217;s don&#8217;t lie and the fact is the J-20 has the larger cross section from the side profile.

Not to mention those tail fins which provide for a nice corner reflector.



antonius123 said:


> Then explain us, on what reason Carlo Copp saying this:
> 
> *Stealth*
> 
> *Carlo Kopp has suggested that the J-20's overall stealth shaping is "without doubt considerably better" than the F-35 and PAK FA[59*]
> 
> Chengdu J-20 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I could care less what he thinks. He also thinks that the SU-35 will eat the F-35.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GR!FF!N

@ptldM3 

thanx mate for your contribution..

@topic

i'm not saying that J-20 is not stealthier.but it is not as stealthier as F-35 people are claiming.their tail fins,canards,open engine nozzles,missing sawtooth etc will make it less stealthy..not sure about Pak-Fa,but F-35 will be multi times stealthier than this.


----------



## antonius123

ptldM3 said:


> I could care less what he thinks. He also thinks that the SU-35 will eat the F-35.



You should not be ignorant. No other credible expert say opposite to his regarding J-20 stealth better than Pakfa judging from the shaping.

Many people here especially martian and me have already brought comprehensive explanation about it but you keep stubbornly refusing, therefore credible expert's statement is necessary to be shown to you.

There are some reason why SU-35 is more maneuverable than F-35 that base his statement; so your refusing his statement just because another statement of his that you may not be able to accept - is not justifiable.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

*World stealth fighter rankings*







#1 F-22 Raptor - RCS is 0.0001 m2 (from *GlobalSecurity* citation)

#2 J-20 Mighty Dragon - RCS is intermediate between F-22 and F-35 (Frontal and side-aspect RCS are 0.0001 m2 like F-22. Rear-aspect RCS with round LOAN engine nozzles is 0.005 m2 like F-35. See *Australia Air Power* citation below.)

#3 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - RCS is 0.005 m2 (from *GlobalSecurity* citation)

#4 T-50/Pak-Fa - RCS is 0.5 m2 (from *Russian Embassy in India* official website citation)

References:

GlobalSecurity: Radar Cross Section (RCS)

Russian Embassy in India official website: India, Russia close to pact on next generation fighter

----------

*Australia Air Power: J-20 is a "genuine Very Low Observable design"*





J-20 Mighty Dragon is a "genuine Very Low Observable design" except for round engine nozzles, which can be fixed.

The Chengdu J-20: Peace in Our Time?

"*This study has therefore established through Physical Optics simulation across nine radio-frequency bands, that no fundamental obstacles exist in the shaping design of the J-20 prototype precluding its development into a genuine Very Low Observable design.*






_Above: L-band RCS, below X-band RCS head on, both in PCSR format (M.J. Pelosi)._





Engineers and Scientists who work in &#8216;stealth&#8217; (AKA &#8216;Low Observable&#8217 designs have a way for explaining it to lay people: &#8216;Stealth&#8217; is achieved by Shaping, Shaping, Shaping and Materials (Denys Overholser).

The F-22A is clearly well shaped for low observability above about 500 MHz, and from all important aspects. *The J-20 has observed the &#8216;Shaping, Shaping, Shaping&#8217; imperative, except for the axisymmetric nozzles, and some curvature of the sides* that smears a strong, but very narrow specular return into something of a more observable fan. *The X-35 mostly observed the &#8216;Shaping, Shaping, Shaping&#8217; rule, but since then, to quote a colleague, &#8216;hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts&#8217; have appeared on the JSF to disrupt the shaping imperative*, forcing excessive reliance on materials, which are at the rear-end of the path to &#8216;Low Observability&#8217;.

*While discussing &#8216;rear-ends&#8217;, both the F-35 and the J-20 have large signature contributions from their jet nozzles.* However, the difference is much like the proverbial &#8216;Ham Omelette&#8217;: the F-35 Pig is committed, but the J-20 Chicken is a participant. *If the Chinese decide that rear sector Low Observability is tactically and strategically important, they are at the design stage where they can copy the F-22A nozzle design for the production configuration of the J-20.*"

[Note: Thank you to HouShanghai and &#34013;&#32982; for the picture.]

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## antonius123

GR!FF!N said:


> @ptldM3
> 
> thanx mate for your contribution..
> 
> @topic
> 
> i'm not saying that J-20 is not stealthier.but it is not as stealthier as F-35 people are claiming.their tail fins,canards,open engine nozzles,missing sawtooth etc will make it less stealthy..not sure about Pak-Fa,but F-35 will be multi times stealthier than this.


 
I have explain this in another J-20 threat.

Martian just explain at the above.

The major ones: 
- Pakfa has more round shape which is detrimental RCS
- Exposed fan blade which is very much detrimental to RCS 
- Gap between airducts that create corner reflector

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Martian2

*J-20 Mighty Dragon lacks 10 critical design flaws on T-50/Pak-Fa*

To be clear, I want everyone to understand that the J-20 Mighty Dragon does not suffer any of the ten critical stealth design flaws that are present on the T-50/Pak-Fa. You can compare the two pictures point-by-point.

Feel free to pick your favorite non-stealth feature on the T-50/Pak-Fa. You can select the exposed engine fan blades or the glaring metallic engine pods (or many other choices). Those two are my favorites.

----------





J-20 Mighty Dragon does not have any of the 10 critical design flaws found on the T-50/Pak-Fa. 





In an interesting coincidence, the T-50/Pak-Fa shares all ten Su-30 non-stealth features.


----------



## GR!FF!N

@martian2 and antonius123 

where did you find rcs of J-20 which is in testing phase???another high level source i suppose..

and rcs of T-50 is .5m2???   even our Rafale is stealthier than that..EF and Rafale's rcs is .5-.1 m2

and rcs of F-35 is near .00015 m2

stop posting wrong data..

@Martian2

you posted same pics of T-50 3 times from a photo sharing site which is not a valid source..stop your copy paste and post something logical explanation.


----------



## Martian2

GR!FF!N said:


> @martian2 and antonius123
> 
> where did you find rcs of J-20 which is in testing phase???another high level source i suppose..
> 
> and rcs of T-50 is .5m2???   even our Rafale is stealthier than that..EF and Rafale's rcs is .5-.1 m2
> 
> and rcs of F-35 is near .00015 m2
> 
> stop posting wrong data..
> 
> @Martian2
> 
> you posted same pics of T-50 3 times from a photo sharing site which is not a valid source..stop your copy paste and post something logical explanation.



My citations are from the reputable Global Security, Australia Air Power, and Russian Embassy in India official website.

I have provided my citation links. In contrast, you're spouting garbage with no citations. You are a troll and this is the last courtesy reply that you will receive from me.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GR!FF!N

Martian2 said:


> My citations are from the reputable Global Security, Australia Air Power, and Russian Embassy in India official website.
> 
> I have provided my citation links. In contrast, you're spouting garbage with no citations. You are a troll and this is the last courtesy reply that you will receive from me.



really???post links which cite rcs of F-35,T-50 and J-20..then we'll talk..and i have no intension of trolling.but posting false information is wrong.


----------



## Martian2

GR!FF!N said:


> really???post links which cite rcs of F-35,T-50 and J-20..then we'll talk..and i have no intension of trolling.but posting false information is wrong.



Are you blind? Didn't you see these links?



> References:
> 
> GlobalSecurity: Radar Cross Section (RCS)
> 
> Russian Embassy in India official website: India, Russia close to pact on next generation fighter


----------



## GR!FF!N

Martian2 said:


> Are you blind? Didn't you see these links?



none of them has j-20..it is still secret.so don't post imaginary values.

and values of t-50's rcs is wrong..considering mig-29k has rcs of 1m2,rafale's has less than .5m2 and eurofighter's .1m2



> *The only cited RCS performance data was a recent claim by Sukhoi that the PAK-AF will have 1/40 of the RCS of the Su-35S. Unfortunately this was not qualified by threat operating band, aspect, or whether the Su-35S was clean or laden with external stores. The RCS of the Su-35S, head-on in the X-band, has not been disclosed, but given the extensive RAM treatments applied could be as low as 0.5 - 2 m2 for a clean aircraft with no stores. If the latter were true, then the PAK-FA X-band head-on RCS would be of the order of -13 to -19 dBSM. Such performance would be consistent with the shaping design, but not with the application of mature RAM and RAS to same.
> *



http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2010-01.html


and rcs of F-35



> According to November 2005 reports, the US Air Force states that the F-22 has the lowest RCS of any manned aircraft in the USAF inventory, with a frontal RCS of 0.0001~0.0002 m2, marble sized in frontal aspect. According to these reports, *the F-35 is said to have an RCS equal to a metal golf ball, about 0.0015m2, which is about 5 to 10 times greater than the minimal frontal RCS of F/A-22. *The F-35 has a lower RCS than the F-117 and is comparable to the B-2, which was half that of the older F-117. Other reports claim that the F-35 is said to have an smaller RCS headon than the F-22, but from all other angles the F-35 RCS is greater. By comparison, the RCS of the Mig-29 is about 5m2.



F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Lightning II



hope that satisfy you.its from the same ausairpower and globalsecurity site.


----------



## MightyDragon

I also admit that J-20 have "flaws" that make it not "stealth" enough&#65281; Even it is not as stealth as F-22&#65292; I think it should be in satisfactory level. Chinese fighter designers are not stupid&#65292; these "flaws" just to compromise for aerodynamic advantages, and there are many methods to reduce the radar reflection effect on just restricted number of places...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

antonius123 said:


> You should not be ignorant. No other credible expert say opposite to his regarding J-20 stealth better than Pakfa judging from the shaping.




Your expert&#8217;s opinion is about as valid as the opinion of Martian. There are also experts that claim that the J-20 is not at all &#8216;stealth&#8217;. So why do you and Martian only pick out the statements that glorify the J-20? You and Martian remind me of typical Chinese sensors sprinkled with propaganda, I especially like the &#8216;mighty dragon&#8216; part, sounds like something chairman Mao would say.



antonius123 said:


> Many people here especially martian and me have already brought comprehensive explanation about it but you keep stubbornly refusing, therefore credible expert's statement is necessary to be shown to you.




You and Martian comprehensive , please, your &#8216;comprehensive&#8217; explanations are hysterical. You&#8217;re the same guy that made futile and embarrassing claims on your part and Martian, well&#8230; he just keep copying and pasting the same junk and ignoring reality. The man is still ignoring the fact that the J-20&#8217;s tail fins are a corner reflector by trying to hastily burry my comments with a wall of copy and past nonsense. The instigator&#8217;s comments have backfired and as usually he cowards by avoiding the subjects.


And how can we not take Martian serious, after all, he cited the &#8220;Russian embassy&#8221; , oh wait the so called &#8216;embassy&#8217; got its information from an Indian blogger. Moreover, no real RCS figures for the pak-fa have ever been given and they will not be given, but if Martian chooses to take Indian bloggers a authentic sources than so be it. 






antonius123 said:


> There are some reason why SU-35 is more maneuverable than F-35 that base his statement; so your refusing his statement just because another statement of his that you may not be able to accept - is not justifiable.



Wrong, maneuverability is one of many reasons as to why he believes the SU-35 is superior to the F-35, and he gives lengthy explanations as to why. Kopp believes the SU-35 is superior to the F-35 in basically every way, shape, and form but is it really so? Now think about this, the pak-fa is supposed to be many times more lethal than the SU-35, and if Kopp believes the SU-35 can dominate the F-35 than where does that leave to J-20? 

Remember if you believe what Kopp said about the J-20 than you should believe what he said about the SU-35. Or are we going to nit pick only what we want?



Martian2 said:


> My citations are from the reputable Global Security, Australia Air Power, and Russian Embassy in India official website.
> 
> I have provided my citation links. In contrast, you're spouting garbage with no citations. You are a troll and this is the last courtesy reply that you will receive from me.



Your 'embassy citation' is from an Indian blogger . I also fail to see how Global Security or Australia Air Power is reputable. Word for you. No official RCS figures have ever been released---*ever*, not even for retired aircraft such as the F-117, in other words all your sources pulled numbers out of thin air.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

*How did non-stealthy Su-30 features become magically stealthy on a T-50/Pak-Fa?*

At PtldM3, explain to me why you think the following 10 non-stealthy Su-30 features suddenly become stealthy when they are present on the T-50/Pak-Fa.

Are you going to challenge the widely-known radar-reflecting feature of exposed metal engine pods on both the Su-30 and T-50? I've said this many times. You have to choose. Either both the Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa are both non-stealthy or they're both stealthy. Which one is it?

The Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa share ten critical design features. On the Su-30, everyone agrees those ten critical features (labeled below) are not stealthy. You have to explain why radar-reflecting Su-30 metal engine pods suddenly become magically non-radar-reflecting metal engine pods when they're installed on the T-50/Pak-Fa.

PtldM3, you complain a lot. However, I never hear a reasonable explanation from you to explain these conundrums. According to you, how come the laws of physics are different for the Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa?

*Everyone knows that metal reflects radar. According to you PtldM3, why are you claiming the exposed metal engine pods on the T-50/Pak-Fa don't reflect radar? If it does, the T-50/Pak-Fa is not stealthy. If it doesn't, why are you allowed to rewrite the laws of physics?*





In an interesting coincidence, the T-50/Pak-Fa shares all ten Su-30 non-stealth features.





Su-30 is not stealthy. Here are 10 non-stealth features.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

ptldM3 said:


> Your expert&#8217;s opinion is about as valid as the opinion of Martian. There are also experts that claim that the J-20 is not at all &#8216;stealth&#8217;. So why do you and Martian only pick out the statements that glorify the J-20? You and Martian remind me of typical Chinese sensors sprinkled with propaganda, I especially like the &#8216;mighty dragon&#8216; part, sounds like something chairman Mao would say.



Who is he? why dont you show us that credible expert that saying PAKFA should be more stealthy than J-20?

If you are saying that Carlo Kopp is a chinese with propaganda then you are an idiot.




> You and Martian comprehensive , please, your &#8216;comprehensive&#8217; explanations are hysterical. You&#8217;re the same guy that made futile and embarrassing claims on your part and Martian, well&#8230; he just keep copying and pasting the same junk and ignoring reality. The man is still ignoring the fact that the J-20&#8217;s tail fins are a corner reflector by trying to hastily burry my comments with a wall of copy and past nonsense. The instigator&#8217;s comments have backfired and as usually he cowards by avoiding the subjects.


Your inability to comprehend is your own problem, hence you cannot blame us.

In fact you are unable to counter anymore except keep focusing in minor things such as: IRST, small fin rcs, etc and ignoring major things like: exposed fan blade, round shape of the nacelle, and angle reflector that blatantly existant in PAKFA.



> And how can we not take Martian serious, after all, he cited the &#8220;Russian embassy&#8221; , oh wait the so called &#8216;embassy&#8217; got its information from an Indian blogger. Moreover, no real RCS figures for the pak-fa have ever been given and they will not be given, but if Martian chooses to take Indian bloggers a authentic sources than so be it.


In fact we dont need real RCS figure, from the shaping expert will suggest that existing PAKFA is inferior to J-20 in term of stealth. From the shape of PAKFA that appears it is obvious what shape which suggest to be major detrimental on rcs.





> Wrong, maneuverability is one of many reasons as to why he believes the SU-35 is superior to the F-35, and he gives lengthy explanations as to why. Kopp believes the SU-35 is superior to the F-35 in basically every way, shape, and form but is it really so? Now think about this, the pak-fa is supposed to be many times more lethal than the SU-35, and if Kopp believes the SU-35 can dominate the F-35 than where does that leave to J-20?



Then give us the link that prove your claim that Carlo Kopp is ignoring the stealth feature of F-35, I am afraid you miss understand his statement :o





> Remember if you believe what Kopp said about the J-20 than you should believe what he said about the SU-35. Or are we going to nit pick only what we want?


Why not? as i said - your refusal to one Carlo Kopp statement doesnt justify your refusal to the other of his statement.

You should bring other CREDIBLE expert that claim contrary to him regarding the stealth J-20 vs PAKFA, that could justify your refusal to Carlo Kopp's statement.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## GR!FF!N

Martian2 said:


> *How did non-stealthy Su-30 features become magically stealthy on a T-50/Pak-Fa?*
> 
> At PtldM3, explain to me why you think the following 10 non-stealthy Su-30 features suddenly become stealthy when they are present on the T-50/Pak-Fa.
> 
> Are you going to challenge the widely-known radar-reflecting feature of exposed metal engine pods on both the Su-30 and T-50? I've said this many times. You have to choose. Either both the Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa are both non-stealthy or they're both stealthy. Which one is it?
> 
> The Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa share ten critical design features. On the Su-30, everyone agrees those ten critical features (labeled below) are not stealthy. You have to explain why radar-reflecting Su-30 metal engine pods suddenly become magically non-radar-reflecting engine pods when they're installed on the T-50/Pak-Fa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In an interesting coincidence, the T-50/Pak-Fa shares all ten Su-30 non-stealth features.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Su-30 is not stealthy. Here are 10 non-stealth features.



martian2...you posted the same image 4th time..i can post many links which says China doesn't even have capability to build a 5th gen aircraft..does that suits this thread well???posting from picture sharing site is not a proof..share something logical(if you have any).



antonius123 said:


> Who is he? why dont you show us that credible expert that saying PAKFA should be more stealthy than J-20?
> 
> If you are saying that Carlo Kopp is a chinese with propaganda then you are an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to comprehend is your own problem, hence you cannot blame us.
> 
> In fact you are unable to counter anymore except keep focusing in minor things such as: IRST, small fin rcs, etc and ignoring major things like: exposed fan blade, round shape of the nacelle, and angle reflector that blatantly existant in PAKFA.
> 
> 
> In fact we dont need real RCS figure, from the shaping expert will suggest that existing PAKFA is inferior to J-20 in term of stealth. From the shape of PAKFA that appears it is obvious what shape which suggest to be major detrimental on rcs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then give us the link that prove your claim that Carlo Kopp is ignoring the stealth feature of F-35, I am afraid you miss understand his statement :o
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? as i said - your refusal to one Carlo Kopp statement doesnt justify your refusal to the other of his statement.
> 
> You should bring other CREDIBLE expert that claim contrary to him regarding the stealth J-20 vs PAKFA, that could justify your refusal to Carlo Kopp's statement.



give a rest to the carlo kopp..what he thought he says..he maybe drunk or idiot or both..his words is not ultimate truth..post figures and scientific explanation..and credible links to prove it..no more carlo kopp..please..and don't post pics from file sharing site..any idiot can upload a photo like that.


----------



## antonius123

GR!FF!N said:


> martian2...you posted the same image 4th time..i can post many links which says China doesn't even have capability to build a 5th gen aircraft..does that suits this thread well???posting from picture sharing site is not a proof..share something logical(if you have any).



Because you haven't given any enough argument to counter his explanation as he points in that picture 

My suggestion: why dont you try to comprehend his point - and please give strong argument to counter if you dont agree.

Please be aware that he is trying to explain you through that picture that he has posted 4 times... with what else to explain you comprehensively unless with picture??

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

*At PtldM3, I'm trying to get you to answer a simple question.

Do the exposed metal engine pods on the T-50/Pak-Fa reflect radar like the exposed metal engine pods on the Su-30?*

----------

*How did non-stealthy Su-30 features become magically stealthy on a T-50/Pak-Fa?*

At PtldM3, explain to me why you think the following 10 non-stealthy Su-30 features suddenly become stealthy when they are present on the T-50/Pak-Fa.

Are you going to challenge the widely-known radar-reflecting feature of exposed metal engine pods on both the Su-30 and T-50? I've said this many times. You have to choose. Either both the Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa are both non-stealthy or they're both stealthy. Which one is it?

The Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa share ten critical design features. On the Su-30, everyone agrees those ten critical features (labeled below) are not stealthy. You have to explain why radar-reflecting Su-30 metal engine pods suddenly become magically non-radar-reflecting metal engine pods when they're installed on the T-50/Pak-Fa.

PtldM3, you complain a lot. However, I never hear a reasonable explanation from you to explain these conundrums. According to you, how come the laws of physics are different for the Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa?

*Everyone knows that metal reflects radar. According to you PtldM3, why are you claiming the exposed metal engine pods on the T-50/Pak-Fa don't reflect radar? If it does, the T-50/Pak-Fa is not stealthy. If it doesn't, why are you allowed to rewrite the laws of physics?*






In an interesting coincidence, the T-50/Pak-Fa shares all ten Su-30 non-stealth features.





Su-30 is not stealthy. Here are 10 non-stealth features.


----------



## antonius123

GR!FF!N said:


> give rst carlo kopp..what he thought he says..he maybe drunk or idiot or both..post figures and scientific explanation..and credible links to prove it..no more carlo kopp..please..and don't post pics from file sharing site..any idiot can upload a photo like that.



If you refuse explanation from everybody just because it doesnt favour your belief, then what else we can do??

We have given you the explanation above, but instead of trying to understand you both keep refusing without giving any reasonable argument - just because it is not according to your belief. The last thing we could do to convince you is by quoting Credible Expert statement.

You can't say Carlo Kopp is an idiot just because he doesnt say something that please you; Carlo Kopp is a credible expert... and is much much more reliable/credible than you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

*Metal reflects radar.

That scientific fact proves 3 of the 10 critical design flaws on the Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa.*

I'm hoping to hear an answer back from PtldM3 before I die of old age.

I want to prove 3 points to all of you.

1. Metal reflects radar. All of you know this. Exposed metal engine pods on the Su-30 reflect radar and hence, it is not stealthy. You can see the same exposed metal engine pods on the T-50/Pak-Fa. Hence, the T-50/Pak-Fa is not stealthy.

2. Metal-framed canopy on both the Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa reflects radar. Hence, Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa are clearly not stealthy.

3. Both Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa have straight inlets. If necessary, I can post the pictures to prove the T-50/Pak-Fa does not have a S-duct. All of you know that single-crystal metal engine fan blades lie inside the airduct. Therefore, the Su-30 and T-50 are not stealthy at all.

I've proven 3 out of the 10 critical design flaws on the list. I can prove the other seven if you insist.


----------



## UKBengali

^^^ Martian2.

I remember once that ptlmd2 said that the current T-50 is just an aerodynamic test aircraft and that the production aircract will be much more stealthy.

Let us see how much the shape of future T-50s prototypes change.


----------



## GR!FF!N

antonius123 said:


> If you refuse explanation from everybody just because it doesnt favour your belief, then what else we can do??
> 
> We have given you the explanation above, but instead of trying to understand you both keep refusing without giving any reasonable argument - just because it is not according to your belief. The last thing we could do to convince you is by quoting Credible Expert statement.




its you guys who are posting same pics from some picture sharing site..give carlo kopp rest..i'm posting an article from aviationweek..

The canards are not good to maintain a very low observability profile as they increase the RCS. The current prototype is most probably carrying avionics system developed for the current line of 4th Gen aircrafts which are not the most advance in the world. China still has long way to go in composite materials thus the aircraft will have much higher maximum take-off weight. This is followed by China&#8217;s inability to build a reliable turbo-jet engines as it is yet to perfect a 90kN engine for the JF-17. Chinese designers have taken note of these deficiencies and have made the airframe suitably. The aircraft will carry a large payload of less sophisticated weapons rather than small number of highly sophisticated weapons, the aircraft has some 6 control surface (which includes the canard) and more fuel to burn to meet kinematic requirements and be somewhat comparably to the superior and better engineered American and Russian 5th Gen fighters. Also the aircraft is as good as its pilots and according to American, Japanese and Taiwanese assessments the Chinese pilots are not as skilled as American, Indian and Japanese pilots who have International exposure in air combat. Also the PLAAF is unproven force where as most of its adversaries are combat experienced.

Threat analysis of Chengdu J-20 the chinese stealth fighter | Defence Aviation


nowhere you'll see states that canard is better for stealth..same goes for fin..

[/QUOTE]

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## antonius123

GR!FF!N said:


> its you guys who are posting same pics from some picture sharing site..give carlo kopp rest..



That is in order to make you understand.



> i'm posting an article from aviationweek..
> 
> The canards are not good to maintain a very low observability profile as they increase the RCS. The current prototype is most probably carrying avionics system developed for the current line of 4th Gen aircrafts which are not the most advance in the world. China still has long way to go in composite materials thus the aircraft will have much higher maximum take-off weight. This is followed by China&#8217;s inability to build a reliable turbo-jet engines as it is yet to perfect a 90kN engine for the JF-17. Chinese designers have taken note of these deficiencies and have made the airframe suitably. The aircraft will carry a large payload of less sophisticated weapons rather than small number of highly sophisticated weapons, the aircraft has some 6 control surface (which includes the canard) and more fuel to burn to meet kinematic requirements and be somewhat comparably to the superior and better engineered American and Russian 5th Gen fighters. Also the aircraft is as good as its pilots and according to American, Japanese and Taiwanese assessments the Chinese pilots are not as skilled as American, Indian and Japanese pilots who have International exposure in air combat. Also the PLAAF is unproven force where as most of its adversaries are combat experienced.
> 
> Threat analysis of Chengdu J-20 the chinese stealth fighter | Defence Aviation
> 
> 
> nowhere you'll see states that canard is better for stealth..same goes for fin..



First: the writer "Pratik Sawerdekar" is not known for his credibility.

Second: nobody said that Canard is good to maintain RCS.

My and Martian's argument is: Canard is detrimental, but not as big as Exposed Fan Blade, Big Round Nacelle, and Corner Reflector of the uneven/gap between air duct,.. more over as those are all combined together. He never said that J-20 is less stealthy than PAKFA

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## GR!FF!N

antonius123 said:


> That is in order to make you understand.
> 
> 
> 
> First: the writer "Pratik Sawerdekar" is not known for his credibility.
> 
> Second: nobody said that Canard is good to maintain RCS.
> 
> My and Martian's argument is: Canard is detrimental, but not as big as Exposed Fan Blade, Big Round Nacelle, and Corner Reflector of the uneven/gap between air duct,.. more over as those are all combined together. *He never said that J-20 is less stealthy than PAKFA*




neither are we..we said J-20 has some flaws that will make it less visible.Pak Fa is an air superiority aircraft.plus soviet stealth doctrine isn't same as american doctrine.we never even mentioned about pak fa in the first place.its martian2 who posted same pics again again.and i merely rectified his false data..and canard and fins will be more stealth killer than open engine(which russians can modify it)..you guys are posting off topic subject and making it a troll thread...adios..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

UKBengali said:


> ^^^ Martian2.
> 
> I remember once that ptlmd2 said that the current T-50 is just an aerodynamic test aircraft and that the production aircract will be much more stealthy.
> 
> Let us see how much the shape of future T-50s prototypes change.



*Third T-50/Pak-Fa prototype shows no external change from first prototype 2 1/2 years ago*

After two and a half years, we are already on the third T-50/Pak-Fa prototype. The labeled diagram (with 10 critical design flaws) is overlaid on Sukhoi's picture of the third prototype (see link below). It doesn't look like there will be any significant exterior changes. PtldM3 can't keep using that excuse forever.

I just want him to admit the T-50/Pak-Fa third prototype is not stealthy.

Repeat after me: "The exposed metal engines on the Su-30 render them visible to enemy radar that bounces off of them from above, below, from the side, and from behind.

Similarly, I acknowledge the exposed metal engines on the T-50/Pak-Fa render them visible to enemy radar that bounces off of them from above, below, from the side, and from behind."

Come on, say it.

----------

Reference: The third PAK FA prototype first flight

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> The Chengdu J-20: Peace in Our Time?
> 
> "This study has therefore established through *Physical Optics* simulation across nine radio-frequency bands, that no fundamental obstacles exist in the shaping design of the J-20 prototype precluding its development into a genuine Very Low Observable design."


That 'study' is a joke.

Someone very famous in the radar community who, unlike Kopp, has actual experience, said this...






Edge diffraction signals are far lower than specular in most situations, however, in RCS control they simply cannot be ignored as APA have done. Each generator must be factored in and only then can any, not all, edge diffraction generator be dismissed.

If I wanted to, I could have use edge diffraction as sole modeling criteria and make the J-20's RCS as low as the F-22's alleged figure or even lower. I suspect the reason why APA did not do so is because that would have been too blatantly dishonest. The Physical Optics method, flawed as it is, is far less suspect and more acceptable to gullible people like you. The reason why PO was used was because APA have no other more sophisticated tools. On a complex body, edge diffraction signals from a structure can produce specular reflection signals off another structure, which in turn may reflect off the first structure *AGAIN*, the one whose Keller signals were initially ignored. In other words, using the PO method alone on a complex body potentially misses out 2/3 of the true and total of any structural generator. Giving a false low RCS value of a structure and of the complex body itself.

APA may have produced some quite impressive analyses in the past, but as far as the radar community is concerned, this 'study' for the J-20 made them a laughing stock.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## antonius123

GR!FF!N said:


> neither are we..we said J-20 has some flaws that will make it less visible.Pak Fa is an air superiority aircraft.plus soviet stealth doctrine isn't same as american doctrine.we never even mentioned about pak fa in the first place.its martian2 who posted same pics again again.and i merely rectified his false data..and *canard and fins will be more stealth killer than open engine*(which russians can modify it)..you guys are posting off topic subject and making it a troll thread...adios..


 
Could you give any *citation* which back your claim that canard and fins will be more stealth killer than exposed Fan Blade, or Round Nacelle, or huge corner reflector? 

You know both Eurofighter and Rafale is claimed to be considerably stealthy because their hidden fan blade as the major factor? eventhough they have CANARD. By your logic the Rafale or Eurofighter should be less stealthy than Su-27 due to canard existance on both Rafale/Eurofighter. 

That fact is more than enough to ruin your baseless assumption.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> - Pakfa has more round shape which is detrimental RCS


No, it is not. What you and your friend believe came from a false understanding of behaviors.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> No, it is not. What you and your friend believe came from a false understanding of behaviors.








Then tell me what is the shape of the nacelle / nozzle of the above PAKFA if it is not round.


----------



## GR!FF!N

antonius123 said:


> Then tell me what is the shape of the nacelle / nozzle of the above PAKFA if it is not round.



another image form photo sharing site..even it is partly hand drawn..


----------



## antonius123

GR!FF!N said:


> another image form photo sharing site..even it is partly hand drawn..



How about this??






What kind of shape is that nacelle and nozzle if not round?
How many times should people post this image but you never bother to discern and understand?


----------



## GR!FF!N

antonius123 said:


> How about this??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of shape is that nacelle and nozzle if not round?
> How many times should people post this image but you never bother to discern and understand?



lol..this one too from photo sharing site..who analysed this pic anyway???you???do you even understand how radar works???and i already posted,this thread is not on T-50 and neither T-50 is meant to be stealthy like F-22..


----------



## antonius123

GR!FF!N said:


> lol..this one too from photo sharing site..who analysed this pic anyway???you???do you even understand how radar works???and i already posted,this thread is not on T-50 and neither T-50 is meant to be stealthy like F-22..


 

Whats wrong with photo sharing site?? in fact that is the photo of the real PAKFA - not photoshop, and the round shape is very blatant there.
Why you keep excusing and refusing to discern?

Why you now asking me about how radar work? cant you accept that round/cylinder shape is detrimental to RCS?

Nobody deny that F-22 may be stealthier than J-20; I am arguing the claim that J-20 is less stealthy than PAKFA

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GR!FF!N

antonius123 said:


> Whats wrong with photo sharing site?? in fact that is the photo of the real PAKFA - not photoshop, and the round shape is very blatant there.
> Why you keep excusing and refusing to discern?
> 
> Why you now asking me about how radar work? cant you accept that round/cylinder shape is detrimental to RCS?
> 
> Nobody deny that F-22 may be stealthier than J-20; I am arguing the claim that J-20 is less stealthy than PAKFA



and i never said T50 is stealthier than J-20..you are arguing with yourselves..


----------



## antonius123

GR!FF!N said:


> and i never said T50 is stealthier than J-20..you are arguing with yourselves..


I am arguing myself?? it is your friend who claim that J-20 is inferior than PAKFA including in term of stealth.

And you are the one who doubt my explanation that J-20 shaping suggest it is stealthier than PAKFA

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GR!FF!N

antonius123 said:


> I am arguing myself?? it is your friend who claim that J-20 is inferior than PAKFA including in term of stealth.
> 
> And you are the one who doubt my explanation that J-20 shaping suggest it is stealthier than PAKFA



lol..he was russian..i don't even know him/her..but i already read his/her analysis in another thread..awsome..may be that doesn't suits you..


----------



## ptldM3

antonius123 said:


> Who is he? why dont you show us that credible expert that saying PAKFA should be more stealthy than J-20?





I&#8217;m not comparing either aircraft, you and Martian are. Anyone with even the slightest understanding of how &#8216;stealth&#8217; works would understand that comparing two aircraft and pulling numbers out of thin air is futile and amateur. However, you and Martian can continue measuring your small penis&#8217;s and getting erections by thanking each other and overusing cheesy phrases such as &#8216;mighty drag-queen&#8217;. 








antonius123 said:


> In fact we dont need real RCS figure, from the shaping expert will suggest that existing PAKFA is inferior to J-20 in term of stealth. From the shape of PAKFA that appears it is obvious what shape which suggest to be major detrimental on rcs.





Your &#8216;expert&#8217; compared the F-35 and J-20 and proclaimed that the F-35 has &#8216;bumps&#8217; and &#8216;humps&#8217; yet all the while ignoring the J-20&#8217;s bumps and humps in the form of DSI, under wing protrusions, and curvature aft and forward of the j-20&#8217;s nozzles. 

Kopp clear has and agenda and he isn&#8217;t shy about it. And he isn&#8217;t an expert in &#8216;stealth&#8217;, he has no credentials or experience in that field. Sorry to burst your bubble.














Martian2 said:


> *At PtldM3, I'm trying to get you to answer a simple question.
> 
> Do the exposed metal engine pods on the T-50/Pak-Fa reflect radar like the exposed metal engine pods on the Su-30?*







They aren&#8217;t metal, they are made up of or covered in a type of ceramic to reduce heat. Than again I expected you to be clueless and I expect you to use your old tactic of disinformation by continuing to shamelessly still claim the engines are &#8216;metal&#8217;. 







Martian2 said:


> Are you going to challenge the widely-known radar-reflecting feature of exposed metal engine pods on both the Su-30 and T-50? I've said this many times. You have to choose. Either both the Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa are both non-stealthy or they're both stealthy. Which one is it?





Anyone that is in the know, knows about the pak-fa&#8217;s engines, you aren&#8217;t in the know.






Martian2 said:


> PtldM3, you complain a lot.




Bite me.







Martian2 said:


> However, I never hear a reasonable explanation from you to explain these conundrums. According to you, *how come the laws of physics are different for the Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa?
> *


*


You are comparing two different aircraft that share some similarities, be it vague. This would be like me comparing the J-20 to the J-10, because hey, according to Martian the J-20 can not be stealthy because of its striking similarities to the J-10, heck the J-20 shares many similarities with the Rafale, so why don&#8217;t you explain why the laws are different for the J-10/Rafale and J-20?




Martian2 said:



Everyone knows that metal reflects radar. According to you PtldM3, why are you claiming the exposed metal engine pods on the T-50/Pak-Fa don't reflect radar? If it does, the T-50/Pak-Fa is not stealthy. If it doesn't, why are you allowed to rewrite the laws of physics?[/COLOR]

Click to expand...




If anyone is rewriting physics it is you and your laughable assertions and blatant denials. Once more, the pak-fa&#8217;s compressors are not metal. The engineers of the engines said it on camera, in fact they held up a ceramic blade on camera. In fact I will post that video:

Here it is and with English subtitles

Go to 5:30


Item 117 (AL-41F1) Engine - Fiery Heart of the Pak Fa fighter /







Martian2 said:



In an interesting coincidence, the T-50/Pak-Fa shares all ten Su-30 non-stealth features.

Click to expand...



In an interesting coincidence the J-20 shares many of the J-10&#8217;s/Rafale features.





Martian2 said:



I want to prove 3 points to all of you.

1. Metal reflects radar. All of you know this. Exposed metal engine pods on the Su-30 reflect radar and hence, it is not stealthy. You can see the same exposed metal engine pods on the T-50/Pak-Fa. Hence, the T-50/Pak-Fa is not stealthy.

Click to expand...



Already explained it earlier, but now I will explain in detail.






Martian2 said:



2. Metal-framed canopy on both the Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa reflects radar. Hence, Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa are clearly not stealthy.

Click to expand...




You fail, not only that you fail to comprehend the simplest of things or use basic logic. The T-50&#8217;s frame is not metal--lets get that strait right here and now. And even if it were it wouldn&#8217;t make much of a difference or any difference at all.

For starters, lets look at the F-22&#8217;s engines and nozzles:











Those are metal engines yet even HUD images of opposing aircraft show that those aircraft are unable to achieve radar lock onto the F-22--no radar lock, nothing picked up on radar. So if two large metal engines are able to avoid being spotted by radar what makes you think that a so called &#8216;metal frame&#8217; will be spotted? Remember the pak-fa&#8217;s frame (whatever it is made up of) is painted--an engine is not. Therefore, your argument falls apart like a dilapidated brick house.

Now lets look at the picture even closer. Notice the compressor blades. Now ask yourself how is the F-22 able to avoid radar lock with its compressor blades? There is no DSI or anything close to it, yet in countless DACT training the compressor blades with metal and all are able to avoid radar lock. Now the questions becomes, if the F-22&#8217;s compressor/metal engine is able to avoid radar lock than why is the pak-fa not able to do the same? After all the pak-fa&#8217;s engines are not metal nor are they fully exposed. From a generic view point one can claim that an exposed engine can cause a large or at least moderate spike in RCS. However, you have very little scientific backing to justify your claim, and claiming and engine is metal is not scientific. In fact, it has nothing to do with metal, instead it&#8217;s the gap or junction between the two pieces of canopy. If your logic had any ounce of truth than the B-2, F-117. And YF-23 with their &#8216;metal canopies&#8217; would not be classified as &#8216;stealth&#8217;.

So now explain for everyone how the F-117, B-2 and YF-23 had metal canopies yet managed to be &#8216;stealthy&#8217; please---I am eagerly waiting to see what kind of crap you will hobble together. TO put it in simple English if the pak-fa&#8217;s junction between the canopy is not stealthy than the J-20&#8217;s airbrake is equally not stealthy because of its junction.

Eye witness accounts and HUD footage is much more credible than anything you bring to the table. Your claims are dubious or vague at best. Pilot testimony and HUD footage takes your claim that exposed engines are &#8216;unstealthy&#8217; and throws it into the trash bin. 

There are many reasons as to why an engine is not as ghastly as you claim it to be.

The first is simple scattering. When EM energy comes in contact with compressor blades, EM energy scatters in all directions. This would be similar to hosing down a fan, the water which makes contact with the fan&#8217;s blades will simply scatter in all directions. 


Further, EM energy weakening as it violently bounces inside the intakes chambers. The more EM energy bounces around a cavity the weaker it will become.

Absorbers also play a role, intake chambers of aircraft such as the YF-23 have been know to use composite based materials to absorb radar. An absorber alone probably does little but when EM energy is bouncing back and fourth the effect is great.







Martian2 said:



3. Both Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa have straight inlets. If necessary, I can post the pictures to prove the T-50/Pak-Fa does not have a S-duct. All of you know that single-crystal metal engine fan blades lie inside the airduct. Therefore, the Su-30 and T-50 are not stealthy at all.

Click to expand...



This is not stealthy at all: 











That tail fin presents a perfect corner reflector from multiple angles. 






Martian2 said:



I've proven 3 out of the 10 critical design flaws on the list. I can prove the other seven if you insist.

Click to expand...






You&#8217;ve proven your ignorance.*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Martian2

*Are you seriously going to claim "composites" for every metallic part on the T-50/Pak-Fa?*





This is a close-up view of the METAL engine pod on the T-50/Pak-Fa. The engine pod is metallic to help conduct heat away from the reaction chamber. If you don't conduct away the heat, it will build up and melt down the reaction chamber walls. The orange part is probably copper or a copper alloy. If the material (as claimed by PtldM3) was made of composite material, it would have uniform reflectivity. I have never seen composite material that varies in color over a small area just like a metal pod.





Russian T-50/Pak-Fa composite material has an uniform dull color. It looks nothing like a metallic engine pod. (Source: Russia T-50 Fighter Jet)





Do you see those shiny metal engine pods on the T-50/Pak-Fa? Composite material doesn't look like that. Only a desperate nationalist (like PtldM3) would claim shiny metal engine pods are made of dull (which are non-shiny) composite material to evade my point on radar reflectivity and lack of stealth.

At PtldM3, you are the first person anywhere to claim a "composite" pod for the T-50/Pak-Fa engines. To everyone, the T-50/Pak-Fa engine pod looks exactly like the metallic engine pods on the Su-30. 

Why does the T-50/Pak-Fa engines have metallic streaks just like the Su-30? The different bands of orange/copper metal (or black in the third picture) are consistent with the way metal cools and harden. You can see similar metallic streak bands on the Su-30. The metallic pattern of dark band patches is also consistent with uneven oxidation/rusting.

Anyway, I want to move on. Are you also going to claim "composite" on the metal-framed T-50/Pak-Fa cockpit canopy? If you do, I will post an earlier picture of the T-50/Pak-Fa that clearly shows the metal rivets.

Also, what about the single-crystal engine fan blades for the T-50/Pak-Fa. There is no S-duct to shield the T-50/Pak-Fa engine fan blades. Are you going to claim "composite" material for the single-crystal T-50/Pak-Fa engine fan blades?

You do realize only a single-crystal fan blade can withstand the unbelievable rpms of a modern jet fighter. It is ludicrous to suggest current technology can produce a "composite" engine fan blade. You better provide a reputable citation for support if you want to make this ridiculous claim.

*By the way, I demand you provide a reputable citation to back up your claim of a "composite" engine pod for the T-50/Pak-Fa. All of the articles on the T-50/Pak-Fa that I have read mostly talk about composite materials being used for the wings or fuselage, not the engine pod. Time to prove your b.s. claim or retract it.*

Finally, do you think anyone is stupid enough to believe your claim of "composite" for all of the obvious exposed metal parts on the T-50/Pak-Fa? Also, what is stopping you from invoking the same magical word "composite" to instantly transform the non-stealthy Su-30 fighter into a fifth-generation stealth fighter with the mention of the single word "composite"?

----------

At PtldM3, I'm trying to get you to answer a simple question.

Do the exposed metal engine pods on the T-50/Pak-Fa reflect radar like the exposed metal engine pods on the Su-30?

----------

*How did non-stealthy Su-30 features become magically stealthy on a T-50/Pak-Fa?*

At PtldM3, explain to me why you think the following 10 non-stealthy Su-30 features suddenly become stealthy when they are present on the T-50/Pak-Fa.

Are you going to challenge the widely-known radar-reflecting feature of exposed metal engine pods on both the Su-30 and T-50? I've said this many times. You have to choose. Either both the Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa are both non-stealthy or they're both stealthy. Which one is it?

The Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa share ten critical design features. On the Su-30, everyone agrees those ten critical features (labeled below) are not stealthy. You have to explain why radar-reflecting Su-30 metal engine pods suddenly become magically non-radar-reflecting metal engine pods when they're installed on the T-50/Pak-Fa.

PtldM3, you complain a lot. However, I never hear a reasonable explanation from you to explain these conundrums. According to you, how come the laws of physics are different for the Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa?

*Everyone knows that metal reflects radar. According to you PtldM3, why are you claiming the exposed metal engine pods on the T-50/Pak-Fa don't reflect radar? If it does, the T-50/Pak-Fa is not stealthy. If it doesn't, why are you allowed to rewrite the laws of physics?*





In an interesting coincidence, the T-50/Pak-Fa shares all ten Su-30 non-stealth features.





Su-30 is not stealthy. Here are 10 non-stealth features.


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> *Are you seriously going to claim "composites" for every metallic part on the T-50/Pak-Fa?*





No I actually claimed the opposite when I spoke about the rear compressor blades and nozzles of the F-22, you are just too foolish to comprehend it.







Martian2 said:


> At PtldM3, you are the first person anywhere to claim a "composite" pod for the T-50/Pak-Fa engines. To everyone, the T-50/Pak-Fa engine pod looks exactly like the metallic engine pods on the Su-30.






I was talking about in side the intake *walls*. But knowing you, you cant help but to trip over the simplest of sentences.






Martian2 said:


> Anyway, I want to move on. Are you also going to claim "composite" on the metal-framed T-50/Pak-Fa cockpit canopy? If you do, I will post an earlier picture of the T-50/Pak-Fa that* clearly shows the metal rivets*.




What do you think rivets are made of plastic or carbon fiber? Even if we assume that the pak-fa does have a metal frame, than so what? As I have proven metal makes little difference since compressors and nozzles of the F-22 are metal. Furthermore, that strip of so called metal is painted, so there is no metal. I can also see that you are clueless to the fact that certain alloys are referred to as composites.






Martian2 said:


> Also, what about the single-crystal engine fan blades for the T-50/Pak-Fa. There is no S-duct to shield the T-50/Pak-Fa engine fan blades. Are you going to claim "composite" material for the single-crystal T-50/Pak-Fa engine fan blades?





Perhaps you did not understand or read what I wrote, so let me repeat it again since you seem to have difficulties. The pak-fas compressor are either coated with a ceramic or are made up of a ceramic. I provided a video with English subtitles with an engineer holding a small ceramic compressor blade, if that is not enough to convince you than you are clearly playing stupid.






Martian2 said:


> *You do realize only a single-crystal fan blade can withstand the unbelievable rpms of a modern jet fighter*. It is ludicrous to suggest current technology can produce a "composite" engine fan blade. You better provide a reputable citation for support if you want to make this ridiculous claim.





Busted, engines up to recently have not used crystal blade technology, some of which produced incredible trust figures, some up to *55,000lbs *of it. And its pretty standard to use a kind of *thermal coating* on engine blades. And there is no citations available, the technology is new and engineers arent sharing details. But if you want to believe that one of the chief engineers involved in the pak-fas engine program is blatantly lying on cammera than you are welcomed to believe so, than again you are in no position to demand reputable citations when you use *Indian bloggers *as a source. A chief engineer in a video interview is as reputable as it gets.


Anyways let me further, make a fool of you. Ceramic coating on compressors are not a new idea, the technology has been around, the pak-fa is to use the most modern type of ceramic to reduce heat and improve engine life. Do a simple weki search on turbine blades and you will see.












Martian2 said:


> *By the way, I demand you provide a reputable citation to back up your claim of a "composite" engine pod for the T-50/Pak-Fa. All of the articles on the T-50/Pak-Fa that I have read mostly talk about composite materials being used for the wings or fuselage, not the engine pod. Time to prove your b.s. claim or retract it.*





The inside of the engine tunnels have no rivets, the only ways this is possible is if the intake tunnel is made up of a one piece resin based composite. In fact it is almost impossible for the tunnel to be anything else without rivets. It is not possible for it to be stamped unless they welded two halves and if that were the case you would see weld marks, even more importantly you would see rivets.







Martian2 said:


> Finally, *do you think anyone is stupid enough *to believe your claim of "composite" for all of the obvious exposed metal parts on the T-50/Pak-Fa? Also, what is stopping you from invoking the same magical word "composite" to instantly transform the non-stealthy Su-30 fighter into a fifth-generation fighter with the mention of the singular word "composite"?




You are, since you overuse the word composite. I only mentioned it for the inside of the intake tunnel walls, although it is no secret that 70% of the pak-fa will eventually be composite based. Its also blatantly obvious that you are not aware of alloy composites.





Martian2 said:


> At PtldM3, I'm trying to get you to answer a simple question.
> 
> Do the exposed metal engine pods on the T-50/Pak-Fa reflect radar like the exposed metal engine pods on the Su-30?





Its not as simple as that, firstly the compressors are not metal, either are the inner intake walls. Secondly, we are yet to see what the intakes of the production model are to look like. Thirdly based on the F-22 and its exposed compressors as well as the experience with the YF-23 we can conclude that whatever returns an engine creates is minimal. Otherwise the F-22 would simply got missile lock during DACT training.





Martian2 said:


> *How did non-stealthy Su-30 features become magically stealthy on a T-50/Pak-Fa?*





How did none stealthy J-10 features or Rafale features magically become stealth on the J-20? Better yet how does the WZ-10 with exposed rivets, numerous protrusions, FLIR, pylons, humps/bumps, fixed landing gear, multiple piece canopy and no sawtoothing classify as stealthy? Remember, you claimed that many of those features are none stealthy so how does the WZ-10 magically become stealthy?








Martian2 said:


> *Everyone knows that metal reflects radar. According to you PtldM3, why are you claiming the exposed metal engine pods on the T-50/Pak-Fa don't reflect radar? If it does, the T-50/Pak-Fa is not stealthy. If it doesn't, why are you allowed to rewrite the laws of physics?*[/COLOR]




If that was true than the F-22 wouldnt have a 144:0 kill ratio. Remember, its nozzles and engine are made up of metal alloys. So explain to everyone how the aircraft such as F-15 fail to achieve a lock onto the F-22? Remember we are talking metal.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Martian2

No one agrees with you. You're nuts and I'm tired of proving you wrong with my citations.

You keep arguing with no citations. You're wasting my time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Then tell me what is the shape of the nacelle / nozzle of the above PAKFA if it is not round.


You are using inappropriate words to start. It is not 'round' which mean circular but it is curves or curvatures. The B-2, F-22, F35, and J-20 got plenty of curvatures in designs. If curvatures are detrimental for RCS control, neither the US nor China would be using them. You and your friend have a flawed understanding of behaviors and how to exploit them.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> You are using inappropriate words to start. It is not 'round' which mean circular but it is curves or curvatures. The B-2, F-22, F35, and J-20 got plenty of curvatures in designs. If curvatures are detrimental for RCS control, neither the US nor China would be using them. You and your friend have a flawed understanding of behaviors and how to exploit them.



*This is a military aviation forum, not "study of words" forum for etymologists.*

You spend all of your time arguing with people over semantics. Does this word mean precisely the definition that fits Gambit's view.? I hate to break it to you, but words are vague. You can use words in their strictest sense or in a more general sense.

You've been wasting everyone's time by constantly harping over stupid words. Everyone else knows the ideas being discussed and it is the ideas that are important. Not your stupid constant complaint over the exact words or group of words. I still remember your ridiculous complaint over my use of the term "airfoil." You wanted to replace the word "airfoil" with a group of ten words or something to that effect.

You're loony and obsessed with wordplay. We're military aviation enthusiasts in here, not etymologists.

Gambit, you're in the wrong forum. You should try "forum for grammarians" or "octogenarians who love wordplay."

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Esc8781

Look at the f-35, then look at their undersides, the f-35 might look bumpy but it looks like the same configuration as the f-22, I can't remember about the f-35's underside is for a member of f-16.net told me a possible hypothesis but I can't remember. Can anyone tell me what's the f-35 underside if for thank you.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> *This is a military aviation forum, not "study of words" forum for etymologists.*
> 
> You spend all of your time arguing with people over semantics. Does this word mean precisely the definition that fits Gambit's view.? I hate to break it to you, but words are vague. You can use words in their strictest sense or in a more general sense.
> 
> You've been wasting everyone's time by constantly harping over stupid words. Everyone else knows the ideas being discussed and it is the ideas that are important. Not your stupid constant complaint over the exact words or groups of words. I still remember your ridiculous complaint over my use of the term "airfoil." You wanted to replace the word "airfoil" with a group of ten words or something to that effect.
> 
> You're loony and obsessed with wordplay. We're military aviation enthusiasts in here, not etymologists.
> 
> Gambit, you're in the wrong forum.


You can call it semantics if you like, but if you were in my class way back then, I would have booted you out in the first week of training. You have a flawed understanding of behaviors to start and your subsequent claims took you even further off the true path based upon that flawed understanding. With every challenge from me, people will see that it is *YOU* who have been wasting their time.

By the way, did you find out who wrote that Physical Optics alone is a failure in modeling/predicting complex bodies RCS?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Esc8781 said:


> Look at the f-35, then look at their undersides, the f-35 might look bumpy but it looks like the same configuration as the f-22, I can't remember about the f-35's underside is for a member of f-16.net told me a possible hypothesis but I can't remember. Can anyone tell me what's the f-35 underside if for thank you.


Not sure what you are talking about there, but I will explain the basics of radar signal behaviors to start.






If you take a plate and rotate it, you will get a fluctuation of reflected signals from highest (perpendicular) to lowest (horizontal).






On the other hand, if you take a diameter (sphere or cylinder) and rotate it, you will get a constant level of reflected signal because of that specular reflection.

This is where the Chinese boys have got it wrong. They misunderstood their own sources, especially when those sources were using the retired F-117 as an example for 'stealth'. The F-117 used the angled faceting technique, which are essentially plates in the first illustration. Under radar bombardment, as the aircraft maneuvers, eventually one or more of those angled faceted plates will present itself/themselves as highest (perpendicular) to the seeking radar.

With curvatures, a curvature will induce unique surface wave behaviors that can be exploited for RCS control while giving the aircraft the aerodynamic performance the F-117 with its angled facetings did not have. No matter the angle of incidence (arrival), a curvature will give only one signal of reflection -- that tiny specular.

As the diameter get larger, that creeping wave behavior will disappear. The ratio is wavelength to diameter or as we in the radar community knows and call it the '10-lambda' rule. The Greek letter 'lambda' is representative of wavelength. The '10-lambda' rule states that if the diameter is less than 10 wavelengths, the creeping wave contribution and effect will occur. If diameter is greater than 10 wavelengths, the creeping wave contribution and effect *WILL NOT* occur. This rule is applicable to all wavelengths but somehow the Chinese boys here believe it to be applicable to only the HF/VHF/UHF bands. This is what I call 'Chinese physics'.

The only curvature that is truly detrimental to RCS control is the concave.






So for the B-2, F-22, F-35, PAK, and the J-20, all designs have incorporated a combination of angled facetings and curvatures where aerodynamics allow. Aerodynamic demands trumps all.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Esc8781

gambit said:


> Not sure what you are talking about there, but I will explain the basics of radar signal behaviors to start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you take a plate and rotate it, you will get a fluctuation of reflected signals from highest (perpendicular) to lowest (horizontal).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, if you take a diameter (sphere or cylinder) and rotate it, you will get a constant level of reflected signal because of that specular reflection.
> 
> This is where the Chinese boys have got it wrong. They misunderstood their own sources, especially when those sources were using the retired F-117 as an example for 'stealth'. The F-117 used the angled faceting technique, which are essentially plates in the first illustration. Under radar bombardment, as the aircraft maneuvers, eventually one or more of those angled faceted plates will present itself/themselves as highest (perpendicular) to the seeking radar.
> 
> With curvatures, a curvature will induce unique surface wave behaviors that can be exploited for RCS control while giving the aircraft the aerodynamic performance the F-117 with its angled facetings did not have. No matter the angle of incidence (arrival), a curvature will give only one signal of reflection -- that tiny specular.
> 
> As the diameter get larger, that creeping wave behavior will disappear. The ratio is wavelength to diameter or as we in the radar community knows and call it the '10-lambda' rule. The Greek letter 'lambda' is representative of wavelength. The '10-lambda' rule states that if the diameter is less than 10 wavelengths, the creeping wave contribution and effect will occur. If diameter is greater than 10 wavelengths, the creeping wave contribution and effect *WILL NOT* occur. This rule is applicable to all wavelengths but somehow the Chinese boys here believe it to be applicable to only the HF/VHF/UHF bands. This is what I call 'Chinese physics'.
> 
> The only curvature that is truly detrimental to RCS control is the concave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So for the B-2, F-22, F-35, PAK, and the J-20, all designs have incorporated a combination of angled facetings and curvatures where aerodynamics allow. Aerodynamic demands trumps all.


 Thank you Gambit I have to admit I am a noob at stealth and I need someone to teach me, but explain to me why is the f-35's underside is shaped like that? Thanks for replying .


----------



## gambit

Esc8781 said:


> Thank you Gambit I have to admit I am a noob at stealth and I need someone to teach me, but explain to me why is the f-35's underside is shaped like that? Thanks for replying .


If you are talking about planforming, then even wiki have a reasonably accurate explanation...

Planform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Planforming for RCS control is not the same as for aerodynamics and often the two camps clashes with each other. But planforming is about the overall shape. As to why the F-35's underside looks the way it is, it is the result of many things from aerodynamics to RCS control to maintenance to weapons.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

Here we go again. 

how many times will we have to have this conversation?


----------



## homing28



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> You are using inappropriate words to start. It is not 'round' which mean circular but it is curves or curvatures. The B-2, F-22, F35, and J-20 got plenty of curvatures in designs. If curvatures are detrimental for RCS control, neither the US nor China would be using them. You and your friend have a flawed understanding of behaviors and how to exploit them.


 
Either you are blind or idiot.

J-20, F-22 and F-35 got plenty of curvatures, but barely have round/cylinder shape.
Among 5 gen Fighter, only PAKFA has cylinder/round shape.



Martian2 said:


> *This is a military aviation forum, not "study of words" forum for etymologists.*
> 
> You spend all of your time arguing with people over semantics. Does this word mean precisely the definition that fits Gambit's view.? I hate to break it to you, but words are vague. You can use words in their strictest sense or in a more general sense.
> 
> You've been wasting everyone's time by constantly harping over stupid words. Everyone else knows the ideas being discussed and it is the ideas that are important. Not your stupid constant complaint over the exact words or group of words. I still remember your ridiculous complaint over my use of the term "airfoil." You wanted to replace the word "airfoil" with a group of ten words or something to that effect.
> 
> You're loony and obsessed with wordplay. We're military aviation enthusiasts in here, not etymologists.
> 
> Gambit, you're in the wrong forum. You should try "forum for grammarians" or "octogenarians who love wordplay."


 
In fact, not only he likes playing "Symantec Fallacy", but obviously he is blind or idiot as he cant see any round/cylinder shape on PAKFA and claiming the same shape existant on F-22/J-20/F-35

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

homing28 said:


>



Nice weapon bay flip opened. I hope we can see the main weapon bay open when flying.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> You can call it semantics if you like, but if you were in my class way back then, I would have booted you out in the first week of training. You have a flawed understanding of behaviors to start and your subsequent claims took you even further off the true path based upon that flawed understanding. With every challenge from me, people will see that it is *YOU* who have been wasting their time.
> 
> By the way, did you find out who wrote that Physical Optics alone is a failure in modeling/predicting complex bodies RCS?


 
Empty claim is worthless; self claim is useless, anybody can claim anything in internet.
You need sufficient back up and logic if you want to discuss intelligently.


----------



## antonius123

ptldM3 said:


> Im not comparing either aircraft, you and Martian are. Anyone with even the slightest understanding of how stealth works would understand that comparing two aircraft and pulling numbers out of thin air is futile and amateur. However, you and Martian can continue measuring your small peniss and getting erections by thanking each other and overusing cheesy phrases such as mighty drag-queen.


Shaping is visible, no need specific numbers to suggest that J-20 has better shaping compared to PAKFA in term of stealth.




> Your expert compared the F-35 and J-20 and proclaimed that the F-35 has bumps and humps yet all the while ignoring the J-20s bumps and humps in the form of DSI, under wing protrusions, and curvature aft and forward of the j-20s nozzles.
> 
> Kopp clear has and agenda and he isnt shy about it. And he isnt an expert in stealth, he has no credentials or experience in that field. Sorry to burst your bubble.


You can't accuse him to have lied for the sake of his hidden agenda merely based on your prejudice. You need evidence!

Again, as I said: your inability to accept one statement of Carlo Kopp doesn't prove or suggest the other statement of his must be false. You need solid statement from Credible Expert that saying the opposite to prove/suggest that Carlo Kopp may be wrong in his statement.

I have challenged you to bring the source link that you refer for the above Carlo Copp statement, because - as I said - I was afraid you had miss understood him. Why don't you respond?


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Shaping is visible, no need specific numbers to suggest that J-20 has better shaping compared to PAKFA in term of stealth.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't accuse him to have lied for the sake of his hidden agenda merely based on your prejudice. You need evidence!
> 
> Again, as I said: your inability to accept one statement of Carlo Kopp doesn't prove or suggest the other statement of his must be false. You need solid statement from Credible Expert that saying the opposite to prove/suggest that Carlo Kopp may be wrong in his statement.
> 
> I have challenged you to bring the source link that you refer for the above Carlo Copp statement, because - as I said - I was afraid you had miss understood him. Why don't you respond?



Copp hasn't lied. People like this don't lie. It is up to us to understand what he says. 

The way the J-20 metrics were used, they prove conclusively nothing. To put it simply. It doesn't get anyone convicted or acquited in court.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Either you are blind or idiot.
> 
> J-20, F-22 and F-35 got plenty of curvatures, but barely have round/cylinder shape.
> Among 5 gen Fighter, only PAKFA has cylinder/round shape.
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, not only he likes playing "Symantec Fallacy", but obviously he is blind or idiot as he cant see any round/cylinder shape on PAKFA and claiming the same shape existant on F-22/J-20/F-35


And you have no clue of what you are talking about. The issue is not the diameter as in cylinder or sphere, it is the curvature itself.



amalakas said:


> Here we go again.
> 
> how many times will we have to have this conversation?


He is trying to gain as much 'Thank' as he can. Actual scientific and engineering truths and relevant experience does not matter.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Shaping is visible, no need specific numbers to suggest that J-20 has better shaping compared to PAKFA in term of stealth.


That is really amazing. By that argument, the F-117 should not be able to take off the ground, let alone flew in combat, if we are to go by the ignorance of aerodynamics because based upon looks alone, how do you know if those facets allows the aircraft to fly? Simply put, if you have no knowledge of RCS control methods at all, flawed as it is, thanks to the American 'stealth' aircrafts, you would not be able to make this clearly stupid assertion that no measurements are necessary.

Really amazing...Radar and aviation experts around the world over have been fools all this time. Do let us know when ID have a 'stealth' fighter.



antonius123 said:


> You can't accuse him to have lied for the sake of his hidden agenda merely based on your prejudice. You need evidence!
> 
> Again, as I said: your inability to accept one statement of Carlo Kopp doesn't prove or suggest the other statement of his must be false. You need solid statement from Credible Expert that saying the opposite to prove/suggest that Carlo Kopp may be wrong in his statement.
> 
> I have challenged you to bring the source link that you refer for the above Carlo Copp statement, because - as I said - I was afraid you had miss understood him. Why don't you respond?


Being educated does not immune a person from being a liar. The scientific community have the peer review process to verify any claim. What Kopp did and said demand verification. Kopp have no experience in aviation in general, let alone in avionics in particular, less in radar, and even less in working in low radar observable designs. So yes, Kopp's claims should be suspect.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Esc8781

gambit said:


> If you are talking about planforming, then even wiki have a reasonably accurate explanation...
> 
> Planform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Planforming for RCS control is not the same as for aerodynamics and often the two camps clashes with each other. But planforming is about the overall shape. As to why the F-35's underside looks the way it is, it is the result of many things from aerodynamics to RCS control to maintenance to weapons.


 Sorry Gambit, one more question what does the f-35's Electrohydrostatic actuation does please? Thanks.


----------



## gambit

Esc8781 said:


> Sorry Gambit, one more question what does the f-35's Electrohydrostatic actuation does please? Thanks.


It is an evolution of the electro-hydraulics system in the current fly-by-wire flight control system (FBW-FLCS).

Currently, there is a central source of hydraulic pressure, actually there are two (primary and utility), but for simplicity's sake, we will stay with just one for now. This centralized source supply all the hydraulic actuators. If anything happen to the source, the aircraft is screwed, so to speak. If there is a damage somewhere, loss of *SUSTAINED* pressure can affect the entire hydraulic system leading to degraded flight controls effectiveness in the most crucial times.

What the new system in the F-35 does is to decentralized that 3000 lb/psi source. One reason for that 3000 lb/psi figure is because of the distance the hydraulic fluid has to travel, even in a closed system. What we call 'fly-by-wire' is command/control signals from the FLCS computer to the hydraulic actuator and the actuator respond -- based upon availability of hydraulic pressure from the centralized source. In the new system design, each actuator is responsible for its own hydraulic pressure -- based upon the availability of electrical power.

Avionics Magazine :: Power-By-Wire


> In the new electro-hydrostatic design for the JSF, "We kept the (electrical) control system relatively the same...We have a flight control computer that interfaces with the new actuation system. *We&#8217;ve yanked out the fluid system, and put in a new 270-volt DC electrical power system. We have two channels of power that provide the muscle to each actuator,"* Eicke explains.
> 
> The new electrical system provides power to five dual power electronics units, one for each actuator. The power electronics unit regulates the power to drive dual motor/pumps, *essentially two independent hydraulic systems self-contained in each actuator.* The separate control layer provides the signal to the actuator power electronics to "tell" the actuator which way to go. The dual motor/pumps *convert the DC voltage electrical power into hydraulic power*, allowing the piston on the actuator to move the control surface.
> 
> While the F-16 actuators operate at 3,000 psi, *the new electric actuator operates from 300 to 3,000 psi,* providing power on demand.


So for the F-35, we have the typical fly-by-wire FLCS with its command/control signals working with the new hydraulics design whose many small, discrete, robust, and isolated pumps where each actuator have only one responsibility -- wherever it is.

I doubt the J-20 has this.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> And you have no clue of what you are talking about. The issue is not the diameter as in cylinder or sphere, it is the curvature itself.



I have.
In fact you are demonstrating idiocy if you cannot distinguish "round shape" vs curvature.



> He is trying to gain as much 'Thank' as he can. Actual scientific and engineering truths and relevant experience does not matter.



Again, as I said: "self claiming and empty word are useless, the content and logic of your statement that counts"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> That is really amazing. By that argument, the F-117 should not be able to take off the ground, let alone flew in combat, if we are to go by the ignorance of aerodynamics because based upon looks alone, how do you know if those facets allows the aircraft to fly? Simply put, if you have no knowledge of RCS control methods at all, flawed as it is, thanks to the American 'stealth' aircrafts, you would not be able to make this clearly stupid assertion that no measurements are necessary.
> 
> Really amazing...Radar and aviation experts around the world over have been fools all this time. Do let us know when ID have a 'stealth' fighter.



Your argument is funny as nothing to do with my argument 

Again you are bringing empty claim by saying that the above argument of mine is againts aviation expert opinion.

Even the expert Carlo Kopp himself said that by seeing the shape of J-20 (and PAKFA), he suggest that J-20 will be stealthier than PAKFA 



> Being educated does not immune a person from being a liar. The scientific community have the peer review process to verify any claim. What Kopp did and said demand verification.


Doesn't immune from being a liar doesn't mean that he is automatically a liar or lie in every statement of his. You are playing with "*Logical Fallacy*" here. You need evidence before you accuse someone of being lying, otherwise people will consider you as a slanderer.

And you cannot demand that Copp's statement must be supported by his peer/other expert *UNLESS* you could bring contra-statement from other credible expert. Because if Carlo Copp's statement is a joke, then there must be other experts appear, take this golden opportunity and bet their reputation by confronting Copp openly in journal/magazine/etc, and you should be able to find it and show it here.



> Kopp have no experience in aviation in general,[/B] let alone in avionics in particular, less in radar, and even less in working in low radar observable designs. So yes, Kopp's claims should be suspect.



This is again your empty claim; you should check the truth before you throw any claim.

Look at my reference bellow:

Carlo Kopp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
_Carlo Kopp is a prominent Australian freelance *defence analyst and academic* who has published ~300 articles in trade publications such as *Defence Today, Air International, Journal of Electronic Defense, Jane's Missiles and Rockets, Australian Aviation* and the Asia Pacific Defence Reporter on matters of aerospace technology, stealth, information warfare and Australian defence policy_

How could someone with no experience and credibility as you claim - is admitted as "defence analyst and academic, and could speak / write in so many prominent journal and publication such as Defence Today, Janes, etc without damaging those journal's Reputation/Crebilitity? Please dont make me rolling of the floor laughing 

In fact if your opinion is against his, then you should be considered as inexperienced or having inadequate knowledge, as you have no credibility and reputation against him

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> Copp hasn't lied. People like this don't lie.* It is up to us to understand what he says*.
> 
> The way the J-20 metrics were used, they prove conclusively nothing. To put it simply. It doesn't get anyone convicted or acquited in court.



I am sorry, but your saying as above only reinforces that you and your fellow like delusion instead the truth.


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> I am sorry, but your saying as above only reinforces that you and your fellow like delusion instead the truth.



he is not my friend.
and the only thing it reinforces is that some people have brains, and some not.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> I have.
> In fact you are demonstrating idiocy if you cannot distinguish "round shape" vs curvature.


No. Neither you and your friend have a clue of what you are talking about.







A radar signal does not see the complete diameter. It see only the 'specular' reflection and that reflection is produced by a curvature. As for the creeping wave behavior, it does not occur if the diameter is greater than 10 wavelengths. If the diameter is less than 10 wavelengths, the creeping wave behavior will occur and will wraps around the diameter repeatedly and produces alternately constructive and destructive interference and that give us that undulating signal in the middle section of the graph.

So the true idiot here is *YOU* for intruding into an area you have no experience whatsoever. You cannot even lie good about your past claimed aviation experience.



antonius123 said:


> Again, as I said: "self claiming and empty word are useless, the content and logic of your statement that counts"


Speak for yourself.



antonius123 said:


> Even the expert Carlo Kopp himself said that by seeing the shape of J-20 (and PAKFA), *he suggest* that J-20 will be stealthier than PAKFA
> 
> Doesn't immune from being a liar doesn't mean that he is automatically a liar or lie in every statement of his. You are playing with "*Logical Fallacy*" here. *You need evidence before you accuse someone of being lying*, otherwise people will consider you as a slanderer.


I did not accuse Kopp of lying. I said the APA report is misleading. You can tell a truth and still be deceitful. So whatever Kopp 'suggest' he have no evidence. That is why he only speculate and it is you and your friends who have taken what he said as fact when it is not.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Esc8781

antonius123 said:


> I am sorry, but your saying as above only reinforces that you and your fellow like delusion instead the truth.


 Go on f-16.net and argue with the professionals you won't know a word that they are talking about stealth.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> No. Neither you and your friend have a clue of what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A radar signal does not see the complete diameter. It see only the 'specular' reflection and that reflection is produced by a curvature. A*s for the creeping wave behavior, it does not occur if the diameter is greater than 10 wavelengths*. If the diameter is less than 10 wavelengths, the creeping wave behavior will occur and will wraps around the diameter repeatedly and produces alternately constructive and destructive interference and that give us that undulating signal in the middle section of the graph.
> 
> So the true idiot here is *YOU* for intruding into an area you have no experience whatsoever. You cannot even lie good about your past claimed aviation experience.



You are becoming funnier and funnier.

Nobody talk or argue about creeping wave behavior on cylinder shape, why are you dragging it now? remember you claim that there was no round shape on PAKFA - it was curvature, right? now I challenge your claim as you proclaim your self as aviation and semantic expert 

You are also inconsistent with your own argument, first you are playing with semantic with round shape, then it is obvious you also can not distinguish "round shape" vs curvature as you cannot response the my question/challenge, then now you are dragging creeping wave behavior. Are you able to accept that there is round shape on PAKFA now? 

So hilarious 




> Speak for yourself.


In fact I bring reference to back my relevant argument, while in the other way round you dont! except dragging other irrelevant topic.



> I did not accuse Kopp of lying. I said the APA report is misleading. You can tell a truth and still be deceitful. So whatever Kopp 'suggest' he have no evidence. That is why he only speculate and it is you and your friends who have taken what he said as fact when it is not.


 
In fact it is you who is misleading here.

Nobody said I, Martian, and Kopp know the real truth, as we know all the data of J-20 should be classified.

We are talking about "*analysis*"/suggestion, judging from the shape. The relevant evidence is the visible shape itself.

If you could not accept Kopp suggestion/analysis it means you have no competence / sufficient knowledge here 



amalakas said:


> he is not my friend.
> and the only thing it reinforces is that some people have brains, and some not.


 
Please bring valuable argument; I dont serve cheer leader here



Esc8781 said:


> Go on f-16.net and argue with the professionals you won't know a word that they are talking about stealth.



Why can't I or other people say the same thing about you?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> You are becoming funnier and funnier.
> 
> Nobody talk or argue about creeping wave behavior on cylinder shape, why are you dragging it now? remember you claim that there was no round shape on PAKFA - it was curvature, right? now I challenge your claim as you proclaim your self as aviation and semantic expert
> 
> You are also inconsistent with your own argument, first you are playing with semantic with round shape, then it is obvious you also can not distinguish "round shape" vs curvature as you cannot response the my question/challenge, then now you are dragging creeping wave behavior. Are you able to accept that there is round shape on PAKFA now?
> 
> So hilarious


What is hilarious is still *YOU*.

Did you not tried to shut the Indians up by saying you have aviation experience? Then when asked, you retreated to 'study'. Then when asked which area of 'study' you ran. If you have specific aviation experience in the field of radar detection, you would know *IMMEDIATELY* what I was talking about. You are busted as a fraud a long time ago.



antonius123 said:


> Nobody said I, Martian, and Kopp know the real truth, as we know all the data of J-20 should be classified.
> 
> We are talking about "*analysis*"/suggestion, judging from the shape. The relevant evidence is the visible shape itself.
> 
> If you could not accept Kopp suggestion/analysis it means you have no competence / sufficient knowledge here


And that mean whatever Kopp brought on is candidate for criticism.

So tell me, if you have aviation experience, even of a 'study' which we do not know which area, who said this...






That alone demolished whatever Kopp said.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Esc8781

gambit said:


> What is hilarious is still *YOU*.
> 
> Did you not tried to shut the Indians up by saying you have aviation experience? Then when asked, you retreated to 'study'. Then when asked which area of 'study' you ran. If you have specific aviation experience in the field of radar detection, you would know *IMMEDIATELY* what I was talking about. You are busted as a fraud a long time ago.
> 
> 
> And that mean whatever Kopp brought on is candidate for criticism.
> 
> So tell me, if you have aviation experience, even of a 'study' which we do not know which area, who said this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That alone demolished whatever Kopp said.


 Just ignore him.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> So tell me, if you have aviation experience, even of a 'study' which we do not know which area, who said this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That alone demolished whatever Kopp said.



Fat chance there. 





antonius123 said:


> You are becoming funnier and funnier...........



Strange this coming from you. 

right, mr aviation experience. what is the following equation and what do we use it for? 






I am sure you will take your time to tell us. 

now Kopp does what he does and it is up to you do understand. 

PO have severe limitations 

-it obtains only reflection from surfaces, but not diffraction at wedges
-it fails for wide non specular angles
-it has no dependance on polarization 
-it results false shadow boundary contributions because of the artificial boundary between illuminated and shadow regions.


don't take my word for it, go read "Radar Cross Section", E.F. Knot et al., Artech House, Inc. 1985.. 

it is an essential reading for those who really have something to do with the field.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> What is hilarious is still *YOU*.
> 
> Did you not tried to shut the Indians up by saying you have aviation experience? Then when asked, you retreated to 'study'. Then when asked which area of 'study' you ran. If you have specific aviation experience in the field of radar detection, you would know *IMMEDIATELY* what I was talking about. You are busted as a fraud a long time ago.



Why are you dragging another irrelevant debate? are you trying to escape from the topic that embarrass you? My study has nothing to do with this debate. If you claim your study makes you an expert, then why none of the real credible experts agree with your opinion?

You haven't answer my challenge againts your claims.




> And that mean whatever Kopp brought on is candidate for criticism.
> 
> So tell me, if you have aviation experience, even of a 'study' which we do not know which area, who said this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That alone demolished whatever Kopp said.



Tell me why you think that demolish Kopp argument?

You have no credibility to challenge Kopp. Hi is admitted as expert by prominent institutions - while you are only an internet troller who is trying to impress your clueless fellows by dragging arbitrary article in internet 

We have seen your incompetency in various threats especially this one; including your bad habit in escaping and run away from the topic by bringing irrelevant issue.

Instead trolling and dragging another topic in order to escape or impress your fellow, why don't you finish your effort in explaining about why you think round shape is = curvature? that is very fundamental and one of good explanation why Kopp suggest PAKFA is less stealthy than J-20.

Also there are many article in internet explaining why exposed fan blade (one of the PAKFA's feature) should be much detrimental to rcs. You should understand that basic first before challenge Kopp.



amalakas said:


> Fat chance there.
> 
> 
> Strange this coming from you.
> 
> right, mr aviation experience. what is the following equation and what do we use it for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you will take your time to tell us.
> 
> now Kopp does what he does and it is up to you do understand.
> 
> PO have severe limitations
> 
> -it obtains only reflection from surfaces, but not diffraction at wedges
> -it fails for wide non specular angles
> -it has no dependance on polarization
> -it results false shadow boundary contributions because of the artificial boundary between illuminated and shadow regions.
> 
> 
> don't take my word for it, go read "Radar Cross Section", E.F. Knot et al., Artech House, Inc. 1985..
> 
> it is an essential reading for those who really have something to do with the field.



Tell me why you think that will demolish Kopp suggestion? and who is the expert that use that issue to criticize Kopp statement?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## antonius123

Esc8781 said:


> Just ignore him.



OK cheer leader...

Your master has failed in his effort to escape my challenge by dragging "Creeping Wave Behavior" issue, and after that failure now he is trying to drag other issues: "my study" and "Keller Geometrical Theory". But you forget or ignore the fact that your master is still unable to answer my challenge and defend his claim about "round shape = curvature" LOL

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Esc8781

antonius123 said:


> OK cheer leader...
> 
> Your master has failed in his effort to escape my challenge by dragging "Creeping Wave Behavior" issue, and after that failure now he is trying to drag other issues: "my study" and "Keller Geometrical Theory". But you forget or ignore the fact that your master is still unable to answer my challenge and defend his claim about "round shape = curvature" LOL


 OK you win whateves. I don't care anymore, plus why don't you ignore him too, problem solved.


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Why are you dragging another irrelevant debate? are you trying to escape from the topic that embarrass you? My study has nothing to do with this debate. If you claim your study makes you an expert, then why none of the real credible experts agree with your opinion?
> 
> You haven't answer my challenge againts your claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me why you think that demolish Kopp argument?
> 
> You have no credibility to challenge Kopp. Hi is admitted as expert by prominent institutions - while you are only an internet troller who is trying to impress your clueless fellows by dragging arbitrary article in internet
> 
> We have seen your incompetency in various threats especially this one; including your bad habit in escaping and run away from the topic by bringing irrelevant issue.
> 
> Instead trolling and dragging another topic in order to escape or impress your fellow, why don't you finish your effort in explaining about why you think round shape is = curvature? that is very fundamental and one of good explanation why Kopp suggest PAKFA is less stealthy than J-20.
> 
> Also there are many article in internet explaining why exposed fan blade (one of the PAKFA's feature) should be much detrimental to rcs. You should understand that basic first before challenge Kopp.
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me why you think that will demolish Kopp suggestion? and who is the expert that use that issue to criticize Kopp statement?



what does that even mean? Do you even read what we post?


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> what does that even mean? Do you even read what we post?



Do read my post and you follow the debate?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Do read my post and you follow the debate?



oh I remember you now, you are the one who likes to play with words and never really answers to anything.


----------



## GR!FF!N

amalakas said:


> oh I remember you now, you are the one who likes to play with words and never really answers to anything.



he didn't post a single scientific proof...he is just playing with you guys..ignore him..


----------



## Esc8781

GR!FF!N said:


> he didn't post a single scientific proof...he is just playing with you guys..ignore him..


 Exactly, man I realized that hours ago! he should see http://www.helitavia.com/skolnik/Skolnik_chapter_11.pdf


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> oh I remember you now, you are the one who likes to play with words and never really answers to anything.


 
That are you and your friends.

Btw where is your answer to my questions: "Tell me why you think that will demolish Kopp suggestion? and who is the expert that use that issue to criticize Kopp statement?"

I haven't see your quality except your skill in cheer leeding

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## antonius123

GR!FF!N said:


> he didn't post a single scientific proof...he is just playing with you guys..ignore him..



What kind of scientific proof do you want?? I post a lot in another J-20 threat when debating with gambit, ptldm, and your indians fellows. Debate in this threat is only repetition.

But if you want me to re-post the scientific proof why and how round shape, exposed fan blade, and corner reflector will be much detrimental to RCS, i will do that.



Esc8781 said:


> Exactly, man I realized that hours ago! he should see http://www.helitavia.com/skolnik/Skolnik_chapter_11.pdf


 
You have the same mentality with your master/gambit, in dragging article without ability to explain and know the connection/relation with the current topic being debated.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Arsalan

Bilal587 said:


> Stealth Stealth Stealth
> 
> When this beast fully operational ???
> and
> Does PAF keens to buy these beasts and does China will allow this to export ???



it is reported that Pakistan is interested in a lighter stealth fighter, the J2X project. 
http://www.defence.pk/forums/chinese-defence/108436-possible-single-engine-j-2x-concept-diagram.html
http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...ext-generation-fighter-program-confirmed.html
not much is known about it as yet but we all know the Chinese and even PAF habit of giving surprises.

regards!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GR!FF!N

antonius123 said:


> *What kind of scientific proof do you want?? I post a lot in another J-20 threat when debating with gambit, ptldm, and your indians fellows. Debate in this threat is only repetition.
> 
> But if you want me to re-post the scientific proof why and how round shape, exposed fan blade, and corner reflector will be much detrimental to RCS, i will do that.*
> 
> 
> 
> You have the same mentality with your master/gambit, in dragging article without ability to explain and know the connection/relation with the current topic being debated.



are you retard or something????you are debating last 5 pages and only one thing we wanted is scientific info on J-20..and you were twisting words..post info in this thread man..and don't bring kopp for another time..post graph,pic or description..but not kopp..please...


----------



## antonius123

GR!FF!N said:


> are you retard or something????you are debating last 5 pages and only one thing we wanted is scientific info on J-20..and you were twisting words..post info in this thread man..and don't bring kopp for another time..post graph,pic or description..but not kopp..please...


 
*When did you ask scientific proof to me during the last 5 pages?
And where is your scientific proof you bring during debate with me?*

Now I understand why someone in this forum ever said that your and your fellow's IQ should be aroun 80

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## sms

^^ does that statement make your baseless claims credible. Get some backup data not just statements by any Tom Dick Harry


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> That are you and your friends.
> 
> Btw where is your answer to my questions: "Tell me why you think that will demolish Kopp suggestion? and who is the expert that use that issue to criticize Kopp statement?"
> 
> I haven't see your quality except your skill in cheer leeding




How that will demolish Kopp's argument? 

The devil is in the details and what you fail to understand over and over again is that we have asked and posted things that people who know understand. You bring up Kopp. Some of us bring up little things (an equation, a schematic etc) that remind people the scientific foundation of Kopp's thesis. 

You understand none of that. You want words so you can play with them. * if you understood what the equation was for example, you would be able to understand all the rest* but you don't !

we even give you references some times .. go and read the books. This is not a game, not because we take it seriously but because one cannot baby feed someone for ever.


----------



## GR!FF!N

antonius123 said:


> *When did you ask scientific proof to me during the last 5 pages?
> And where is your scientific proof you bring during debate with me?*
> 
> Now I understand why someone in this forum ever said that your and your fellow's IQ should be aroun 80



now clearly either you are super retard or false flag chinese...

go to post #60 and read my reply against your post..retard..looks like your IQ runs in minus...]

and already a lot of explanation amalaks and other two american guys gave you..read before making noob comments..


@topic...

post something relevant guys..no more word twisting game..


----------



## antonius123

sms said:


> ^^ does that statement make your baseless claims credible. Get some backup data not just statements by any Tom Dick Harry



About which one?

Why dont you tell me which one you request the back up data??

And where is the back up data or scientific proof of your fellow's claim: that round shape = curvature? 

Is this the way you guys discuss? just demand without brain?


----------



## pla

On the J_20, I know some insider.

Because of engine problems, some parts are temporary.

4 J20are not the same, until mass production, to finalize the design

J-20's canard RCS has almost no effect, when not in use
J-20's canard will only during takeoff, and attacks to use

F15se just for export products

It lost the F15payload


----------



## shree835

Bilal587 said:


> Stealth Stealth Stealth
> 
> When this beast fully operational ???
> and
> Does PAF keens to buy these beasts and does China will allow this to export ???


 
First of all Chinese will make money by selling J10 and all other variant to Pakistanand last they will sell J-20For Chinese Pakistan is major customer for all china maal.They are not directly going to give Pakistan J-20.


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> How that will demolish Kopp's argument?
> 
> The devil is in the details and what you fail to understand over and over again is that we have asked and posted things that people who know understand. You bring up Kopp. Some of us bring up little things (an equation, a schematic etc) that remind people the scientific foundation of Kopp's thesis.
> 
> You understand none of that. You want words so you can play with them. * if you understood what the equation was for example, you would be able to understand all the rest* but you don't !
> 
> we even give you references some times .. go and read the books. This is not a game, not because we take it seriously but because one cannot baby feed someone for ever.



It is your obligation to tell me why that equation demolish Kopp's argument as I dont see it yet.

It is you who drag that equation, why you demand other to understand where it contradict Kopp while you cant??

You are still demonstrating low level IQ and cheer leading quality as your indian fellow here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## shree835

Martian2 said:


> I thought I put an end to the silly idea that the Pak-Fa was comparable to the J-20 Mighty Dragon stealth fighter? Does anybody bother to read my posts and look carefully at my labeled diagrams?
> 
> *Su-30 is not stealthy. Therefore T-50/Pak-Fa is not stealthy.*
> 
> Everyone agrees the Su-30 is not stealthy. In the following picture, I have identified 10 important non-stealth features of the Su-30. Interestingly, the T-50/Pak-Fa has the exact same 10 non-stealth features.
> 
> It seems to me there are only two logical choices. Either you agree with me that the T-50/Pak-Fa is not stealthy. Or you can make the incredible claim that both the T-50 and Su-30 are stealthy. I leave the choice to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Su-30 is not stealthy. Here are 10 non-stealth features.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In an interesting coincidence, the T-50/Pak-Fa shares all ten Su-30 non-stealth features.


 
One Simple question Do you believe that Designer of the fighter plane is less knowledgeable then you??


----------



## antonius123

shree835 said:


> One Simple question &#8230;Do you believe that Designer of the fighter plane is less knowledgeable then you&#8230;??




This is not about the knowledge of stealth principle, but also know how, capability in design stealth a/c and also r&d.

Your engineers has knowledge about stealth, but doesn't mean they could design an advanced stealth fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> It is your obligation to tell me why that equation demolish Kopp's argument as I dont see it yet.
> 
> It is you who drag that equation, why you demand other to understand where it contradict Kopp while you cant??
> 
> You are still demonstrating low level IQ and cheer leading quality as your indian fellow here.



I have seen drunken monkeys more coherent than you! 

Most of the time you don't even know what you are on about. 

In my post with the equation I listed 4 drawbacks of PO. You missed that completely because you don't understand! 

now let's make it even easier for you. 

Kopp employs PO to gauge RCS

PO for RCS is not ideal .

it is not ideal for example because of the drawbacks I listed. 

since not ideal, Kopp's thesis has a self contained value. Not a real world value. 

if you understood the equation (as you should because you have experience as you said) you would understand the previous..

QED


----------



## Chinese Century

Ignore gambit, the guy is a copy and paste.
The guy is a Vietnamese living in a basement.
The guy has zero knowledge. 
Anyone can copy and paste.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

Martian2 said:


> I want to prove 3 points to all of you.
> 
> 1. Metal reflects radar. All of you know this. Exposed metal engine pods on the Su-30 reflect radar and hence, it is not stealthy. You can see the same exposed metal engine pods on the T-50/Pak-Fa. Hence, the T-50/Pak-Fa is not stealthy.


My dear martian 
Time & again u have proven to the world that ur stupidity is unrivalled in this planet.
1st of all tell me does russians has a proper engine developed for their PAK FA till now .It is still in developemnt & in testing stage.Why do u think they would test a flat nozzle & nacelles for a protytype which has a derivative of SU 35 engine.




Martian2 said:


> 2. Metal-framed canopy on both the Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa reflects radar. Hence, Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa are clearly not stealthy.


sorry martian for ur kind information russians have disclosed that PAKFA canopy is going to have anti radiation coating which means it
is going to have some stealth advantage even if it is metal framed
The protective coating against radiation for the combat aircraft canopy has been developed in Russia - News - Russian Aviation - RUAVIATION.COM



Martian2 said:


> 3. Both Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa have straight inlets. If necessary, I can post the pictures to prove the T-50/Pak-Fa does not have a S-duct. All of you know that single-crystal metal engine fan blades lie inside the airduct. Therefore, the Su-30 and T-50 are not stealthy at all.


dude plz check this pics which i posted & everyone see ur urselfs appreciate the difference between SU 30 & pakfa air intake
*COMPARISION OF SU 30 MKI AIR INTAKES & PAKFA AIR INTAKE *

*1) SU 30 MKI AIR INTAKE:*





one can clearly see the entire circumferance of Engine compressor face & it has no radar blockers 

*2) PAKFA AIR INTAKE:*




now see the pakfa air intake only 1/3rd of engine compressor face is visible 
ofcourse when it has final model engine installed it would have radar blockers .



Martian2 said:


> I've proven 3 out of the 10 critical design flaws on the list. I can prove the other seven if you insist.


instead of proving any thing why dont u wait for final production model
DO U THINK WE INDIANS ARE FOOLS SPENDING DOLLARS TO HAVE A STEALTH PLANE WITH .5 SQ METRE RCS


----------



## DrSomnath999

Chinese Century said:


> Ignore gambit, the guy is a copy and paste.
> The guy is a Vietnamese living in a basement.
> The guy has zero knowledge.
> Anyone can copy and paste.


but he doesnt copy & paste as he is not chinese but vietanamese


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> oh I remember you now, you are the one who likes to play with words and never really answers to anything.


Correct. He posits things that are not true then demands we disprove him. That is how losers who know they are losers 'debate'. Let him go and stew in his own ignorance and foolishness.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> I have seen drunken monkeys more coherent than you!
> 
> Most of the time you don't even know what you are on about.
> 
> In my post with the equation I listed 4 drawbacks of PO. You missed that completely because you don't understand!
> 
> now let's make it even easier for you.



If you say that I dont understand, then why dont you try to make us understand by explaining comprehensively - just like me and Martian did when we explained the drawback of PAKFA in term of stealth shaping? This is your obligation as you drag this statement into the debate.

Now consider that we are clueless as you claim, then please explain where is the connection with your equation and that limitation with Kopp suggestion regarding J-20 stealth vs pakfa stealth?

Also we need citation to support your claim.

You cant drag any theory or equation without ability to explain the relevance with the topic debated then accuse your counter party has no knowledge. Even uneducated person can do the same dragging any theory/article from internet without ability to explain the relationship 




> *Kopp employs PO to gauge RCS*
> 
> PO for RCS is not ideal .
> 
> it is not ideal for example because of the drawbacks I listed.
> 
> since not ideal, Kopp's thesis has a self contained value. Not a real world value.
> 
> if you understood the equation (as you should because you have experience as you said) you would understand the previous..
> 
> QED


 
That is an accusation. I need evidence from you to prove Kopp really employs that equation as his main reason in his sugestion about J-20 stealthier than Pakfa. Please answer, dont run away.

Kopp doesnt need to employ that equation in his suggestion; I and martian has shown you why J-20 indeed should be stealthier than PAKFA judging from the shape, but ignorant persons like you and martian always ignore these, instead dragging other issue/theory without ability to explain comprehensively

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Esc8781

antonius123 said:


> What kind of scientific proof do you want?? I post a lot in another J-20 threat when debating with gambit, ptldm, and your indians fellows. Debate in this threat is only repetition.
> 
> But if you want me to re-post the scientific proof why and how round shape, exposed fan blade, and corner reflector will be much detrimental to RCS, i will do that.
> 
> 
> 
> You have the same mentality with your master/gambit, in dragging article without ability to explain and know the connection/relation with the current topic being debated.


 Excuse me, but the link is on topic, my good sir.



Chinese Century said:


> Ignore gambit, the guy is a copy and paste.
> The guy is a Vietnamese living in a basement.
> The guy has zero knowledge.
> Anyone can copy and paste.


 I heard he was a engine maintenance guy, what's your occupation?



antonius123 said:


> What kind of scientific proof do you want?? I post a lot in another J-20 threat when debating with gambit, ptldm, and your indians fellows. Debate in this threat is only repetition.
> 
> But if you want me to re-post the scientific proof why and how round shape, exposed fan blade, and corner reflector will be much detrimental to RCS, i will do that.
> 
> 
> 
> You have the same mentality with your master/gambit, in dragging article without ability to explain and know the connection/relation with the current topic being debated.


 Anyways you were cheer leading Martian2, and you seems to get off topic first.



antonius123 said:


> If you say that I dont understand, then why dont you try to make us understand by explaining comprehensively - just like me and Martian did when we explained the drawback of PAKFA in term of stealth shaping? This is your obligation as you drag this statement into the debate.
> 
> Now consider that we are clueless as you claim, then please explain where is the connection with your equation and that limitation with Kopp suggestion regarding J-20 stealth vs pakfa stealth?
> 
> Also we need citation to support your claim.
> 
> You cant drag any theory or equation without ability to explain the relevance with the topic debated then accuse your counter party has no knowledge. Even uneducated person can do the same dragging any theory/article from internet without ability to explain the relationship
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is an accusation. I need evidence from you to prove Kopp really employs that equation as his main reason in his sugestion about J-20 stealthier than Pakfa. Please answer, dont run away.
> 
> Kopp doesnt need to employ that equation in his suggestion; I and martian has shown you why J-20 indeed should be stealthier than PAKFA judging from the shape, but ignorant persons like you and martian always ignore these, instead dragging other issue/theory without ability to explain comprehensively


 You really nee to see this. http://www.helitavia.com/skolnik/Skolnik_chapter_11.pdf


----------



## antonius123

GR!FF!N said:


> now clearly either you are super retard or false flag chinese...
> 
> go to post #60 and read my reply against your post..retard..looks like your IQ runs in minus...]
> 
> and already a lot of explanation amalaks and other two american guys gave you..read before making noob comments..
> 
> 
> @topic...
> 
> post something relevant guys..no more word twisting game..



Look again your own post #60 bellow:



GR!FF!N said:


> martian2...you posted the same image 4th time..i can post many links which says China doesn't even have capability to build a 5th gen aircraft..does that suits this thread well???posting from picture sharing site is not a proof..share something logical(if you have any).
> 
> 
> 
> give a rest to the carlo kopp..what he thought he says..he maybe drunk or idiot or both..his words is not ultimate truth..post figures and scientific explanation..and credible links to prove it..no more carlo kopp..please..and don't post pics from file sharing site..any idiot can upload a photo like that.



You did not ask any scientific proof there nor brought any single scientific proof to support your and your fellow's claim; instead you were hysterically accusing Kopp, me and martian without any evidence. Is this what you say as a genius debate 



Esc8781 said:


> Excuse me, but the link is on topic, my good sir.
> 
> Anyways you were cheer leading Martian2, and you seems to get off topic first.
> 
> You really nee to see this. http://www.helitavia.com/skolnik/Skolnik_chapter_11.pdf


 
Your opinion and explanation that counts, not the article alone. 
The article may not contradict my and martian explanation, but your wrong perception and miss understanding on the article does..

Like I said above - idiot and uneducated person can drag link even copy paste article... but for sure he can't explain any thing

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Esc8781

antonius123 said:


> Look again your own post #60 bellow:
> 
> 
> 
> You did not ask any scientific proof there nor brought any single scientific proof to support your and your fellow's claim; instead you were hysterically accusing Kopp, me and martian without any evidence. Is this what you say as a genius debate
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion and explanation that counts, not the article alone.
> The article may not contradict my and martian explanation, but your wrong perception and miss understanding on the article does..
> 
> Like I said above - idiot and uneducated person can drag link even copy paste article... but for sure he can't explain any thing


 Cause I don't feel like explaining anything to you, just read it like I did, just read.


----------



## GR!FF!N

antonius123 said:


> You did not ask any scientific proof there nor brought any single scientific proof to support your and your fellow's claim; instead you were hysterically accusing Kopp, me and martian without any evidence. Is this what you say as a genius debate



are you blind or too dumb to read or you are totally retard????and this is not debate competition..its discussion on weapon's tech..dumbness at best..




> give a rest to the carlo kopp..what he thought he says..he maybe drunk or idiot or both..his words is not ultimate truth..*post figures and scientific explanation..and credible links to prove it..*no more carlo kopp..please..and don't post pics from file sharing site..any idiot can upload a photo like that.



hope you can see now..even a blind can see that i wanted you to post something related to science other than "Kopp" and blank words....now post something related to J-20 if you have or don't waste others time..


----------



## antonius123

GR!FF!N said:


> are you blind or too dumb to read or you are totally retard????and this is not debate competition..its discussion on weapon's tech..dumbness at best..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hope you can see now..even a blind can see that i wanted you to post something related to science other than "Kopp" and blank words....now post something related to J-20 if you have or don't waste others time..



If you think you are debating weapon tech intelligently, *Why do you ignore the abundance of scientific explanation and the credible link from Martian*? refusing blindly and bring no scientific explanation/evidence of yourself? Martian's scientific explanation has represent mine. 

With your hysterical and baseless response, you can't claim you are discussing cleverly, but dumbly instead.

I am surprised if you are clueless about why round shape and corner reflector is detrimental to rcs. I've told you I have given the scientific explanation in another J-20 threat; and like i said many times as debate in this threat is repetition i dont want to bother to repost the evidence/explanation here.

This is some of them:
*Round Shape detrimental to rcs*




in here:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...eady-doing-whole-lot-more-41.html#post2751344





in here:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...-fighter-already-doing-whole-lot-more-44.html


*Corner Reflector detrimental to RCS*




in here:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...-fighter-already-doing-whole-lot-more-32.html

Find my explanation there by yourself.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Esc8781

antonius123 said:


> If you think you are debating weapon tech intelligently, *Why do you ignore the abundance of scientific explanation and the credible link from Martian*? refusing blindly and bring no scientific explanation/evidence of yourself? Martian's scientific explanation has represent mine.
> 
> With your hysterical and baseless response, you can't claim you are discussing cleverly, but dumbly instead.
> 
> I am surprised if you are clueless about why round shape and corner reflector is detrimental to rcs. I've told you I have given the scientific explanation in another J-20 threat; and like i said many times as debate in this threat is repetition i dont want to bother to repost the evidence/explanation here.
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...eady-doing-whole-lot-more-41.html#post2751344
> 
> This is one of them:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Find my explanation there by yourself.


 I got a better one http://www.theradarreflectorsite.org/WebManuscript/CHAPTER%206.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## eachus

hi guys, here is the deal. 
When fighters are similar config with stealthy front RCS then they can survive from first round of attack. T50 with so much 3th G designs on the front view, it has no way to survive within 50KM against either F22 or J20.

dont waste time to study the sides and rear. There is already one 3rd party article draw a fair conclusion.

J20, F22, F35 and T50 -- A SWOT Analysis


Until the maturity of engines, there are more important things for the J-20 to do than to start a "mine's bigger than yours" contest with the F-22. US airbases located within the first island chain(S korea,Japan) are within striking distance of most conventional missiles of PLA second artillery corps. The only viable option is to use the second island chain(Guam,Mariannas,Palau) as launching pads for the F-22s. However, the short range of F-22 proved a fatal flaw in this respect and reliance on mid-air re-fueling make them sitting ducks for the J-20. As such,instead of going one-on-one with the F-22, the J-20's primary mission is to take out high value air assets(re-fueling tankers and AWACs) and to deny access to the combat zone by US carrier battle groups, since the F/A-18 and F-35C are no match for the J-20. The J-20, in addition to hunter subs and anti-ship ballistic missiles(DF-21), will force US CBGs to operate too far out to be effective in the combat zone.J-20's stealth design has similar features with the F-22's, with better structural details than either the F-35 or T-50. Lockheed Martin has discounted certain stealth features from the F-35 due to its smaller airframe (to accomodate into helicopter/aircraft carriers). To squeeze in a high-powered engine, internal weapons bay, avionics cooling system and 8-tonnes fuel, there are quite a few bulges in the F-35's airframe which reminds one of a pregnant whale, spoiling an otherwise smooth underbelly design, and adversely affecting its lower body RCS.The stealthy jagged edge aft section of the F-35 is designed to be invisible to the X-band emission of fire control radars, but would light up by S-band, L-band and UHF-band radar.In order to succeed in a mission to take out AWACs or SAM sites, the F-35 must possess an engine similar to F-22'/YF-23's stealthy rectangular cross-section nozzle., which works best to enhance rear aspect stealth and confuse lower-band radars. However, the JSF program managers decided to abandon the rectangular-cross section for the F-35 due to cost considerations


----------



## amalakas

eachus said:


> hi guys, here is the deal.
> When fighters are similar config with stealthy front RCS then they can survive from first round of attack. T50 with so much 3th G designs on the front view, it has no way to survive within 50KM against either F22 or J20.
> 
> dont waste time to study the sides and rear. There is already one 3rd party article draw a fair conclusion.
> 
> J20, F22, F35 and T50 -- A SWOT Analysis
> 
> 
> Until the maturity of engines, there are more important things for the J-20 to do than to start a "mine's bigger than yours" contest with the F-22. US airbases located within the first island chain(S korea,Japan) are within striking distance of most conventional missiles of PLA second artillery corps. The only viable option is to use the second island chain(Guam,Mariannas,Palau) as launching pads for the F-22s. However, the short range of F-22 proved a fatal flaw in this respect and reliance on mid-air re-fueling make them sitting ducks for the J-20. As such,instead of going one-on-one with the F-22, the J-20's primary mission is to take out high value air assets(re-fueling tankers and AWACs) and to deny access to the combat zone by US carrier battle groups, since the F/A-18 and F-35C are no match for the J-20. The J-20, in addition to hunter subs and anti-ship ballistic missiles(DF-21), will force US CBGs to operate too far out to be effective in the combat zone.J-20's stealth design has similar features with the F-22's, with better structural details than either the F-35 or T-50. Lockheed Martin has discounted certain stealth features from the F-35 due to its smaller airframe (to accomodate into helicopter/aircraft carriers). To squeeze in a high-powered engine, internal weapons bay, avionics cooling system and 8-tonnes fuel, there are quite a few bulges in the F-35's airframe which reminds one of a pregnant whale, spoiling an otherwise smooth underbelly design, and adversely affecting its lower body RCS.The stealthy jagged edge aft section of the F-35 is designed to be invisible to the X-band emission of fire control radars, but would light up by S-band, L-band and UHF-band radar.In order to succeed in a mission to take out AWACs or SAM sites, the F-35 must possess an engine similar to F-22'/YF-23's stealthy rectangular cross-section nozzle., which works best to enhance rear aspect stealth and confuse lower-band radars. However, the JSF program managers decided to abandon the rectangular-cross section for the F-35 due to cost considerations




oh my!.....................


----------



## eachus

J20, F22, F35 and T50 -- A SWOT Analysis

type in this "J20, F22, F35 and T50 -- A SWOT Analysis" in google, search it you will get full article.
I could post only 1/5 of the article, have fun.


In most articles, the west does not like to compare T50 vs F22,
either no fun or not worth to compare, too obviously are different animals.


----------



## Esc8781

eachus said:


> J20, F22, F35 and T50 -- A SWOT Analysis
> 
> type in this "J20, F22, F35 and T50 -- A SWOT Analysis" in google, search it you will get full article.
> I could post only 1/5 of the article, have fun.


 Nice article, but they are underestimating the f-35 it dog fighting capabilities are not on par with the j-20( it might be), but it's avionics will make up for it.


----------



## eachus

I tried to post the full article many times, new member has too much restriction, no link and limited quota.
can somebody help to post it. it is a nice read. 

F35 is not a front line air-superior fighter. it was designed to follow F22 in distance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Esc8781

eachus said:


> I tried to post the full article many times, new member has too much restriction, no link and limited quota.
> can somebody help to post it. it is a nice read.
> 
> F35 is not a front line air-superior fighter. it was designed to follow F22 in distance.


 I think antonius123 can help you man he is on the fourm right now I know the f-35 isn't an air superiority fighter, but they are underestimating it, ps I new here too.

Found another link Radar Cross-Section Physics - Microwave Encyclopedia - Microwaves101.com on rcs and radar absorbing structurs.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Esc8781

eachus said:


> I tried to post the full article many times, new member has too much restriction, no link and limited quota.
> can somebody help to post it. it is a nice read.
> 
> F35 is not a front line air-superior fighter. it was designed to follow F22 in distance.


 Let me thank you


----------



## eachus

something is very interesting, at the introduction of T50 and J20, US had different comments



&#8220;I didn&#8217;t see anything &#8230; that would cause me to rethink plans for the F-
22 or F-35,&#8221; Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told reporters Feb. 18 at
the Air Force Association&#8217;s winter conference, held in Orlando, Fla.

The Air Force ordered the last of its 187 F-22s in 2009. Russia has not had
a new fighter in nearly 20 years; the Indian air force is also sponsoring
development of a version of the T-50.
&#8220;It looks like a plane we&#8217;ve seen before,&#8221; Gen. Roger Brady, the air boss
for NATO and commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe, said at the conference.

Gen. Gary North, commander of Pacific Air Forces, made clear his impression
of the fighter: &#8220;I guess the greatest flattery is how much they copy you.&#8221;

---------------

China is farther along in its development of a new stealth fighter jet than
the U.S. had predicted, and that plane and other Chinese military advances
are worrisome, U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates said Saturday.

"They clearly have potential to put some of our capabilities at risk," Gates
said en route to military talks with Chinese leaders. "We have to pay
attention to them, we have to respond appropriately with our own programs."

The United States has long known that China wanted to field a stealth jet,
but development outpaced U.S. intelligence estimates, Gates said.



=================
did you notice that, 
Americans are humor and speaking artistic.

&#8220;It(T50) looks like a plane we&#8217;ve seen before,&#8221; Gen. Roger Brady, the air boss for NATO


in our words is "10 facts, If Su30 is not stealthy, T50 is not neither." hehe,,, even they meant the same.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rcrmj

DrSomnath999 said:


> but he doesnt copy & paste as he is not chinese but vietanamese


 
lol``like he will give you a 'thank' for kissing his ar$e, just cant get rid-off your people's mentality dont you?


----------



## DrSomnath999

rcrmj said:


> lol``like he will give you a 'thank' for kissing his ar$e, just cant get rid-off your people's mentality dont you?


lolllz
no he gives a fart to those thanks which i rememberd he gave u when u thanked him once in some other thread.

Besides it is ridiculous,as this sentense is coming from a person who is himself a b@TT licker of a so called self proclaimed chinese stealth specialist

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## eachus

copy is not a bad word, it is not underlooking at you. 
after WW2, Russian and Americans were rush into German to ship their tech home.
both spent a lots of effort to understand jet engine and nuke bomb. 
take them many years to copy Germany tech. 

today, China with a GDP per capital only 1/10 of the west, 
can copy what they made, sometimes you can find the copied products are improved.
you should proud of them.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> oh my!.....................


That is correct.  The entire so called 'analysis' is filled with extreme hubris for the J-20 and the usual technical suspects that have been debunked here over and over and over and over and over...

But the three best lines have nothing to do with aviation...



> Additionally, the US had been fighting guerrillas for too long and its capability to wage conventional wars had declined.


Whoever wrote that tripe obviously have never experience Red Flag, REFORGER, tank training in Ft. Irwin, and many more, including Desert Storm. The author is clearly confused between capability and ability.



> The supposed experience the US military had gained is nothing to be envious about;...


The PLA's leadership would love to have even half of the US military experience.

Now here is the best...



> ...they have already forgotten how to fight with an opponent on par with themselves.


By what metrics did the author based this upon? Since the turn and start of the 20th century, the only military peer the US had, including WW II, was the nuclear powered Soviets and both sides never directly fought. Isoroku Yamamoto of Imperial Japan knew his country lost the day he attacked Pearl Harbor. The Soviets backed down in the Cuban Missile Crisis and stayed out Viet Nam while US troops actively fought in the region. So by what metrics did the author used to gauge that the US fought against a peer and lost said institutional memory?

This also begs the question of when did China fought against a peer, let alone a military that have extensive global presence and experience that the author derided. Answer: Not.

So if the PLAAF never fought against an opponent that set the standards on 'stealth', air combat tactics, training, organization, low level penetration, radar network avoidance, precision bombing, strategic and tactical reconnaissance, adversarial role playing, foreign technology exploitation, and many other areas, what make this author so confident that the J-20 alone have turned the table?


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> That is correct.  The entire so called 'analysis' is filled with extreme hubris for the J-20 and the usual technical suspects that have been debunked here over and over and over and over and over...
> 
> But the three best lines have nothing to do with aviation...
> 
> 
> Whoever wrote that tripe obviously have never experience Red Flag, REFORGER, tank training in Ft. Irwin, and many more, including Desert Storm. The author is clearly confused between capability and ability.
> 
> 
> The PLA's leadership would love to have even half of the US military experience.
> 
> Now here is the best...
> 
> 
> By what metrics did the author based this upon? Since the turn and start of the 20th century, the only military peer the US had, including WW II, was the nuclear powered Soviets and both sides never directly fought. Isoroku Yamamoto of Imperial Japan knew his country lost the day he attacked Pearl Harbor. The Soviets backed down in the Cuban Missile Crisis and stayed out Viet Nam while US troops actively fought in the region. So by what metrics did the author used to gauge that the US fought against a peer and lost said institutional memory?
> 
> This also begs the question of when did China fought against a peer, let alone a military that have extensive global presence and experience that the author derided. Answer: Not.
> 
> So if the PLAAF never fought against an opponent that set the standards on 'stealth', air combat tactics, training, organization, low level penetration, radar network avoidance, precision bombing, strategic and tactical reconnaissance, adversarial role playing, foreign technology exploitation, and many other areas, *what make this author so confident that the J-20 alone have turned the table?*




it is painted black.


----------



## no_name

It's actually dark green but anyway.


----------



## The SC

eachus said:


> I tried to post the full article many times, new member has too much restriction, no link and limited quota.
> can somebody help to post it. it is a nice read.
> 
> F35 is not a front line air-superior fighter. it was designed to follow F22 in distance.



In spite of being smaller than the F-22, the F-35 has a larger radar cross section. It is said to be roughly equal to a metal golf ball rather than the F-22's metal marble. The F-22 was designed to be difficult to detect by all types of radars and from all directions. The F-35 on the other hand manifests its lowest radar signature from the frontal aspect because of compromises in design. Its surfaces are shaped to best defeat radars operating in the X and upper S band, which are typically found in fighters, surface-to-air missiles and their tracking radars, although the aircraft would be easier to detect using other radar frequencies. Because the shape of the aircraft is so important to its radar cross section, special care must be taken to maintain the "outer mold line" during production. Ground crews require Repair Verification Radar (RVR) test sets in order to verify the RCS of the aircraft after performing repairs, which was not a concern for previous generations of non-stealth fighters.

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## UKBengali

gambit said:


> Whoever wrote that tripe obviously have never experience Red Flag, REFORGER, tank training in Ft. Irwin, and many more, including Desert Storm. The author is clearly confused between capability and ability.



What a joke!

The US has gained massive huge expereince fighting against against Iraq?

The Iraqi military of 1991 was huge but completely obsolette.

Air force -

Iraq:

Only 30 or so Mig-29s but they were hampered as they were the export version with downgraded avionics and the engines were less powerful.

No AWACs to speak of at all.

US:

Hundreds of modern F-15s and F-16s and full AWACs support


Army:

Only around 500 or so of the T-72 which was a full generation behind the M1-A1 Abrams. This is compounded by the fact that the Iraqi version was a downgraded verion.

I think the US had 2000 of the latest M1-A1 Abrams


You really need to stop comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## gambit

UKBengali said:


> What a joke!
> 
> The US has gained massive huge expereince fighting against against Iraq?
> 
> The Iraqi military of 1991 was huge but completely obsolette.
> 
> Air force -
> 
> Iraq:
> 
> Only 30 or so Mig-29s but they were hampered as they were the export version with downgraded avionics and the engines were less powerful.
> 
> No AWACs to speak of at all.
> 
> US:
> 
> Hundreds of modern F-15s and F-16s and full AWACs support
> 
> 
> Army:
> 
> Only around 500 or so of the T-72 which was a full generation behind the M1-A1 Abrams. This is compounded by the fact that the Iraqi version was a downgraded verion.
> 
> I think the US had 2000 of the latest M1-A1 Abrams
> 
> 
> You really need to stop comparing apples and oranges.


Let me know when BD have something to boast about. In the meantime, we will just take your criticism as a joke in itself and from petty jealousy.



The SC said:


> In spite of being smaller than the F-22, the F-35 has a larger radar cross section. It is said to be roughly equal to a metal golf ball rather than the F-22's metal marble. The F-22 was designed to be difficult to detect by all types of radars and from all directions. The F-35 on the other hand manifests its lowest radar signature from the frontal aspect because of compromises in design. Its surfaces are shaped to best defeat radars operating in the *X and upper S band, which are typically found in fighters, surface-to-air missiles and their tracking radars*, although the aircraft would be easier to detect using other radar frequencies. Because the shape of the aircraft is so important to its radar cross section, special care must be taken to maintain the "outer mold line" during production. Ground crews require Repair Verification Radar (RVR) test sets in order to verify the RCS of the aircraft after performing repairs, which was not a concern for previous generations of non-stealth fighters.
> 
> Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I bet you have no clue as to why these systems uses these high freqs.


----------



## Rusty

gambit said:


> That is correct.  The entire so called 'analysis' is filled with extreme hubris for the J-20 and the usua1l technical suspects that have been debunked here over and over and over and over and over...
> 
> But the three best lines have nothing to do with aviation...
> 
> 
> Whoever wrote that tripe obviously have never experience Red Flag, REFORGER, tank training in Ft. Irwin, and many more, including Desert Storm. The author is clearly confused between capability and ability.
> 
> 
> *The PLA's leadership would love to have even half of the US military experience*.
> 
> Now here is the best...
> 
> 
> By what metrics did the author based this upon? Since the turn and start of the 20th century, the only military peer the US had, including WW II, was the nuclear powered Soviets and both sides never directly fought. Isoroku Yamamoto of Imperial Japan knew his country lost the day he attacked Pearl Harbor. The Soviets backed down in the Cuban Missile Crisis and stayed out Viet Nam while US troops actively fought in the region. So by what metrics did the author used to gauge that the US fought against a peer and lost said institutional memory?
> 
> This also begs the question of when did China fought against a peer, let alone a military that have extensive global presence and experience that the author derided. Answer: Not.
> 
> So if the PLAAF never fought against an opponent that set the standards on 'stealth', air combat tactics, training, organization, low level penetration, radar network avoidance, precision bombing, strategic and tactical reconnaissance, adversarial role playing, foreign technology exploitation, and many other areas, what make this author so confident that the J-20 alone have turned the table?



The PLA help fight off the extremely advanced Japanese army in the 30's and 40's
Then they defeated the American backed ROC army to gain control of China
Then as an encore they gifted America it's largest land retreat in their history during the Korean war. 

I would say the have pretty decent military experience 

Oh and one more thing. 
The reason PLA doesn't have an intensive military experience is because it is not a warmongering country. China does not start wars every few year with weaker nations to fund it's military industrial complexes.


----------



## gambit

Rusty said:


> The PLA help fight off the extremely advanced Japanese army in the 30's and 40's


There was no PLA back then.



Rusty said:


> Then they defeated the American backed ROC army to gain control of China


By itself? And the ROC is not the US, then and now.



Rusty said:


> Then as an encore they gifted America it's largest land retreat in their history during the Korean war.


Considering Korea is *STILL* divided, we can call it a draw.



Rusty said:


> I would say the have pretty decent military experience


Decent does not mean parity. So whistle away...



Rusty said:


> Oh and one more thing.
> The reason PLA doesn't have an intensive military experience is because it is not a warmongering country. China does not start wars every few year with weaker nations to fund it's military industrial complexes.


All the more reason China should be careful in getting into a fist fest with US.


----------



## eachus

in the same site Wikipedia, they also have J20 info. I copy the the original words from them

Stealth
Carlo Kopp has suggested that the J-20's overall stealth shaping is "without doubt considerably better" than the F-35 and PAK FA[59],,,,
source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J20_stealth_fighter_jet

J20 Combat range: 2,000 km
F35 Combat radius: 1,080 km 
F22 Combat radius: 759 km 


F22 is in service, F35 starts production, however J20 is still under improvement so J20 will have better stealth capabilities than it is now. At this moment, J20 is very impressed. For all of above, the stealthy statistic is national secret, baseball or golf balls are just guesses, I dont even want to care about those. 


and from your link, what surprised me was the price tags
Unit cost 
F-35A: US$197 million (flyaway cost, 2012)[4]
F-35B: US$237.7M (weap. sys. cost, 2012)[5]
F-35C: US$236.8M (weap. sys. cost, 2012)[5]

J20 Unit cost US$110 million (est.)[4]
Chinese J10 is $28M


----------



## gambit

eachus said:


> in the same site Wikipedia, they also have J20 info. I copy the the original words from them
> 
> Stealth
> Carlo Kopp has suggested that the J-20's overall stealth shaping is "without doubt considerably better" than the F-35 and PAK FA[59],,,,


Yeah...Debunked here many times already.



eachus said:


> F22 is in service, F35 starts production, however J20 is still under improvement so J20 will have better stealth capabilities than it is now. At this moment, J20 is very impressed. For all of above, the stealthy statistic is national secret, baseball or golf balls are just guesses, I dont even want to care about those.


Then how can accept what Kopp speculated? Did he actually performed measurement testings on the J-20?


----------



## eachus

gambit said:


> Yeah...Debunked here many times already.
> Then how can accept what Kopp speculated? Did he actually performed measurement testings on the J-20?



there are a man and a lady walk together. 
you are not the family doctor of them(no personal info like cm,lb,etc,,), can you tell who is taller, who is heavier and who has more power? and just by your eye balls?


----------



## ptldM3

antonius123 said:


> Either you are blind or idiot.
> 
> J-20, F-22 and F-35 got plenty of curvatures, but barely have round/cylinder shape.
> Among 5 gen Fighter, only PAKFA has cylinder/round shape.



Really? The J-20 has no cylindrical shaping? Than what is the J-20&#8217;s chin? Or those under wing actuators? Both the Chin and actuators follow the countours of a perfect circle and both are long so they can be called cylindrical, as can the J-20 nozzles and aft fuselage.







antonius123 said:


> You can't accuse him to have lied for the sake of his hidden agenda merely based on your prejudice. You need evidence!




Copp does not lie, per se, he just twists the truth and comes to premature conclusions. Reading much of his work especially the F-35, SU-35 comparison I can say that he merely guesses on much of his claims, such as him claiming the R-77 to be superior than the AIM-7 based on the fact that it has a larger explosive chare and better maneuverability. He said nothing about the seekers, their history of reliability, or counter measures; instead he made a proclemation based on rudimentary evidence.





I also provide evidence, as do others, you just conveniently disregard it. Nothing is good enough for you. Only Martian and Kopp are right.








amalakas said:


> Fat chance there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> right, mr aviation experience. what is the following equation and what do we use it for?





Looks like the aviation expert could not answer your question.



amalakas said:


> PO have severe limitations
> 
> -it obtains only reflection from surfaces, but not diffraction at wedges
> -it fails for wide non specular angles
> -it has no dependance on polarization
> -it results false shadow boundary contributions because of the artificial boundary between illuminated and shadow regions.





As if any of the jokers here will understand half of that. The only thing these juveniles know is: The J-20 mighty-dragon is sleek and sexy, it is obvious it has been designed with super computers, its black RAM is super advanced and it&#8217;s DSI technology is devastating. The Canards are also superior to anything the F-22 and pak-fa have.





pla said:


> On the J_20, *I know some insider.*
> 
> Because of engine problems, some parts are temporary.
> 
> 4 J20are not the same, until mass production, to finalize the design
> 
> J-20's canard RCS has almost no effect, when not in use





You and your &#8220;insider&#8221; are full of crap. Canards can not magically defy the effects of edge diffraction.




pla said:


> *J-20's canard will only during takeoff, and attacks to use*




And with the canards being &#8216;locked&#8217; how does the J-20 intend to stay airborne? Canards, just like other flight control surfaces work to keep an aircraft airborne by constantly receiving data from computers that sent signals to control surfaces. Those control surfaces are almost always moving in order to keep an aircraft from plummeting like a rock.










antonius123 said:


> Also we need citation to support your claim.




So where are your citations? You made a number of fantastic claims in the past yet failed to support them with any citations.










antonius123 said:


> If you think you are debating weapon tech intelligently, *Why do you ignore the abundance of scientific explanation and the credible link from Martian*? refusing blindly and bring no scientific explanation/evidence of yourself? Martian's scientific explanation has represent mine.





Really Martian credible? This is a guy who believes that &#8217;cold&#8217; canopies are treated with &#8217;RAM&#8217;.












antonius123 said:


> *Corner Reflector detrimental to RCS*





If I was a J-20 fan boy the last thing I would ever talk about would be corner reflectors:










eachus said:


> something is very interesting, at the introduction of T50 and J20, US had different comments
> 
> 
> 
> in our words is "10 facts, If Su30 is not stealthy, T50 is not neither." hehe,,, even they meant the same.





Two can play this game:



China's J-20 Stealth Fighter - Not as Stealthy as it Looks | Red Dog Report





> In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Richard Aboulafia, an aviation analyst with the Teal group an aerospace and defense consulting firm, said China is still years away from perfecting stealth aircraft.
> 
> 
> &#8220;But then you look the details and *you realize this thing is just sort of cobbled together,&#8221; he added&#8221; *
> 
> 
> *Take, for instance, the canards: forewings close to the nose of the aircraft that provide maneuverability. According to Mr. Aboulafia, &#8220;There&#8217;s no better way of guaranteeing a radar reflection and compromise of stealth&#8221; than adding canards to the aircraft*.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## eachus

ptldM3 said:


> China's J-20 Stealth Fighter - Not as Stealthy as it Looks | Red Dog Report



Yes, he said China is still years away from perfecting stealth aircraft.
it is not as stealthy as it was at with a shock effect at the first look according to your link:

"When the photos were first released to the public,
The J-20 struck fear in the hearts of average Americans and the U.S. military complex." 


from the side and rear view, China still have to polish this weapon. but most importantly is the front view, it kills. with F22's experience, it can beat F35 and F16 hands down, J20 vs T50 will have similar results. 


"The J-20 struck fear in the hearts of ,,,,," 
vs T50 
&#8220;I didn&#8217;t see anything &#8230;"
&#8220;It looks like a plane we&#8217;ve seen before,&#8221;

those were from air bosses or aviation analyst's lips, 
and with you experience, are you sure they are about the same or T50 is more stealthy?


----------



## ptldM3

eachus said:


> Yes, he said China is still years away from perfecting stealth aircraft.
> it is not as stealthy as it was at with a shock effect at the first look according to your link:
> 
> "When the photos were first released to the public,
> The J-20 struck fear in the hearts of average Americans and the U.S. military complex."
> 
> 
> from the side and rear view, China still have to polish this weapon. but most importantly is the front view, it kills. with F22's experience, it can beat F35 and F16 hands down, J20 vs T50 will have similar results.
> 
> 
> "The J-20 struck fear in the hearts of ,,,,,"
> vs T50
> &#8220;I didn&#8217;t see anything &#8230;"
> &#8220;It looks like a plane we&#8217;ve seen before,&#8221;
> 
> those were from air bosses or aviation analyst's lips,
> and with you experience, are you sure they are about the same or T50 is more stealthy?





I hate to break it to you but if you have nothing intelligent or informative to add take your Chinese chest thumping elsewhere. You boasting that by looks the J-20 will bean t the F-35 and pak-fa does not make it so. Low observability is just a part of the equation, you still need Equivalent or superior avionics to defeat your opponent. For instance, all aircraft still give off an IR emissions even from skin friction, so if the opponent has potent infrared system than there should be something to worry about.

As an example the new OLS systems on the SU-35&#8217;s can detect the heat signature merely from the friction created from an aircraft&#8217;s skin at ranges of up to 50km, from the rear hemisphere it can detect targets of up to 90km. At these ranges the enemy aircraft will either just be within range to fire weapons (50km) or out of range to fire weapons (90km). Either way a passive missile can be launched even if the enemy can pick you up on radar. And yes, the J-20&#8217;s large surface area and large high emission engines will make it an easier target.

You and your hommies also neglect to take into account ECM. By this I mean that even jamming and denying the enemy the opportunity to see you let alone ever having the chance to fire on you. It would not surprise me if an aircraft such as the Prowler or Rafale would effectively be able to jam the J-20&#8217;s systems as to make it ineffective. Also how good is the J-20&#8217;s systems? Does it&#8217;s radar, have the range, resolutions, coverage, ECM resistance, ect to actually successfully acquire a target before being blown out of the sky? Can the radar maintain a lock even when actively being jammed in a high threat environment? How good are the J-20&#8217;s weapons? Have any Chinese A2A weapons even been tested in combat? What makes you so confident that the a PL-12 or whatever the J-20 may carry will have a reliable hit rate? Can the PL-12 even distinguish counter measures? 

Anyone that claims X aircraft will simply beat Y aircraft based on looks is a clueless amateur.


----------



## eachus

can you guys tell me what are those thing from the prototypes? 






5 seconds before F22 was crashed










it was on the prototype, it does not means last to production.


----------



## eachus

ptldM3 said:


> And yes, the J-20&#8217;s large surface area and large high emission engines will make it an easier target.



you meant the F22 is bigger object than F35 and bigger than F16.
so the F16 will have RCS signature smaller than F35 and far less than F22.
you made my day! haha,,,





ptldM3 said:


> such as the Prowler or Rafale would effectively be able to jam the J-20&#8217;s systems as to make it ineffective. Also how good is the J-20&#8217;s systems? Does it&#8217;s radar, have the range, resolutions, coverage, ECM resistance, ect to actually successfully acquire a target before being blown out of the sky? Can the radar maintain a lock even when actively being jammed in a high threat environment? How good are the J-20&#8217;s weapons? Have any Chinese A2A weapons even been tested in combat?



even new bays know Chinese defense is less transparent. is it safe to assume things you didnt see do not exist? reliability of j20 system is unknown, J10 is very good no crash so far. however the reliability of T50 is obvious, engines burned, frame crack, the 01 tail is on 02 body.....


----------



## ptldM3

eachus said:


> you meant the F22 is bigger object than F35 and bigger than F16.
> so the F16 will have RCS signature smaller than F35 and far less than F22.
> you made my day! haha,,,



With all the high IQ boasting I hear from Chinese members you guys display the reading comprehension of 6 year olds. I was talking about *IR signature*, get it? Larger twin engine aircraft give off higher IR emissions than smaller single engine ones because of heat generated by friction on the surface of the aircraft, in essence a larger body presents a larger heat signature.

So the joke is on you.





eachus said:


> even new bays know Chinese defense is less transparent. is it safe to assume things you didnt see do not exist? reliability of j20 system is unknown, *J10 is very good no crash so far*.




At least 5 that we *know* of.




eachus said:


> however the reliability of T50 is obvious, engines burned, frame crack, the 01 tail is on 02 body.....



This is why test aircraft undergo thousands of test flight, in order to uncover and fix flaws. What makes you so confident that the J-20 has not had problems? There is no aircraft in history that has not had flaws in its prototype stage, so for you to smugly sit back and imply that the J-20 is immune to flaws is laughable and demonstrates your sheer ignorance in aviation. Dont expect the Chinese to be so forthcoming in revealing problems with the J-20.




eachus said:


> can you guys tell me what are those thing from the prototypes?
> 
> 
> 
> 5 seconds before F22 was crashed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it was on the prototype, it does not means last to production.



Its called bay doors, nice try.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## eachus

ptldM3 said:


> And yes, the J-20&#8217;s large surface area and large high emission engines will make it an easier target.



dont escape from the main point, it is not IQ related. how do you prove J20 has larger surface area than T50 and thus made it a big target? J20 keeps one eye close can shoot T50 down in 50km away while T50 does not know what was going on. you lose the ticket to fight and how do you see J20 rear when you are down?




ptldM3 said:


> At least 5 that we *know* of.
> 
> It&#8217;s called bay doors, nice try.




we dont know J10 had down 5, if you can not provide a reliable source then you lie.
give us the date for each, picture and source.

"bay doors"? no bay is open you can see the door?


----------



## ptldM3

eachus said:


> J20 keeps one eye close can shoot T50 down in 50km away while T50 does not know what was going on. you lose the ticket to fight and how do you see J20 rear when you are down?




And where do you pull those figures from? Your rear end? What makes you think that the J-20 would be able to detect the pak-fa at those distances? Even if I play along with your moronic theory, the J-20 would still have to achieve a lock, this would be difficult merely by the fact that the pak-fa is designed to deny enemy aircraft the chance to achieve one. Furthermore, you would have to contend with the pak-fa&#8217;s Electronics warfare (EW) suit. Good luck trying to achieve a lock on a radar that changes frequencies many times per second. Or trying to overcome a internal EW suit that can employ a number of jamming techniques. Data-linking with dedicated EW aircraft will make things that more difficult. If by a miracle the J-20 can somehow defy the odds, it will be within firing range. And again reliability comes into play, how reliable is the PL-12? Just because one or several would be launched, it does not mean that any would hit the target because aircraft come with radar warning receivers and counter measures. This is if the pilot is any good, if a J-20 pilot launches a missile at too far of a range or at an unfavorable vector in relation to the enemy aircraft than that missile will simply fall out of the sky. 









eachus said:


> we dont know J10 had down 5, if you can not provide a reliable source then you lie.
> give us the date for each, picture and source.





A quick Google search would reveal that I am not lying but that you are in utter denial and too lazy to verify common knowledge.



defence.professionals | defpro.com




> The 22 April crash became public because a senior colonel had died in the crash and the funeral became too big to keep the story hushed.







So who is a liar? Funny how you demand sources yet you keep making claims without providing sources.







eachus said:


> "bay doors"? no bay is open you can see the door?




Nice, *you posted a picture of a toy* . Here is a picture of the real thing. It&#8217;s the actual YF-22 that crashed--and the proof is in the *serial number *which is *N22YX*. What is seen in the picture of the toy that you posted is a *wing flap*. 


Enjoy:


----------



## eachus

ptldM3 said:


> And yes, the J-20&#8217;s large surface area and large high emission engines will make it an easier target.



dont escape from the main point, it is not IQ related. how do you prove J20 has larger surface area than T50 and thus made it a big target? F22 has large surface area than F16, in your moronic theory is that also true? F22 is an easier target? 







ptldM3 said:


> So who is a liar? Funny how you demand sources yet you keep making claims without providing sources.



that picture has been proved fake.
the "J10" had only one portion of body in the rice field, there were number of doubts. 

1) the J10 did not have engine.
2) the J10 did not have head. 
3) the J10 did not have wings.
4) the J10 only dropped in a small rice field area, no landing evidence. but how come the body of picture show no much damage.
5) no burning evidence, no engine oil, no gas, no fuel,,,,, 
6) no parts broke away around.
7) the ground of the rice field was very flat, no hole, no bum, no lump. 
8) that had been proved fake accidence. I saw many more complete pics about that, why the site gave a small cut on one of the picture, what is the point to do so? 
9) the web side, the link you gave me looks like a broken page, you spent hours just found that? poor you. 


you said have at least 5, where do you find 4 more?








the one above is toy, the one below also a toy?


----------



## j20blackdragon

*The PAK FA is a joke.*

LEVCONS.











Framed canopy.






Fully exposed compressor face.











Gaps around the inlets.






Seams, gaps, protrusions, changes in surface material, sudden changes in shape, and surface 

discontinuities all over the lower fuselage.






Conventional nozzles.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Esc8781

j20blackdragon said:


> *The PAK FA is a joke.*
> 
> LEVCONS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Framed canopy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fully exposed compressor face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gaps around the inlets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seams, gaps, protrusions, changes in surface material, sudden changes in shape, and surface
> 
> discontinuities all over the lower fuselage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conventional nozzles.


 Hey the Pak-fa is not a joke the engineers already know it's not stealthy, you don't know what's going on, what if they are testing the aerodynamics of the plane? First prototype planes are supposed to be like this like the X-35, see its nozzle it was metal RAM isn't supposed to be on the first prototype aircraft so stop pointing at it.


----------



## j20blackdragon

Unnecessary infrared-search-and-track ball on the nose.


----------



## eachus

Let me post one of my favor 5G fighter picture. it can target J20 as well as F22.


----------



## ViXuyen

ptldM3 said:


> And where do you pull those figures from? Your rear end? What makes you think that the J-20 would be able to detect the pak-fa at those distances? Even if I play along with your moronic theory, the J-20 would still have to achieve a lock, this would be difficult merely by the fact that the pak-fa is designed to deny enemy aircraft the chance to achieve one. Furthermore, you would have to contend with the pak-fas Electronics warfare (EW) suit. Good luck trying to achieve a lock on a radar that changes frequencies many times per second. Or trying to overcome a internal EW suit that can employ a number of jamming techniques. Data-linking with dedicated EW aircraft will make things that more difficult. If by a miracle the J-20 can somehow defy the odds, it will be within firing range. And again reliability comes into play, how reliable is the PL-12? Just because one or several would be launched, it does not mean that any would hit the target because aircraft come with radar warning receivers and counter measures. This is if the pilot is any good, if a J-20 pilot launches a missile at too far of a range or at an unfavorable vector in relation to the enemy aircraft than that missile will simply fall out of the sky.


I think the Su35S with its IRBIS radar that can detect targets at 400 km out can blow this junk-20 out of the sky with ease.


----------



## j20blackdragon

5Star said:


> I think the Su35S with its IRBIS radar that can detect targets at 400 km out can blow this junk-20 out of the sky with ease.



I think China can blow the *entire country of Vietnam* out of the sky with ease.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

eachus said:


> there are a man and a lady walk together.
> you are not the family doctor of them(no personal info like cm,lb,etc,,), can you tell who is taller, who is heavier and who has more power? and just by your *eye balls?*


It is funny that you would use the 'eye balls' analogy. It is quite appropriate and actually debunk your argument.

This is not about 'stealth'. Notice that is how I always use that word. This is about radar cross section (RCS) control, which is a much more technically correct phrase. Anyway, in RCS control there are three main items: prediction/modeling and measurement. In the old days, it was prediction, then modeling, then measurement. With today's supercomputers, we can model then predict how that model is going to turn out, or we can predict (or want) how our model to turn out, then we build said model. Quite often, we can work both modeling and prediction together in a push/pull relationship. But measurement will always be the final arbiter on whether our modeling/prediction or prediction/modeling is as good as our egos said we are.











In the above examples, we have a time span of decades. Both aircrafts are full size. They were not under aerodynamic testing. They are out in what we who have relevant experience, which am going to assume you do not have, call a 'radar range'. An outdoor range, to be exact. Why is the SR-71 have no vertical stabs? Who knows. May be they have not install it yet. May be they were doing some measurement about them. But the point here is that *NO ONE* in the world, not even China, have more experience than US at RCS measurement. We have seen fine examples of 'Chinese physics' here to say many outlandish things about 'stealth' but I have no experience in 'Chinese physics'.

What Kopp did made him a laughing stock in the radar community, a community that he was never a member in the first place. He may be a Doctorate in Electrical Engineering or something to the same, but he was never involved in this specific area of aviation. That is like a rocket scientist opining on brain surgery. And vice versa. Then both communities laughs at each other. Fortunately for Kopp and APA, the radar community, specifically those who are (and were) involved in highly classified 'stealth' related projects cannot do any more than laugh. Some of the sh1t that I know about the old F-111's TFR system are still felonious information, meaning I could go to jail for revealing their details in public. So because those who are in the know about 'stealth' but cannot debunk Kopp without risking their freedoms, Kopp and APA are free to opine quite baselessly to fit their non-technical motive, which is to deride the F-35 as much as possible by anyway possible, and if it include making claims about the J-20, why should they care?

So from the days of the SR-71, decades passed, to the current F-35, the US have always reserve measurement to be the final arbiter of 'stealth' designs. The flow works: We predict and model, then we perform live measurements to doublecheck ourselves. I guess China is using 'Chinese physics'? Kopp and APA certainly seemed to have done so and the Chinese boys here approved because it conforms to their made up minds about China's capability in 'stealth'. Not one shred of measurement data is required.

At least the US is willing to reveal some of the measurement techniques for our 'stealth' aircrafts...






Benefield Anechoic Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Benefield Anechoic Facility (BAF) is an anechoic chamber located at the southwest side of the Edwards Air Force Base main base. It is currently the world's largest anechoic chamber.



Air Battles Won Behind Closed Doors : Defense: The Benefield Anechoic Facility, used for testing planes at Edwards Air Force Base, is receiving a $200-million upgrade. - Los Angeles Times


> ... the Air Force's latest fighter jet was recently tricked into thinking it was in the heat of high-tech combat.
> 
> The F-16 Falcon sat motionless on a huge turntable as computer technicians bombarded it with electronic signals mimicking enemy missiles and radar stations, simulating a flight over hostile territory.
> 
> ...thousands of small blue spikes protruding from nearly every square foot of its walls, floor and ceiling.
> 
> ...the pyramid-like spikes absorb stray radar signals that bounce off aircraft during tests of electronic warfare devices, which allow military jets to detect, evade and jam enemy radar and missiles.
> 
> *Air Force officials recently allowed a Times reporter and photographer to tour the chamber, but only on a day when no aircraft were in it.*


BAF is an awesome facility. We are not going to reveal what we know of radar behaviors on an F-22 or F-35, but at least we let the public know our yardsticks.

So with 'Chinese physics', decades of experience and hundreds of million$$$ went down the drain. Way to go, China and Kopp...!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## lordwedggie

Your points being:

1. Everyone from China and one Kopp are all clueless what stealth is and,
2. You and the US radar community alone have that knowledge but since it's classified and also because we from China use our own invented physics, therefor you won't really tell us anything to back up your claims (because it's classified and we are too dumb too irrational to understand it anyway).

Is this what you are trying to say?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

ptldM3 said:


> Anyone that that proclaims things such as the pak-fa has  same round and tall fuselage as the SU-30 is an imbecile and should be treated as such.
> 
> For one, the two fuselages share little to no similarities, and two, what stealth principle does the fuselage violate? What you think is irrelevant and if Im quite frank, retarded.
> 
> Did you still not realize your fault and backwards logic? If the pak-fas (single) IRST is not stealthy than the J-20s (4 large) under-wing pods should be disatererous, after all there are four of them, they are many times larger than an IRST, they a spherical/cylindrical and they go against your continuous curvature principle, but of course the J-20 is excused from basic physics.
> 
> Further, the pak-fa as you point out has an uneven fuselage yet why is this important? Perhaps because it can present a corner reflector, be it small. Yet what about the J-20s tail fins? If the pak-fas uneven fuselage is a corner reflector than the J-20s tail fins are equally corner reflectors, and if we are fair they are worse because not only do you get a corner reflector from the side but from underneath the aircraft.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give it a rest with the might drag-queen chest thumping and call it the J-20.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No because your post and diagrams are imaginary and have little scientific backing. If seen children's books with more scientific explanations





hahahahahahAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHa


here we go agian, the russian expert.

lol, as soon as the Pak-fa is sh@T post comes up, you bet ptldM3 is the first dude to reply.

LMFAO !!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

lordwedggie said:


> Your points being:
> 
> 1. Everyone from China and one Kopp are all clueless what stealth is and,


No, I did not even implied so.



lordwedggie said:


> 2. You and the US radar community alone have that knowledge but since it's classified and also because we from China use our own invented physics, therefor you won't really tell us anything to back up your claims (because it's classified and we are too dumb too irrational to understand it anyway).
> 
> Is this what you are trying to say?


Did not implied that either. I know you *MUST* try to twist my words, but that is not going to work. I guess the flow: modeling/prediction and measurement, is too difficult for you to grasp.


----------



## amalakas

lordwedggie said:


> Your points being:
> 
> 1. Everyone from China and one Kopp are all clueless what stealth is and,
> 2. You and the US radar community alone have that knowledge but since it's classified and also because we from China use our own invented physics, therefor you won't really tell us anything to back up your claims (because it's classified and we are too dumb too irrational to understand it anyway).
> 
> Is this what you are trying to say?




No.. what he is trying to say is that Engineering is a wonderful science. 

You don't simply look at your calculations and say "this plane is VLO!!!" you go out, you build the damn plane and then you go and test it! exhaustively !!! until you prove your calculations right or wrong. 

Just looking at a plane that someone painted black, doesn't make it VLO. It certainly doesn't make it an F-xx killer of the likes. 

The reason some put more faith in the T-50 than the J-20 is the lineage coming from that family. The outrageous thing about the J-20 is the inconceivable amount of hubris going on! 

When the americans came out and said the F-22 is VLO we believed them. Do you know why? Because we use american weapons and planes. 
When they came to us and said the F-16 blk xx can do this and that but not this and that, we found out they were telling the truth. Then we went over to their home and we brought that equipment with us. And we went to REDFLAGS and other similar exercises and we have SEEN how good the F-22 is. We have seen how good the F-35 is. We have seen how good the F-15!!! still is. 

now as a Greek who has served, I have the unique benefit of having seen the russian systems too. And I have seen how good they are. And the russians trust me, up until recently were very different in approach. They were no used to having their systems marketed or advertised. There were no brochures, no fat talk, no nothing. Just a "take system, go out in field, turn system on and try system in realistic conditions!, if you have questions please tell us" !!! 

The russians will never tell you "this system will kill all!" , they will say "with this system, whenever condition x and condition y apply and you are in this and this position, you have 90% kill rate!" This way you know how to use the system and you can go out and test it and find out. 

have I ever tested american equipment .. yes! planes ...yes
have i ever tested russian equipment .. yes, planes ...yes

have i ever tested frence equipment, yes, planes yes 
have i ever tested german equipment yes, planes , no 

have i ever tested chinese equipment, NO, planes, NO.. 

why would I believe all you guys are saying, simply because a plane is painted black? True, I am very happy that the Chinese now make what appears to be high tech planes. But would I go to war in one? ahhh NO. . 

Do you even understand what this is all about?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jango

Uh Mr Gambit, why are the two models that you posted, hung upside down on those poles? Any specific reason? 

Secondly it is a pleasure to read your posts. Truly informative.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jango

xuxu1457 said:


>



What is that little thing on the rod extending from the nose?

pitot tube? Although it looks small to be a pitot tube.


----------



## cnnetspy2000

Aerospace Plane is the kingly way


----------



## lordwedggie

amalakas said:


> No.. what he is trying to say is that Engineering is a wonderful science.
> 
> Do you even understand what this is all about?



Yes, both you and Gambit: Both of you process a very weird yet limited way for your reasoning.



gambit said:


> No, I did not even implied so.
> 
> 
> Did not implied that either. I know you *MUST* try to twist my words, but that is not going to work. I guess the flow: modeling/prediction and measurement, is too difficult for you to grasp.



Read your own words and summarize it for us, what DID you mean/imply/trying to communicate, is it your English or mine? For I honestly thought that was what you were trying to say. (obviously English is neither you nor my first language)

It seems to me as if though you are mostly talking to yourself, I don't understand this, therefor it might be interesting yet to behold what goes on in a... curious mind.

Thanks for without you (and Martian2) I'd still be a lurker.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

eachus said:


> Let me post one of my favor 5G fighter picture. it can target J20 as well as F22.



Do you see all those metal rivets on the fuselage and the metal-framed canopy? Those will all reflect radar. The J-20 and F-22 fighter pilots will die of laughter when they see a gigantic radar signature on their MFDs (multi-function displays).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

j20blackdragon said:


> *The PAK FA is a joke.*
> 
> LEVCONS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Framed canopy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fully exposed compressor face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gaps around the inlets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seams, gaps, protrusions, changes in surface material, sudden changes in shape, and surface
> 
> discontinuities all over the lower fuselage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conventional nozzles.



Thank you for the excellent analysis. By the way, all of these problems still exist on the T-50/Pak-Fa THIRD prototype.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## antonius123

ptldM3 said:


> Really? The J-20 has no cylindrical shaping? Than what is the J-20s chin? Or those under wing actuators? Both the Chin and actuators follow the countours of a perfect circle and both are long so they can be called cylindrical, as can the J-20 nozzles and aft fuselage.



Those are not cylinder. You still not learn the Elementry Math that I have teach you in the other threat.




> Copp does not lie, per se, he just twists the truth and comes to premature conclusions. Reading much of his work especially the F-35, SU-35 comparison I can say that he merely guesses on much of his claims, such as him claiming the R-77 to be superior than the AIM-7 based on the fact that it has a larger explosive chare and better maneuverability. He said nothing about the seekers, their history of reliability, or counter measures; instead he made a proclemation based on rudimentary evidence.



If your assumption is true, then why there is none other Expert appear and confront his suggestion that J-20 is stealthier than pakfa?




> I also provide evidence, as do others, you just conveniently disregard it. Nothing is good enough for you. Only Martian and Kopp are right.



Where?? I havent seen it yet. 
I just see you are being delusional.



> Looks like the aviation expert could not answer your question.



Wrong! It is you and amalakas that could not explained the equation and the connection with Kopp's, mine and Martian claim.

I am still waiting while you are running away.



> As if any of the jokers here will understand half of that. The only thing these juveniles know is: The J-20 mighty-dragon is sleek and sexy, it is obvious it has been designed with super computers, its black RAM is super advanced and its DSI technology is devastating. The Canards are also superior to anything the F-22 and pak-fa have.



For sure the DSI, and curvature shape is better than exposed fan blade, round shape+ airduct gap on pakfa.





> So where are your citations? You made a number of fantastic claims in the past yet failed to support them with any citations.



You are idiot.
I have advised you to read the link of the other threat from where I quote my own citation; you will find the citation there.

So pathetic that you still have no clue that round shape and corner reflector is detrimental to RCS as you are still asking citation now 




> Really Martian credible? This is a guy who believes that cold canopies are treated with RAM.


I said: "credible link" that martin post. Dont be too idiot.




> If I was a J-20 fan boy the last thing I would ever talk about would be corner reflectors:



Your statement confirming that you did not pass elementary math/geometry.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

Notice that the Russian/Indian trolls constantly disparage the J-20's canards, but have nothing to say about the many gaps and junctions created by the leading edge of the PAK FA's horizontal stabilizers.







They also have nothing to say about the LEVCONs.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Martian2

j20blackdragon said:


> *The PAK FA is a joke.*
> 
> LEVCONS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Framed canopy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fully exposed compressor face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gaps around the inlets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seams, gaps, protrusions, changes in surface material, sudden changes in shape, and surface
> 
> discontinuities all over the lower fuselage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conventional nozzles.



I hope you don't mind if I make a copy of your insightful and thorough pictorial analysis for posting on other forums.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

Go ahead, I don't mind.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ptldM3

antonius123 said:


> Those are not cylinder. You still not learn the Elementry Math that I have teach you in the other threat.





Right, and how is that so when the chin follows a *Circumference* of a perfect circle? And you still cant even spell elementaryouch, this comming from someone who is claiming i have no education. 

Deny all you want but to proof is in the photo:










antonius123 said:


> If your assumption is true, then why there is none other Expert appear and confront his suggestion that J-20 is stealthier than pakfa?





What experts? Kopp is not an expert in the field of low observability, he has no experience in that field. I have yet to see one real expert say a word. Real experts, people that know, dont talk, people who talk dont know.






antonius123 said:


> Where?? I havent seen it yet.
> I just see you are being delusional.





Dont play stupid, I have had many debates with you where I have provided sources.




antonius123 said:


> Wrong! *It is you and amalakas that could not explained the equation *and the connection with Kopp's, mine and Martian claim.





Firstly no one ever asked me to explain the equation, nor have I ever claimed I was expert that studied some random field of aviation, *you did*. *Amalakas asked you *to answer what the equation was and you never did. So much for your claims of being an expert. Your are a fraud and its been evident for some time.








antonius123 said:


> I am still waiting while you are running away.







Things dont work like that, *you* were asked what the equation was not me, so the only one running is *you*, so what is it?











antonius123 said:


> You are idiot.
> I have advised you to read the link of the other threat from where I quote my own citation; you will find the citation there.





Wrong, where was your citation when I asked you to provide a source about the B-2? First you claimed the B-2 does not need to bank, and then when you looked like an utter fool you changed it too it does not need to bank HARD, I provided evidence that disproved your claim, yet you never provided a counter claim with proof.








antonius123 said:


> So pathetic that you still have no clue that round shape and corner reflector is detrimental to RCS as you are still asking citation now





I have a clue to know that the J-20 has plenty of round shaping and massive corner reflectors from the tail fins.







antonius123 said:


> I said: "credible link" that martin post. Dont be too idiot.







And which link would that be?






antonius123 said:


> Your statement confirming that you did not pass elementary math/geometry.





No, it confirms that the J-20 has massive corner reflectors but you have too much petty pride to admit it:




















Martian2 said:


> I hope you don't mind if I make a copy of your insightful and thorough pictorial analysis for posting on other forums.




Get a life feeble coward. Since when were random photos insightful? If the pak-fa somehow pays the penalty for gap than the J-20 pays an equal penalty as does the F-22 and if the pak-fa pays the penalty for conventional nozzles as does the mighty drag-queen. The sheer desperation in you is becoming comical.

Why not use this insightful image at your circle jerk Chinese forum where the members have the thinking capacity of a brick:








eachus said:


> dont escape from the main point, it is not IQ related. how do you prove J20 has larger surface area than T50 and thus made it a big target?






Any fool can see that the J-20 is a much larger aircraft, that has been estimated to be larger, anyone stating otherwise is just not being honest with themselves.




eachus said:


> F22 has large surface area than F16, in your moronic theory is that also true? F22 is an easier target?





Yes the F-22 does have a larger surface area than the F-16 thus it will give off a larger IR signature in terms of heat generated from the fuselage. However, the F-22s engines are superior in giving off minimal IR signature. The engines are the bigger worry. Get it, or do you need me to go slower, and maybe give you a coloring book with some crayons?












eachus said:


> that picture has been proved fake.





No, you and your Chinese chest thumpers have just stooped to new lows.




eachus said:


> the "J10" had only one portion of body in the rice field, there were number of doubts.






Yea, and I suppose this is an illusion:








eachus said:


> 1) the J10 did not have engine.





Really? And how did you come to that conclusion? Were you one of the people in the photo? The concept of nozzles breaking off must be a hard concept to swallow.




eachus said:


> 2) the J10 did not have head.





Your argument were stupid before but now they are simply desperate. When aircraft crash/crash land the fuselage often breaks into several pieces. 






eachus said:


> 3) the J10 did not have wings.





Sure it did, you just need to put on a pair of classes and also realize that wings break of on impact.





eachus said:


> 4) the J10 only dropped in a small rice field area, no landing evidence. but how come the body of picture show no much damage.






The idea of a forced landing must be new to you? For starters the aircraft is in multiple pieces, so the damages is extensive. Moreover, there is video of aircraft such as Gripen and F-18 that have crashed yet show less damage.


The aircraft crashed in a soft, muddy, wet, rice field. If there was a fire it was quickly extinguished, And *pilots often dump their fuel in emergencies*. Than again I didnt expect you to know that.






eachus said:


> 5) no burning evidence, no engine oil, no gas, no fuel,,,,,






Like I said pilots often dump their fuel in emergencies, and how do you expect a wet rice field to burn?








eachus said:


> 6) no parts broke away around.






My picture proves that to be a lie. The J-10 is in multiple pieces and in the real world not the world of Chinese physics, damage and aircraft debris varies based on altitude, airspeed, amount of on board fuel, angle of crash, type of aircraft and where it crashes (ex pavement or rice field). Dududuuuu




eachus said:


> 7) the ground of the rice field was very flat, no hole, no bum, no lump.






Of course its flat, it is water and water does not burn, and based on the wreckage the aircraft would not have made any hole or crater especial in a wet rice field and a forced landing which this obviously was would definitely not leave any crator. Next time use your head before spouting such nonsense. Youll save yourself the shame and embarrassment.






eachus said:


> you said have at least 5, where do you find 4 more?





Dont play stupid, everyone of your claims have been disproven, everything you asked me to prove I have. You lost the argument the moment to made your first post. J-10 crashes are no secret we even know the names of some of the pilots involved in the crashes, one of which had a state funeral, and the other awarded a merit, do the names *Meng Fansheng or Xie Fengliang *ring a bell? If not you can always Google search their names. Its also no secret that the first prototype J-10 crashed in 1998. 

Remember, you were the one pounding your chest claiming that the pak-fa has poor reliability while the J-10 had no crashes, your clam just backfired in your face.





eachus said:


> the one above is toy, the one below also a toy?






Yes the picture of the F-22 you posted was a plastic toy. It even says so in the *[/IMG] description*. And what you claim to be a tail fin in that picture is actually a *wing flap*. I provided a photograph of the actual YF-22 that crashed, *serial number N22YZ*, and it had no such fins.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## The SC

gambit said:


> Let me know when BD have something to boast about. In the meantime, we will just take your criticism as a joke in itself and from petty jealousy.
> 
> 
> I bet you have no clue as to why these systems uses these high freqs.



Please tell us about it.


----------



## gambit

nuclearpak said:


> Uh Mr Gambit, why are the two models that you posted, hung upside down on those poles? *Any specific reason? *
> 
> Secondly it is a pleasure to read your posts. Truly informative.


Yes, there is and it is a very important one. But let us see if any practitioners of 'Chinese physics' can answer this one.


----------



## lordwedggie

ptldM3 said:


> What &#8216;experts&#8217;? Kopp is not an expert in the field of low observability, he has no experience in that field. I have yet to see one real expert say a word. Real experts, people that know, don&#8217;t talk, people who talk don&#8217;t know.



While some posters from China have an obvious over positive outlook on the J20 during this debate, your statement is equally unconvincing. The above statement for example: by your logic, since we are all talking here, none of us know, so then what is the point of this discussion?



ptldM3 said:


> Get a life feeble coward. Since when were random photos insightful? If the pak-fa somehow pays the penalty for gap than the J-20 pays an equal penalty as does the F-22 and if the pak-fa pays the penalty for conventional nozzles as does the mighty drag-queen. The sheer desperation in you is becoming comical.



Are we not all posting 'random' photos? How is a photo determined 'random' or otherwise? I myself find the photo comparison makes a lot of sense. A few posts back, Martian2 and J20BlackDragon have compared ten visual points where the J20 APPEARS to be more advanced. You and Gambit's counter mostly consisted of calling them 'clueless', 'Chinese physics', and now 'Feeble Coward' with no convincing argument.



ptldM3 said:


> Why not use this insightful image at your circle jerk Chinese forum where the members have the thinking capacity of a brick:
> 
> No, you and your Chinese chest thumpers have just stooped to new lows.



And more often than not, racial remarks that only serves to discredit you even farther. I am aware that some of the Chinese posters are doing the same in kind, but do notice the main posters on this debate in the pro-J20 camp Martian2 have thus far remained civil and logical. There is nothing to be done if you simply hate us, but if you want to make arguments, this is not the way to do it.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## lordwedggie

amalakas said:


> No.. what he is trying to say is that Engineering is a wonderful science.



If that's indeed what he was trying to say, then I couldn't agree with him more. I do suggest you reread his entire post that I was replying to as it sure wasn't just a praise about how wonderful engineering is. Gambit's flat denial of my question directed at him without a word of farther explanation is typical of his approach when challenged and remains unconvincing. 



amalakas said:


> have I ever tested american equipment .. yes! planes ...yes
> have i ever tested russian equipment .. yes, planes ...yes
> 
> have i ever tested frence equipment, yes, planes yes
> have i ever tested german equipment yes, planes , no
> 
> have i ever tested chinese equipment, NO, planes, NO..
> 
> why would I believe all you guys are saying, simply because a plane is painted black? True, I am very happy that the Chinese now make what appears to be high tech planes. But would I go to war in one? ahhh NO. .
> 
> Do you even understand what this is all about?



Yes. We are all here speculating on something no concrete data could be found. Which will be the case for EVERY modern military gear from China, to conceal our own abilities is in-line with our (China's) strategy. You may not want to go to war in a J20, but wouldn't you be curious if you are to FIGHT one? 

We are all fan boys of military tech, we are all guessing as far as Chinese equipment are concerned, and let's admit that national pride plays a part in every one of us. I was interested in the anti-J20 arguments, but when it degrades to anti-china and anti-chinese (I could tolerate the former to an extend, but not the latter), it just become annoying and pointless. Note I'm not directing the last remark at you.

Thanks for the reply, cheers.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ptldM3

lordwedggie said:


> While some posters from China have an obvious over positive outlook on the J20 during this debate, your statement is equally unconvincing. The above statement for example: by your logic, since we are all talking here, none of us know, so then what is the point of this discussion?




Of course we are all talking, sharing, and presenting counter argument. However, I am referring to &#8216;experts&#8217;, and real experts don&#8217;t reveal much if anything. There are a select few members on this board that at least grasp some of the principles of &#8216;stealth&#8216; principles and RCS control. There is no chance that guys like copp can pull random numbers out of thin air without having physically tested aircraft such of the F-35, pak-fa, and J-20 rigorously. Kopp isn&#8217;t an expert in the field of low observability nor is any of those clueless magazine editors that make gross mistakes such as calling treated canopies RAM or radar absorbent. 





lordwedggie said:


> Are we not all posting 'random' photos? How is a photo determined 'random' or otherwise? I myself find the photo comparison makes a lot of sense. A few posts back, Martian2 and J20BlackDragon have compared ten visual points where the J20 APPEARS to be more advanced.




What your boys did was post some random photos without support or explanation. One photo claimed the pak-fa has round nozzles which is true, yet the poster doesn&#8217;t seem to realize that the J-20 also has round nozzles. It&#8217;s like spiting in the wing where the spit gets blown back in your face. Other argument such as the pak-fa has &#8216;gaps&#8217; is deceitful because the poster never supported evidence as to why this is detrimental. The so called gap he is referring to is also present in the F-22. The so called gap in question is the gap in-between the intake and fuselage. A cavity can cause EM to scatter but the gap, or tunnel as Gambit calls it, is not a cavity but a channel or tunnel that exists at a 45 degree angle. It is not possible for this gap, vent or tunnel to diffract in a way a traditional cavity would.

Further, the silly argument of a &#8216;metal&#8217; strip in the canopy is absolutely incorrect or misunderstood. The ill informed stick to their opinions yet have zero evidence to explain as to why a metal strip would be detrimental. Remember the F-117 had no single piece canopy in fact it had many metal strips, the B-2 also has many metal strips. The YF-23 which had a metal framed canopy and exposed compressors had an overall smaller RCS than the YF-22. So metal strips have little to no effects on RCS if done properly and by properly I mean tight fit but equally as important the frame on the canopy is never perpendicular to the front of the aircraft. 

Moral of the story, we have some worthless instigators some of which keep getting banned talking their usual nonsense. Even worst they (Martian & Black-dragon ) are always the instigators, they start it yet when I enter the fray to counter them I am always called a troll. Well I could give a rats behind.





lordwedggie said:


> You and Gambit's counter mostly consisted of calling them 'clueless', 'Chinese physics', and now 'Feeble Coward' with no convincing argument.




Really? Our side has presented detailed explanations, often backed with sources. The feeble cowards have presented nothing other than tall claims with no supporting sources or credible explanations. 




lordwedggie said:


> And more often than not, *racial remarks *that only serves to discredit you even farther.




Point out a *single post *where I said anything racial. Since when was feeble coward a racial terms or even inappropriate?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lordwedggie

ptldM3 said:


> Of course we are all talking, sharing, and presenting counter argument. However, I am referring to &#8216;experts&#8217;, and real experts don&#8217;t reveal much if anything.



Indeed you, assuming you are an expert, have not revealed much of anything.



ptldM3 said:


> What your boys did was post some random photos without support or explanation. One photo claimed the pak-fa has round nozzles which is true, yet the poster doesn&#8217;t seem to realize that the J-20 also has round nozzles.



I still don't know what the difference is between a random and&#8230;non-random photo, but from what I could see, the J-20's nose is only more rounded on the top, but quite angular on the sides and bottom. It is more similar to the F-22 than Pak-Fa whose nose is nearly completely rounded.

Now, I don't know what significance is this to an plane's stealth capability, but the dozens of posts you and gambit have posted denying there is a visible difference between the J20 and Pak-Fa's nose is, puzzling to say the least. You rejected a clearly visible difference without going farther for a conclusion, this is the train of thoughts I have problem understanding.




ptldM3 said:


> Further, the silly argument of a &#8216;metal&#8217; strip in the canopy is absolutely incorrect or misunderstood.



I'll accept what you said about real experts will reveal nothing, and I'll accept you know more about stealth than I do. My question is, why would the F-22 and J20 have this feature? Would it not be more expensive / difficult to produce this kind of 'rimless' canopy than traditional metal-stripping. Is it there just to look pretty? (It sure does)

The F22 represents the best and most expensive stealth effort from the US, that alone may justify the reasoning that rimless is better than stripped canopy, and why this feature is only found on the F22, does it not?



ptldM3 said:


> Other argument such as the pak-fa has &#8216;gaps&#8217; is deceitful because the poster never supported evidence as to why this is detrimental. The so called gap he is referring to is also present in the F-22. The so called gap in question is the gap in-between the intake and fuselage. A cavity can cause EM to scatter but the gap, or tunnel as Gambit calls it, is not a cavity but a channel or tunnel that exists at a 45 degree angle. It is not possible for this gap, vent or tunnel to diffract in a way a traditional cavity would.



Their original argument was not limited to gaps, but also rivets, protrusions, bumps. Looking at (random?) photos, the J20 and F22 both have a very clean under belly, the Pak-FA is sort of a mess if you don't mind me saying so. It seems you are claiming all three aircraft are the same (though you only addressed the gap), yet I clearly see a difference?

I skipped some pages on this debate but I recall there was a point raised by Martian that the engine blades aren't visible from the front for both the J20 and F22, yet clearly visible (on my computer I had to adjust the contrast levels to see it) on the PAK. I don't recall you guys had a counter for it, but assume you will say that exposed engine blades won't affect stealth, my question is why would the J20 and F22 go for the effort to hide them?



ptldM3 said:


> Really? Our side has presented detailed explanations, often backed with sources. The feeble cowards have presented nothing other than tall claims with no supporting sources or credible explanations.



I don't see any backed source in neither the post I was replying to originally, or your post I am replying to now.



ptldM3 said:


> Point out a single post where I said anything racial. Since when was feeble coward a racial terms or even inappropriate?



I don't know how to quote within a quote haha, and without going back farther, here is what you said in your original post that led to my statement:

"Why not use this insightful image at your circle jerk Chinese forum where the members have the thinking capacity of a brick:

No, you and your Chinese chest thumpers have just stooped to new lows."

I'm being accused of having the thinking capacity of a brick and a chest thumpers merely for the fact that I'm Chinese (the remark applied to me as soon as I made a reply to you with my chinese flags on my avatar). I consider that a racial remark, or at least inappropriate indeed.

Cheers.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## rcrmj

that russian's denial is constant now```too much soviet pride lives in him`!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Jango

gambit said:


> Yes, there is and it is a very important one. But let us see if any practitioners of 'Chinese physics' can answer this one.



Uptil now no answer. So could you help me on this??


----------



## Oldman1

nuclearpak said:


> Uptil now no answer. So could you help me on this??



I'm no expert and I already figure it out myself just looking at the pics.


----------



## Jango

Oldman1 said:


> I'm no expert and I already figure it out myself just looking at the pics.



But i can't. 

I don't really know alot about radar.


----------



## opkeyen

Google translation

The use of class F22normal distribution is the most secure, but China and Russia are aware of: in the material and the backward situation, the conventional layout is not expected to be able to fight with F22. In 2000, China and Russia in the technology to develop cooperation, but did not reach any agreement of fifth generation fighter. To be sure, in 611 by Song Zong" a small aspect ratio and high lift aircraft aerodynamic layout research" published before, China has been the fifth generation fighter foundation conducted a lot of research, but to use which kind of structure has not been determined.

Today's J-10 pneumatic early many plans more prudent one, followed the j-9program in a large number of existing tunnel information, the more radical double delta wing plan because the risk was too large to give up;" small aspect ratio" in an article strake wing canard layout should be from his unsuccessful the canard double delta wing plan gradually evolved."

Shen also puts forward his own programme, in the competition, Shen Fei601seems to criticize canard defects, clarifies the three wing in the face of trim, motor and lift the benefits. But there are a few problem is unavoidable: three wing in the face of RCS increases than the canard and general layout of complex, for increasing resistance is more unbearable weight of engine. In601, there seems to be a conventional layout as a backup, it is their own uncertainty and the absence of absolute certainty that they lost the heavy machine competition.

In the late 1960's, China in the" lift" layout started the J9 project, China in1960 time begin to hope to be able to lead the world, unconventional" lift" layout that canard has begun a large number of. When J10published in 2005, countless people in it with lion type aircraft articles, but J10really that simple?

601to four wing planform programmes are made model, was tested in a wind tunnel experiment. Mainly consider the swept-wing or delta wing, wing and delta wing leading edge sweep method is adopted to increase the critical Maher number. But if the supersonic flight to Maher number 2, using subsonic swept-wing scheme must make the leading edge sweep angle greater than 60 degrees, but the leading edge sweep angle is too large, and the structure stress will deteriorate, will increase the weight of the structure;

In addition, the low-speed aerodynamic characteristics of space will also worsen, lift, drag increases. The big wing is adverse, and the delta wing is more applicable, not only has the advantages of a swept wing, and relatively long wing chord length to ensure root structure stress condition, reduce the structure weight, but also help to ensure that aircraft longitudinal flight stability. So six zero one was eliminated by the top three programs, and to the edge of the wings swept angle to55 degrees, called j9IV scheme. This is a normal form of delta wing layout scheme, starting appearance except for head to both sides of the inlet, the rest were associated with J7, J8, similar to the super 7early type, is also j7CP.

The J9 project, focus on the requirements of supersonic, both good subsonic performance, front canard design is far from mature, not to mention the differential, but still failed, only the layout is statically unstable, is still serious over China and the world at the time of pneumatic control level. The9project, in 1970 time end was abandoned, but it after repeatedly modified,601 for canard has laid the foundation!

If J20, then it can only talk about canard wing, from the overall. This? What about it?

"Solving the trim is another pathway of the thrust vector control ( TVC ) technology. Using TVC, its main advantages are: in the aerodynamic control surfaces were added based on a matching tie

Segment, balancing ability nature greatly enhanced; high-speed aerodynamic flight control surface deflection will produce great resistance, and the TVC can play the same control effect without deflected control surfaces;

TVC is not deflected thrust vector and generates a normal force, powerful engine jet in the rear fuselage to form a jet action, to create a new " lift" increment, while participating in trim

. F-22supersonic maneuverability greatly improved, TVC technical merit

In 1997 611completed the" thrust vector control on the aircraft's stability and controllability of the influence of" using the J-10kinetic model was fit for axisymmetric vectoring thrust nozzle simulation

Research; according to the paper, a canard and thrust vector combination can in post-stall area effective expansion of flight envelope, to get good control and stability of. Be careful

Described in the paper, a noun, the so-called" lateral-directional control system", probably refers to control canard differential system.

From this thesis can be seen, the canard configuration and thrust vector integration research,611 in at least12 years before the start of the. The four generation of the thrust vector integration development although there may not be any work

The history experience, theoretical preparation should be fully."

Similar to the F22diamond head first is a must.

F22diamond head has two effects: first, the stealth irregular radar scattering, this everybody knows, on the other hand is also important: diamond head open air, head sides slope

The air compression effect. That is to say, it is a vortex generator.

Four generation machine from SU27, F16began to have the strake vortex air generator, F18big brother special strake vortex air generator is very beautiful, of course, a canard front canard vortex generator

More effective than the conventional layout, it is said. The F22 is the first to create a production aircraft nose vortices, F22 added 2vortex generator vortex, it is head, small strake vortex as auxiliary

.

As the lifting body and stealth design, almost square accounts in every detail of the J20, diamond head is indispensable, flight control of the complex appears to still solve problem, but fortunately,

But song old in his papers appearing in a worried: as the main vortex generator, the canard vortex will not receive head vortex interference?

It also seems to be a thorny problem. In T50, head of vorticity and similar false duck wing movable strake also seem to have this problem.

According to a number of public information, seems to be validated, this problem is not solved, can be used to control, but it still affected J20 and T50 design. But for J20, it

A good, a bad. Benefits are: coupling trim and vortex lift problem solving and a consideration, harm would immediately said, but also cannot say is a weakness.

Seem to will head vortex on the canard and leading-edge strake effects to a minimum, J20and T50 seem to have adopted for canard and leading-edge strake away from the head of the design. T50 nose from

The wing so far is not without reason.

T50 also uses a multiple vortex generators, but its movable strake is more conventional layout for the compensation of the concessions, strictly speaking, T50is double cavity between the lift

Body is conservative, and combined with the stealth F22, J20 integral lifting body can be said to be almost two times, and J20combined with the overall stealth fusion of multiple vortex generator is integral lifting body

One fighter only.

J20coupling can be said to be from the coupling, but actually, the real wing from the front wing has a considerable distance, large area of the front wing to ensure balancing role, as well as the vortex lift, but if

The main wing really left front wing, the vortex lift it or lose a lot of weight, J20actual away from the front canard wing trim, ensure the absolute strong, supersonic motor performance is very outstanding, but

Is subsonic and lifting body weakened do!

The typhoon will use small almost invisible pneumatic generator retaining a vortex generator, amplifying the wing area, but the J20solution is allergic to the pole, wing area on the

Large! Article edge increases one main vortex generator! This seems to be similar to typhoon false distance coupling world the one and only!

So J20's main vortex generator has been increased to three, the nose vortices, canard vortex vortex, wing, while the strake vortex will serve as an important auxiliary pneumatic measure, used for duck wing

, wing and Fuselage Aerodynamic integration design modification and vortex flow improvement and upgrading!

Two years ago, the closest concept may appear wing cutting edge extending out a sharp narrow edge, duck wing housed in edge design. But we have not thought of, J20

The importance of the strake vortex is beyond imagination. It almost can be counted as a separate main vortex generator!

Just to meet the stealthy airframe design, enough to let Americans proud, J20stealth unconventional multiple vortex generators of integral lifting body, its aerodynamic design need much effort

, flight control system need to be complicated!?

Strake vortex lift increase, and away from the center of gravity balancing ability can achieve large canard vortex lift and balancing ability of the dual strong, not only so, their design

Blended wing body combination of stealth requirements, presenting a planar integral lifting body effect! This benefit is the world knows, but apart from the early 1990's American actual verification

Have no practical use outside! In the J20thrust vector, balancing capacity will be increased further!

Can say, J20technique either canard, strake, DSi inlet are J10, FC1 as the technical accumulation, can say, J20technology does not exceed the world existing technology fan

Wai, but put them together, need to be extremely strong foundation, J20was the first to put into practice.

Another the body length of the reasons are complex, J20more than F22stressed area rate reduce, reduce the resistance," stealth bye" is nonsense, but compared with short thick F22, J20 more fine

Multiple, and the S shaped inlet is undoubtedly in the rear fuselage torsion, it is occupying valuable space, in order to give the internal weapons lattice cabin space, J20body length is no doubt. While T50by

On the two costal engine only slightly turned downwards, the intermediate space, so do not so long, cost is the stealth bad!

F22 stubby, is due to abnormal engine, J20a little longer, due to duck layout and stealth, super cruise to balance the needs of.

In addition, J20canard wing still uses J10ideas, using spanwise along the variable camber of large area is lift design, with obvious anhedral angle; the design of pneumatic and flight control design

The difficulty of cost, risk, income, obtain high lift aerodynamic control surfaces to good control effect. But the drawback is that the stealth ability does not appear to be arranged in parallel, in fact, a parallel arrangement of fly

Control is more demanding, and the eddy current complex worse, may fly after calculation, and without the use of such seemingly advanced layout, although there will be some signal scattering, but not good

To deal with the problem. The problem lies mainly in duck wing and body between joints and the rotating shaft. J20 uses a small strip protrusion block joint practice, it can reduce the RCS, but seems to have brought

A small control surfaces. J20designers to so much control surface, courage and skills terrible!

The main wing, J20 is designed in the regulation distance, using a large swept trapezoidal wing approach, similar to the French Rafale as concise and lively, taking into account and fuselage is not parallel to the lower RCS signal reflection

, to ensure the relatively small area with numerous vortex lift on supersonic and subsonic effect. Many people wish to consider W wing, but it seems like science fiction, but there are many disadvantages:

The 1processing complex, cost increase, while the strength of the defective.

2 W wing itself will have some radar wave reflectivity. While large swept trapezoidal wing appear to be simple, in fact, restrained the stealth effect is absolutely good.

3W wing to enhance strength, will inevitably result in weight lifting. However, it will move along the length of the fuselage, resulting in increased, and if the stretched back out, sharp edge during takeoff

A clean landing risk.

Differential duck wing, canard is few, and the importance, little is known about.

J20hood vents are serrated design, it is invisible, but many pictures show, vents are one large and one small change, to be sure, in the J20 thrust vector before, engine thrust and torque experiment has begun. While the V tail relaxed fighter yaw stability appears to be for this match!

It also seems to be a thorny problem. In T50, head of vorticity and similar false duck wing movable strake also seem to have this problem.

According to a number of public information, seems to be validated, this problem is not solved, can be used to control, but it still affected J20 and T50 design. But for J20, it

A good, a bad. Benefits are: coupling trim and vortex lift problem solving and a consideration, harm would immediately said, but also cannot say is a weakness.

Seem to will head vortex on the canard and leading-edge strake effects to a minimum, J20and T50 seem to have adopted for canard and leading-edge strake away from the head of the design. T50 nose from

The wing so far is not without reason.

T50 also uses a multiple vortex generators, but its movable strake is more conventional layout for the compensation of the concessions, strictly speaking, T50is double cavity between the lift

Body is conservative, and combined with the stealth F22, J20 integral lifting body can be said to be almost two times, and J20combined with the overall stealth fusion of multiple vortex generator is integral lifting body

One fighter only.

J20coupling can be said to be from the coupling, but actually, the real wing from the front wing has a considerable distance, large area of the front wing to ensure balancing role, as well as the vortex lift, but if

The main wing really left front wing, the vortex lift it or lose a lot of weight, J20actual away from the front canard wing trim, ensure the absolute strong, supersonic motor performance is very outstanding, but

Is subsonic and lifting body weakened do!

The typhoon will use small almost invisible pneumatic generator retaining a vortex generator, amplifying the wing area, but the J20solution is allergic to the pole, wing area on the

Large! Article edge increases one main vortex generator! This seems to be similar to typhoon false distance coupling world the one and only!

So J20's main vortex generator has been increased to three, the nose vortices, canard vortex vortex, wing, while the strake vortex will serve as an important auxiliary pneumatic measure, used for duck wing

, wing and Fuselage Aerodynamic integration design modification and vortex flow improvement and upgrading!

Two years ago, the closest concept may appear wing cutting edge extending out a sharp narrow edge, duck wing housed in edge design. But we have not thought of, J20

The importance of the strake vortex is beyond imagination. It almost can be counted as a separate main vortex generator!

Just to meet the stealthy airframe design, enough to let Americans proud, J20stealth unconventional multiple vortex generators of integral lifting body, its aerodynamic design need much effort

, flight control system need to be complicated!?

Strake vortex lift increase, and away from the center of gravity balancing ability can achieve large canard vortex lift and balancing ability of the dual strong, not only so, their design

Blended wing body combination of stealth requirements, presenting a planar integral lifting body effect! This benefit is the world knows, but apart from the early 1990's American actual verification

Have no practical use outside! In the J20thrust vector, balancing capacity will be increased further!

Can say, J20technique either canard, strake, DSi inlet are J10, FC1 as the technical accumulation, can say, J20technology does not exceed the world existing technology fan

Wai, but put them together, need to be extremely strong foundation, J20was the first to put into practice.

Another the body length of the reasons are complex, J20more than F22stressed area rate reduce, reduce the resistance," stealth bye" is nonsense, but compared with short thick F22, J20 more fine

Multiple, and the S shaped inlet is undoubtedly in the rear fuselage torsion, it is occupying valuable space, in order to give the internal weapons lattice cabin space, J20body length is no doubt. While T50by

On the two costal engine only slightly turned downwards, the intermediate space, so do not so long, cost is the stealth bad!

F22 stubby, is due to abnormal engine, J20a little longer, due to duck layout and stealth, super cruise to balance the needs of.

In addition, J20canard wing still uses J10ideas, using spanwise along the variable camber of large area is lift design, with obvious anhedral angle; the design of pneumatic and flight control design

The difficulty of cost, risk, income, obtain high lift aerodynamic control surfaces to good control effect. But the drawback is that the stealth ability does not appear to be arranged in parallel, in fact, a parallel arrangement of fly

Control is more demanding, and the eddy current complex worse, may fly after calculation, and without the use of such seemingly advanced layout, although there will be some signal scattering, but not good

To deal with the problem. The problem lies mainly in duck wing and body between joints and the rotating shaft. J20 uses a small strip protrusion block joint practice, it can reduce the RCS, but seems to have brought

A small control surfaces. J20designers to so much control surface, courage and skills terrible!

The main wing, J20 is designed in the regulation distance, using a large swept trapezoidal wing approach, similar to the French Rafale as concise and lively, taking into account and fuselage is not parallel to the lower RCS signal reflection

, to ensure the relatively small area with numerous vortex lift on supersonic and subsonic effect. Many people wish to consider W wing, but it seems like science fiction, but there are many disadvantages:

The 1processing complex, cost increase, while the strength of the defective.

2 W wing itself will have some radar wave reflectivity. While large swept trapezoidal wing appear to be simple, in fact, restrained the stealth effect is absolutely good.

3W wing to enhance strength, will inevitably result in weight lifting. However, it will move along the length of the fuselage, resulting in increased, and if the stretched back out, sharp edge during takeoff

A clean landing risk.

Differential duck wing, canard is few, and the importance, little is known about.

J20hood vents are serrated design, it is invisible, but many pictures show, vents are one large and one small change, to be sure, in the J20 thrust vector before, engine thrust and torque experiment has begun. While the V tail relaxed fighter yaw stability appears to be for this match!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lateral movement, slip, J20 does not use ready-made similar to F22 as the traditional aerodynamic layout, instead of using the canard aerodynamic layout, is in pursuit of high mobility.

long fuselage design is intended to be useful for high-speed flight, it is in order to make up for the inadequate level of engine technology, with the development of high performance vector engine development, combine the two, mobility increases, but increases the complexity of flight control, flight control programming can produce more complex flight action.J20 flight control programming need the best programming staff&#65292;Write the best flight control procedures, can fully play its mobility potential, in theory it can do almost anything can think of complex movements, if equipped with vector engine , human physiological limit


----------



## j20blackdragon

lordwedggie said:


> the J20 and F22 both have a very clean under belly, the Pak-FA is sort of a mess if you don't mind me saying so.



The lower fuselage of the PAK FA isn't just sort of a mess. It's an absolute mess. 

First, take a look at the flat and clean lower fuselages of three *REAL* stealth fighters.

















Here's the wannabe PAK FA.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## eachus

ptldM3 said:


>




you first claimed you saw/read at least 5 of J10 had down, you could not prove any. 
that picture show the "accident" limited on 1/5 acre of rice land. 
even a monkey knows 1/5 acre landing is almost perfect perpendicular landing. 
even without an engine, the J10 still can make huge holes on the soft rice land.
but you only claim the water and mud is enough to prevent fire and smoke on the J10,
a 500 - 600 km/hr falling J10 could not make a den on the soft mud?
do you believe the J10 was made of packaging peanuts? 


Where is the engine? the J10 lost engine and the body is still be visible in large pieces? 
you like talk in IQs, what IQ are those pictures are?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

nuclearpak said:


> *Uptil now no answer.* So could you help me on this??


No surprise there, buddy...Considering the American strict regime of modeling/predicting *THEN* measurement have been disposed of as unnecessary because of:

- Ignorance because of no relevant experience.
- Kopp's misuse and abuse of RCS control methods.

First...






Typical 'open' environment is EM active, meaning there are all kinds of EM signals flying around, from cosmic background radiation (CBO) to cell phone to analog radio to digital data radio to TV to radars and so on. Many of them intrudes into the radar detection spectrum, meaning the centimetric ghz X band commonly used by war waging machines like targeting radars on aircrafts, ships, and missiles. To have any credible RCS measurement of an entire aircraft, a section of an aircraft, or even an outer component, like a wing or a communication antenna, of an aircraft, there must be a way to isolate what we want to measure, namely *ONLY* the signal that bounces off the body that we want to measure. We know that the body will be used in said 'open' environment but we just want to know how much it will reflect X, Y, or Z freq and *ONLY* those test freqs.

The best way to do that is to build an EM anechoic isolation chamber. Such isolation is not new because even the high-end audio manufacturers have their own audio isolation chamber testing.

Meyer Sound : The Anechoic Chamber


> The ideal anechoic chamber is a room totally free of acoustical reverberations. Any sound projected into the room, at any frequency, is fully absorbed.



Same idea for EM anechoic isolation chamber testing. EM signals travels at the speed of light in real physics, not 'Chinese physics', so in order to truly isolate the body under test, we must absorb any and all non-body reflection sources, such as from the walls. Our chamber is already shielding us from outside sources. So for the F-22 illustration above, if we shoot a typical X-band targeting freq at the nose, for example, we would know with very good precision at what we will receive *ONLY* from the nose. Signals that reflected off the nose and off the walls again will not be considered because the absorber tiles and pyramids will negate their behaviors. There is a reason why the pyramid shape is used for EM and audio signals but that is for another discussion. We can do the same measurement testing for the vertical stabs, a wing or both wings, the canopy, the landing gear, or just about any structure and outer component with high confidence that the reflected signals will be what we want without being contaminated.






We can even rotate the body to simulate radar bombardment from most attack directions. We can test the aircraft's communication radiation pattern and behaviors, as in if we transmit using the upper VHF antenna, can that transmission be picked up by a ground SIGINT intelligence snooper. Being so isolated, we can have very detailed EM signals behaviors on any complex body.

The next testing regime will be in said 'open' environment, but not completely...






F-22 Raptor History


> F-22 RCS testing was performed at the Helendale Measurement Facility, a state-of-the-art RCS measurement facility operated by Lockheed Martin. During the initial phases of testing, *the model was mounted upside-down, so engineers could get a good look at the bottom of the aircraft.* Later, the model was flipped over so that the top of the aircraft could be examined. Additionally, near-field RCS measurements (i. e. close to the aircraft) were taken for correlation with data taken in the F-22 indoor RCS measurement facility at Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems in Marietta, Georgia.


The word 'look' here does not mean visual. It mean radar bombardment. We want to know what the underside 'look' like in said 'open' environment. The reason why we mount it upside down is because of 'multipath reflections'...






We want to know how much of those 'other' sources will contribute to the aircraft's underside along with out test transmission.

With multipath reflections, we run the risk of our own signals contaminating our reflections:

- Direct/direct
- Direct/non-direct
- Non-direct/direct
- Non-direct/non-direct

Of the above four signals, we want data from only one: direct/direct. Meaning our transmission bounced off the aircraft and took a direct path back to us.

The direct/non-direct mean our direct transmission bounced off the model, then the ground and traveled back to us. That is a contaminant signal.

The non-direct/direct mean part of our transmission bounced off the ground, bounced off the model, then took a direct path back to us. Another contaminant signal.

The non-direct/non-direct mean part of our transmission bounced off the ground, bounced off the model, bounced off the ground again, then traveled back to us. Another contaminant signal.

The final RCS testing will be the aircraft in flight at different altitudes being targeted by different sources from different directions. Then *ALL* data will be analyzed to see how much one stage's prediction/modeling correlate to the next stage with increased signals contributions from multiple sources, threats or not.

We used this strict testing regime over the decades and it served US well. Practitioners of 'Chinese physics' probably have different schemes but what do I know about that...

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Jango

Thank you for that.

Is the raptor photo in a an-echoic chamber you posted, of the BAF chamber?


----------



## gambit

lordwedggie said:


> While some posters from China have an obvious over positive outlook on the J20 during this debate, your statement is equally unconvincing. The above statement for example: by your logic, since we are all talking here, none of us know, so then *what is the point of this discussion?*


The point is: Caution. Which have been disregarded.



lordwedggie said:


> Are we not all posting 'random' photos? How is a photo determined 'random' or otherwise? I myself find the photo comparison makes a lot of sense. A few posts back, Martian2 and J20BlackDragon have compared ten visual points where the J20 APPEARS to be more advanced. You and Gambit's counter mostly consisted of calling them 'clueless', 'Chinese physics', and now 'Feeble Coward' with no convincing argument.


Here is where the convincing argument have been discarded...






Here is where the technical details of this complex subject are selectively discarded by your friends.

In RCS measurement, every item on a complex body is a 'contributor' to the final RCS value. Everything from a panel gap, to a structural gap, to a screw gap, to the pilot himself, and so on...Contribute to the final RCS value.

I will say something that will shock you: In radar detection, *NOTHING* is invisible.

What we call 'stealth' is that line where we do or do not see the aircraft, or only part of the aircraft, as the airliner illustration showed. That is an example of a 'threshold', something your friends have a difficult time understanding. We can raise and lower this threshold any where we want, but the reason that this threshold exist is because of many things we *DO NOT WANT* to receive, such as cosmic background radiation (CBO), civilian communication signals, TV signals, and so on. So we calculate the mean level of these 'garbage' signals and set our threshold there. We call that the 'clutter rejection threshold'. What 'stealth' does is to shape the body in such a way that any radar will *IMMEDIATELY* insert the body into that rejection threshold, meaning its RCS is so low that the radar thinks it is one of the many 'garbage' signals and does not process it as a threat. The seeking radar sees the 'stealth' aircraft, but assumes it to be a part of American Idol and dismisses it. Get it?

So just because the PAK appears to be 'dirty' to the human eyes, that does not mean all those 'dirty' features sufficiently contributed the PAK's RCS to above a threshold. The above illustration have been posted many times before but because it put into doubts many of the Chinese members' claims and understanding, that illustration and my usual accompanying explanations, which are convincing enough to many people, have been dismissed by the Chinese members. For all we know, both the J-20 and the PAK have similar RCS values. We *DO NOT KNOW* and therefore should exercise caution in making any claims.



nuclearpak said:


> Thank you for that.
> 
> Is the raptor photo in a an-echoic chamber you posted, of the BAF chamber?


Yes, it is of an F-22 in BAF.

Try this as well...

Shooting a Plane in One of The Quietest Places on Earth | Visual Science | Discover Magazine


> An RQ-4 Global Hawk Block 20 aircraft hangs inside the Benefield Anechoic Facility at Edwards AFB

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## eachus

&#8220; For all we know, both the J-20 and the PAK have similar RCS values. We DO NOT KNOW and therefore should exercise caution in making any claims. &#8221;

you meant all 3G and 4G and 5G fighters have similar RSC based on your favor as you like it or not.
very funny? no!

In fact, we dont need to be stealthy designer to understand the above of what you said was radar screen on a metal airline on vertical bottom view of that object. pretty much perpendicular to the plan. Stealth fighter excluded T50 are not metal visible.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

lordwedggie said:


> Indeed you, assuming you are an expert, have not revealed much of anything.




In terms of technical details I have revealed far more than any of the other here with their bombardment of photos. The problem I have is people making claims about so and so being &#8216;un-stealthy&#8217; those same people can not support their claim on an intellectual level.





lordwedggie said:


> I still don't know what the difference is between a random and&#8230;non-random photo, but from what I could see, the J-20's nose is only more rounded on the top, but quite angular on the sides and bottom. It is more similar to the F-22 than Pak-Fa whose nose is nearly completely rounded.






I suspect that you have either never seen a frontal photo of the pak-fa or you have just made that statement in an act of petty either way it is a silly statement.


The pak-fa has the same cant in the random/fuselage as the j-20. And a picture to proves it:


Google Image Result for http://russianplanes.net/images/to52000/051904.jpg






lordwedggie said:


> Now, I don't know what significance is this to an plane's stealth capability, but the dozens of posts you and gambit have posted denying there is a visible difference between the J20 and Pak-Fa's nose is, puzzling to say the least. You rejected a clearly visible difference without going farther for a conclusion, this is the train of thoughts I have problem understanding.




Who was ever talking about the &#8216;nose&#8217; or random? The pak-fa and j-20 have a similar nose with the exception being that the pak-fa has a flat chin.






lordwedggie said:


> I'll accept what you said about real experts will reveal nothing, and I'll accept you know more about stealth than I do. My question is, why would the F-22 and J20 have this feature? Would it not be more expensive / difficult to produce this kind of 'rimless' canopy than traditional metal-stripping. Is it there just to look pretty? (It sure does)





A one piece canopy is very heavy, the F-22&#8217;s canopy is 360lbs if memory is correct, it is also very expensive. The up side is that because these canopies have an inherent thickness; they are very survivable in bird strike situations. One piece canopies also have great visibility, and theoretically speaking they can contribute to a smaller RCS because the aircraft will have fewer discontinuities. The mistake most people (Martian, J-20 black dragon) make is that an aircraft has many discontinuities in the form of bay doors, airbrakes, and various other panels. People forget that the J-20 has an airbrake, the pak-fa does not, so while the pak-fa has a discontinuity in the canopy the J-20 has discontinuities in other places.

And as why the pak-fa does not have a one piece canopy is not known, perhaps it will receive one later, perhaps the designers didn&#8217;t think it was worth the extra cost, weight, ect. 







lordwedggie said:


> Their original argument was not limited to gaps, but also rivets, protrusions, bumps. Looking at (random?) photos, the J20 and F22 both have a very clean under belly, the Pak-FA is sort of a mess if you don't mind me saying so.




You are free to your opinion. I have never once degraded the J-20 any criticism I have had was in response to guys like Martian. If you have been a member of the forum long enough you would know that the guy blatantly comes into threads and starts attacking the pak-fa, F-35, even F-22, for no apparent reason other than the fact that he likes chest thumping. Now anything I have posted about the J-20 has been a direct response, so while they claim the J-20 has many round surfaces I can counter by saying the J-20 also has many round surfaces in the form of: actuators, nozzles, chin and aft fuselage.

Perhaps you may think the pacify is a mess, and I would say it still needs some refinements, but I can see that you are falling in the same trap as a few others in this thread. Just merely looking at an aircraft does not tell you everything although I can reveal a lot if you understand some of the principles involved in an aircraft being LO; however, so far very few understand.




lordwedggie said:


> It seems you are claiming all three aircraft are the same (though you only addressed the gap), yet I clearly see a difference?




All are different but have many similarities, the pak-fa shares more in common with the F-22 than it does with the J-20 but all three aircraft are distinctly different.




lordwedggie said:


> I skipped some pages on this debate but I recall there was a point raised by Martian that the engine blades aren't visible from the front for both the J20 and F22, yet clearly visible (on my computer I had to adjust the contrast levels to see it) on the PAK. I don't recall you guys had a counter for it, but assume you will say that exposed engine blades won't affect stealth, my question is why would the J20 and F22 go for the effort to hide them?




Yes exposed engine fan blades would increase RCS, I always said that, but by how much is not known. The pak-fa is supposed to be fitted with a sort of &#8216;radar blocker&#8217; something like what the F-117 used but without the restricted airflow. 








lordwedggie said:


> I don't see any backed source in neither the post I was replying to originally, or your post I am replying to now.





I&#8217;ve posted probably dozens of posts with sources regarding this subject. What would you like cited?






lordwedggie said:


> I'm being accused of having the thinking capacity of a brick and a chest thumpers merely for the fact that I'm Chinese (the remark applied to me as soon as I made a reply to you with my chinese flags on my avatar). I consider that a racial remark, or at least inappropriate indeed.




My criticism, was for the guys at Sino defense, and although I am not a member, I have on occasions visited the forum, and it is appalling at best, the trash, lies, ignorance, and lack of knowledge is enough to make me cringe, so yes, the guys there are chest thumpers and they just happen to be Chinese, I can always call them Sino defense chest thumpers if it will make you sleep better.







lordwedggie said:


> Now, I don't know what significance is this to an plane's stealth capability, but the dozens of posts you and gambit have posted denying there is a visible difference between the J20 and Pak-Fa's nose is, puzzling to say the least. You rejected a clearly visible difference without going farther for a conclusion, this is the train of thoughts I have problem understanding.




Who was ever talking about the &#8216;nose&#8217; or random? The pak-fa and j-20 have a similar nose with the exception being that the pak-fa has a flat chin.






lordwedggie said:


> I'll accept what you said about real experts will reveal nothing, and I'll accept you know more about stealth than I do. My question is, why would the F-22 and J20 have this feature? Would it not be more expensive / difficult to produce this kind of 'rimless' canopy than traditional metal-stripping. Is it there just to look pretty? (It sure does)





A one piece canopy is very heavy, the F-22&#8217;s canopy is 360lbs if memory is correct, it is also very expensive. The up side is that because these canopies have an inherent thickness; they are very survivable in bird strike situations. One piece canopies also have great visibility, and theoretically speaking they can contribute to a smaller RCS because the aircraft will have fewer discontinuities. The mistake most people (Martian, J-20 black dragon) make is that an aircraft has many discontinuities in the form of bay doors, airbrakes, and various other panels. People forget that the J-20 has an airbrake, the pak-fa does not, so while the pak-fa has a discontinuity in the canopy the J-20 has discontinuities in other places.

And as why the pak-fa does not have a one piece canopy is not known, perhaps it will receive one later, perhaps the designers didn&#8217;t think it was worth the extra cost, weight, ect. 








lordwedggie said:


> I skipped some pages on this debate but I recall there was a point raised by Martian that the engine blades aren't visible from the front for both the J20 and F22, yet clearly visible (on my computer I had to adjust the contrast levels to see it) on the PAK. I don't recall you guys had a counter for it, but assume you will say that exposed engine blades won't affect stealth, my question is why would the J20 and F22 go for the effort to hide them?




Yes exposed engine fan blades would increase RCS, I always said that, but by how much is not known. The pak-fa is supposed to be fitted with a sort of &#8216;radar blocker&#8217; something like what the F-117 used but without the restricted airflow. 







lordwedggie said:


> Now, I don't know what significance is this to an plane's stealth capability, but the dozens of posts you and gambit have posted denying there is a visible difference between the J20 and Pak-Fa's nose is, puzzling to say the least. You rejected a clearly visible difference without going farther for a conclusion, this is the train of thoughts I have problem understanding.




Who was ever talking about the &#8216;nose&#8217; or random? The pak-fa and j-20 have a similar nose with the exception being that the pak-fa has a flat chin.











lordwedggie said:


> It seems you are claiming all three aircraft are the same (though you only addressed the gap), yet I clearly see a difference?




All are different but have many similarities, the pak-fa shares more in common with the F-22 than it does with the J-20 but all three aircraft are distinctly different.




lordwedggie said:


> I don't see any backed source in neither the post I was replying to originally, or your post I am replying to now.





I&#8217;ve posted probably dozens of posts with sources regarding this subject. What would you like cited?






lordwedggie said:


> I'm being accused of having the thinking capacity of a brick and a chest thumpers merely for the fact that I'm Chinese (the remark applied to me as soon as I made a reply to you with my chinese flags on my avatar). I consider that a racial remark, or at least inappropriate indeed.




My criticism, was for the guys at Sino defense, and although I am not a member, I have on occasions visited the forum, and it is appalling at best, the trash, lies, ignorance, and lack of knowledge is enough to make me cringe, so yes, the guys there are chest thumpers and they just happen to be Chinese, I can always call them Sino defense chest thumpers if it will make you sleep better.







eachus said:


> you first claimed you saw/read at least 5 of J10 had down, you could not prove any.




Really, the names of the pilots involved wasn&#8217;t enough? Photos weren&#8217;t enough? Dates weren&#8217;t enough? Even a weki search would reveal at least 4 crashes.




eachus said:


> that picture show the "accident" limited on 1/5 acre of rice land.
> even a monkey knows 1/5 acre landing is almost perfect perpendicular landing.





Ignorance on your part just like not knowing that pilots can opt to dump their fuel in emergencies. How do you know where the aircraft hit the ground and where it settled? All it takes is a hard landing and a muddy/watery environment for an aircraft to come to an abrupt stop, or even better a roll.



Take a look at the following video:


Saab JAS-39 Gripen crashing in landing - YouTube

Some things to note, the JAS-39 did not catch fire, it took very little for it to come to a stop, and the damage to the wings was similar compared to the J-10.




eachus said:


> even without an engine, the J10 still can make huge holes on the soft rice land.
> but you only claim the water and mud is enough to prevent fire and smoke on the J10,
> a 500 - 600 km/hr falling J10 could not make a den on the soft mud?
> do you believe the J10 was made of packaging peanuts?



Even if the J-10 crashed with enough force to create a hole, a rice field which is flooded in water simply flood the hole with water. I also mentioned many times before that pilots can dump their fuel, so the fact that you see little fire damage is likely the result of fuel dumping coupled with a wet muddy environment.




eachus said:


> Where is the engine? the J10 lost engine and the body is still be visible in large pieces?
> you like talk in IQs, what IQ are those pictures are?




You do not know that an engine has been ejected upon impact it could have simply been that the nozzle broke apart, Furthermore, the picture reveals very little, for all we know the engine could be just out of view of the photo, perhaps it could be many yards out of the photo, the point is that there is only one photo that is revealing only one angle.

Even if the J-10 crashed with enough force to create a hole, a rice field which is flooded in water simply flood the hole with water. I also mentioned many times before that pilots can dump their fuel, so the fact that you see little fire damage is likely the result of fuel dumping coupled with a wet muddy environment.




eachus said:


> Where is the engine? the J10 lost engine and the body is still be visible in large pieces?
> you like talk in IQs, what IQ are those pictures are?




You do not know that an engine has been ejected upon impact it could have simply been that the nozzle broke apart, Furthermore, the picture reveals very little, for all we know the engine could be just out of view of the photo, perhaps it could be many yards out of the photo, the point is that there is only one photo that is revealing only one angle.

Even if the J-10 crashed with enough force to create a hole, a rice field which is flooded in water simply flood the hole with water. I also mentioned many times before that pilots can dump their fuel, so the fact that you see little fire damage is likely the result of fuel dumping coupled with a wet muddy environment.




eachus said:


> Where is the engine? the J10 lost engine and the body is still be visible in large pieces?
> you like talk in IQs, what IQ are those pictures are?




You do not know that an engine has been ejected upon impact it could have simply been that the nozzle broke apart, Furthermore, the picture reveals very little, for all we know the engine could be just out of view of the photo, perhaps it could be many yards out of the photo, the point is that there is only one photo that is revealing only one angle.


----------



## Esc8781

ptldM3 said:


> In terms of technical details I have revealed far more than any of the other here with their bombardment of photos. The problem I have is people making claims about so and so being un-stealthy those same people can not support their claim on an intellectual level. ptldM3 Is the PAK-FA is going to have fine wire Mesh of FLIR, and one more is it going to have the mesh on the outside or like inside the intake? But do part of the inhaled air bypass the engine and ultilized to decrease its teperture on the pakfa?.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that you have either never seen a frontal photo of the pak-fa or you have just made that statement in an act of petty either way it is a silly statement.
> 
> 
> The pak-fa has the same cant in the random/fuselage as the j-20. And a picture to proves it:
> 
> 
> Google Image Result for http://russianplanes.net/images/to52000/051904.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who was ever talking about the nose or random? The pak-fa and j-20 have a similar nose with the exception being that the pak-fa has a flat chin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A one piece canopy is very heavy, the F-22s canopy is 360lbs if memory is correct, it is also very expensive. The up side is that because these canopies have an inherent thickness; they are very survivable in bird strike situations. One piece canopies also have great visibility, and theoretically speaking they can contribute to a smaller RCS because the aircraft will have fewer discontinuities. The mistake most people (Martian, J-20 black dragon) make is that an aircraft has many discontinuities in the form of bay doors, airbrakes, and various other panels. People forget that the J-20 has an airbrake, the pak-fa does not, so while the pak-fa has a discontinuity in the canopy the J-20 has discontinuities in other places.
> 
> And as why the pak-fa does not have a one piece canopy is not known, perhaps it will receive one later, perhaps the designers didnt think it was worth the extra cost, weight, ect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to your opinion. I have never once degraded the J-20 any criticism I have had was in response to guys like Martian. If you have been a member of the forum long enough you would know that the guy blatantly comes into threads and starts attacking the pak-fa, F-35, even F-22, for no apparent reason other than the fact that he likes chest thumping. Now anything I have posted about the J-20 has been a direct response, so while they claim the J-20 has many round surfaces I can counter by saying the J-20 also has many round surfaces in the form of: actuators, nozzles, chin and aft fuselage.
> 
> Perhaps you may think the pacify is a mess, and I would say it still needs some refinements, but I can see that you are falling in the same trap as a few others in this thread. Just merely looking at an aircraft does not tell you everything although I can reveal a lot if you understand some of the principles involved in an aircraft being LO; however, so far very few understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All are different but have many similarities, the pak-fa shares more in common with the F-22 than it does with the J-20 but all three aircraft are distinctly different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes exposed engine fan blades would increase RCS, I always said that, but by how much is not known. The pak-fa is supposed to be fitted with a sort of radar blocker something like what the F-117 used but without the restricted airflow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ive posted probably dozens of posts with sources regarding this subject. What would you like cited?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My criticism, was for the guys at Sino defense, and although I am not a member, I have on occasions visited the forum, and it is appalling at best, the trash, lies, ignorance, and lack of knowledge is enough to make me cringe, so yes, the guys there are chest thumpers and they just happen to be Chinese, I can always call them Sino defense chest thumpers if it will make you sleep better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who was ever talking about the nose or random? The pak-fa and j-20 have a similar nose with the exception being that the pak-fa has a flat chin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A one piece canopy is very heavy, the F-22s canopy is 360lbs if memory is correct, it is also very expensive. The up side is that because these canopies have an inherent thickness; they are very survivable in bird strike situations. One piece canopies also have great visibility, and theoretically speaking they can contribute to a smaller RCS because the aircraft will have fewer discontinuities. The mistake most people (Martian, J-20 black dragon) make is that an aircraft has many discontinuities in the form of bay doors, airbrakes, and various other panels. People forget that the J-20 has an airbrake, the pak-fa does not, so while the pak-fa has a discontinuity in the canopy the J-20 has discontinuities in other places.
> 
> And as why the pak-fa does not have a one piece canopy is not known, perhaps it will receive one later, perhaps the designers didnt think it was worth the extra cost, weight, ect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to your opinion. I have never once degraded the J-20 any criticism I have had was in response to guys like Martian. If you have been a member of the forum long enough you would know that the guy blatantly comes into threads and starts attacking the pak-fa, F-35, even F-22, for no apparent reason other than the fact that he likes chest thumping. Now anything I have posted about the J-20 has been a direct response, so while they claim the J-20 has many round surfaces I can counter by saying the J-20 also has many round surfaces in the form of: actuators, nozzles, chin and aft fuselage.
> 
> Perhaps you may think the pacify is a mess, and I would say it still needs some refinements, but I can see that you are falling in the same trap as a few others in this thread. Just merely looking at an aircraft does not tell you everything although I can reveal a lot if you understand some of the principles involved in an aircraft being LO; however, so far very few understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All are different but have many similarities, the pak-fa shares more in common with the F-22 than it does with the J-20 but all three aircraft are distinctly different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes exposed engine fan blades would increase RCS, I always said that, but by how much is not known. The pak-fa is supposed to be fitted with a sort of radar blocker something like what the F-117 used but without the restricted airflow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ive posted probably dozens of posts with sources regarding this subject. What would you like cited?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My criticism, was for the guys at Sino defense, and although I am not a member, I have on occasions visited the forum, and it is appalling at best, the trash, lies, ignorance, and lack of knowledge is enough to make me cringe, so yes, the guys there are chest thumpers and they just happen to be Chinese, I can always call them Sino defense chest thumpers if it will make you sleep better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of technical details I have revealed far more than any of the other here with their bombardment of photos. The problem I have is people making claims about so and so being un-stealthy those same people can not support their claim on an intellectual level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that you have either never seen a frontal photo of the pak-fa or you have just made that statement in an act of petty either way it is a silly statement.
> 
> 
> The pak-fa has the same cant in the random/fuselage as the j-20. And a picture to proves it:
> 
> 
> Google Image Result for http://russianplanes.net/images/to52000/051904.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who was ever talking about the nose or random? The pak-fa and j-20 have a similar nose with the exception being that the pak-fa has a flat chin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A one piece canopy is very heavy, the F-22s canopy is 360lbs if memory is correct, it is also very expensive. The up side is that because these canopies have an inherent thickness; they are very survivable in bird strike situations. One piece canopies also have great visibility, and theoretically speaking they can contribute to a smaller RCS because the aircraft will have fewer discontinuities. The mistake most people (Martian, J-20 black dragon) make is that an aircraft has many discontinuities in the form of bay doors, airbrakes, and various other panels. People forget that the J-20 has an airbrake, the pak-fa does not, so while the pak-fa has a discontinuity in the canopy the J-20 has discontinuities in other places.
> 
> And as why the pak-fa does not have a one piece canopy is not known, perhaps it will receive one later, perhaps the designers didnt think it was worth the extra cost, weight, ect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to your opinion. I have never once degraded the J-20 any criticism I have had was in response to guys like Martian. If you have been a member of the forum long enough you would know that the guy blatantly comes into threads and starts attacking the pak-fa, F-35, even F-22, for no apparent reason other than the fact that he likes chest thumping. Now anything I have posted about the J-20 has been a direct response, so while they claim the J-20 has many round surfaces I can counter by saying the J-20 also has many round surfaces in the form of: actuators, nozzles, chin and aft fuselage.
> 
> Perhaps you may think the pacify is a mess, and I would say it still needs some refinements, but I can see that you are falling in the same trap as a few others in this thread. Just merely looking at an aircraft does not tell you everything although I can reveal a lot if you understand some of the principles involved in an aircraft being LO; however, so far very few understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All are different but have many similarities, the pak-fa shares more in common with the F-22 than it does with the J-20 but all three aircraft are distinctly different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes exposed engine fan blades would increase RCS, I always said that, but by how much is not known. The pak-fa is supposed to be fitted with a sort of radar blocker something like what the F-117 used but without the restricted airflow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ive posted probably dozens of posts with sources regarding this subject. What would you like cited?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My criticism, was for the guys at Sino defense, and although I am not a member, I have on occasions visited the forum, and it is appalling at best, the trash, lies, ignorance, and lack of knowledge is enough to make me cringe, so yes, the guys there are chest thumpers and they just happen to be Chinese, I can always call them Sino defense chest thumpers if it will make you sleep better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, the names of the pilots involved wasnt enough? Photos werent enough? Dates werent enough? Even a weki search would reveal at least 4 crashes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance on your part just like not knowing that pilots can opt to dump their fuel in emergencies. How do you know where the aircraft hit the ground and where it settled? All it takes is a hard landing and a muddy/watery environment for an aircraft to come to an abrupt stop, or even better a roll.
> 
> 
> 
> Take a look at the following video:
> 
> 
> Saab JAS-39 Gripen crashing in landing - YouTube
> 
> Some things to note, the JAS-39 did not catch fire, it took very little for it to come to a stop, and the damage to the wings was similar compared to the J-10.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if the J-10 crashed with enough force to create a hole, a rice field which is flooded in water simply flood the hole with water. I also mentioned many times before that pilots can dump their fuel, so the fact that you see little fire damage is likely the result of fuel dumping coupled with a wet muddy environment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do not know that an engine has been ejected upon impact it could have simply been that the nozzle broke apart, Furthermore, the picture reveals very little, for all we know the engine could be just out of view of the photo, perhaps it could be many yards out of the photo, the point is that there is only one photo that is revealing only one angle.
> 
> Even if the J-10 crashed with enough force to create a hole, a rice field which is flooded in water simply flood the hole with water. I also mentioned many times before that pilots can dump their fuel, so the fact that you see little fire damage is likely the result of fuel dumping coupled with a wet muddy environment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do not know that an engine has been ejected upon impact it could have simply been that the nozzle broke apart, Furthermore, the picture reveals very little, for all we know the engine could be just out of view of the photo, perhaps it could be many yards out of the photo, the point is that there is only one photo that is revealing only one angle.
> 
> Even if the J-10 crashed with enough force to create a hole, a rice field which is flooded in water simply flood the hole with water. I also mentioned many times before that pilots can dump their fuel, so the fact that you see little fire damage is likely the result of fuel dumping coupled with a wet muddy environment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do not know that an engine has been ejected upon impact it could have simply been that the nozzle broke apart, Furthermore, the picture reveals very little, for all we know the engine could be just out of view of the photo, perhaps it could be many yards out of the photo, the point is that there is only one photo that is revealing only one angle.


 ptldM3 Is the PAK-FA is going to have fine wire Mesh of FLIR, and one more is it going to have the mesh on the outside or like inside the intake? Another question do part of the inhaled air bypass the engine and ultilized to decrease its temperature on the pakfa?.


----------



## j20blackdragon

gambit said:


> So just because the PAK appears to be 'dirty' to the human eyes, that does not mean all those 'dirty' features sufficiently contributed the PAK's RCS to above a threshold.



Look everybody.

Even gambit admits the PAK FA has many dirty features.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

j20blackdragon said:


> Look everybody.
> 
> Even gambit admits the PAK FA has many dirty features.



i believe he struggled to get that 'dirty' word out of his tin heart

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

j20blackdragon said:


> Look everybody.
> 
> Even gambit admits the PAK FA has many dirty features.


 


rcrmj said:


> i believe he struggled to get that 'dirty' word out of his tin heart




Point being.. if it was painted black you "experts" would all think it is "stealthier".. and that is where the problem is.


----------



## gambit

> lordwedggie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I skipped some pages on this debate but I recall there was a point raised by Martian that the engine blades aren't visible from the front for both the J20 and F22, yet clearly visible (on my computer I had to adjust the contrast levels to see it) on the PAK. I don't recall you guys had a counter for it, but assume you will say that exposed engine blades won't affect stealth, my question is why would the J20 and F22 go for the effort to hide them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ptldM3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes exposed engine fan blades would increase RCS, I always said that, but by how much is not known. The pak-fa is supposed to be fitted with a sort of radar blocker something like what the F-117 used but without the restricted airflow.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The F-117 and F-22 are 'revolutionary' designs in themselves. The PAK is an 'evolutionary' approach from the legacies of the Su-27 and other related airframes to the current trend in airframes with strong emphasis on RCS control measures. The J-20 is also an evolutionary approach from the MIG 1.44. If the 1.44's original layout enabled the J-20 to effect a serpentine intake tunnel system, it is out of fortune and perhaps insightful of the Chinese designers to adopt this particular airframe layout.

That said...The F-117's engine radar blocker is much more sophisticated in design than mere appearance would give...






The word 'absorb' in the above illustration does not mean to 'ingest' the signals as how absorbent materials does it. The word 'absorb' have a context of losses or more precisely to cause losses by any mean necessary.

So as far as the seeking radar is concerned, anything that denies it the reflected signals is an 'absorber', be it from material ingestion of the signals...






...Or deliberate geometric redirection of reflected signals...






The grill assembly is based upon the phrase 'geometric absorber' as well as some use of material absorber.

So based upon what we know of reflection behaviors, there should be no doubt that the PAK can have an engine radar blocker that as far as denial of RCS goes it can be as effective as what the F-117 has. The question is how much of an effect on engine performance will it be since the PAK is supposed to have a much higher engine performance than the non-afterburn F-117.

But of course, practitioners of 'Chinese physics' would have other ideas. 



eachus said:


> &#8220; For all we know, both the J-20 and the PAK have similar RCS values. We DO NOT KNOW and therefore should exercise caution in making any claims. &#8221;
> 
> you meant all 3G and 4G and 5G fighters have similar RSC based on your favor as you like it or not.
> very funny? no!
> 
> In fact, we dont need to be stealthy designer to understand the above of what you said was radar screen on a metal airline on vertical bottom view of that object. pretty much perpendicular to the plan. Stealth fighter excluded T50 are not metal visible.


You made a fool out of yourself with this. And actually got 'Thanked' for it. Says much about the...errr...'quality'...of the Chinese members' posts about this subject.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

amalakas said:


> Point being.. if it was painted black you "experts" would all think it is "stealthier".. and that is where the problem is.


my neighbour's cat is very black, so it must be 'very stealthy' then```kid do you think we are all simpletons like you?


----------



## amalakas

rcrmj said:


> my neighbour's cat is very black, so it must be 'very stealthy' then```kid do you think we are all simpletons like you?


 


kid ??? I'll put up my degrees anytime !! what have you got ? childhood fantasies of grandeur ??


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> kid ??? I'll put up my degrees anytime !! what have you got ? childhood fantasies of grandeur ??


Say what...??? Yours will be trumped by 'Chinese physics'.


----------



## senheiser

j20blackdragon said:


> I think China can blow the *entire country of Vietnam* out of the sky with ease.



thats why you lost 1 war with them in laos


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> The F-117 and F-22 are 'revolutionary' designs in themselves. The PAK is an 'evolutionary' approach from the legacies of the Su-27 and other related airframes to the current trend in airframes with strong emphasis on RCS control measures. The J-20 is also an evolutionary approach from the MIG 1.44. If the 1.44's original layout enabled the J-20 to effect a serpentine intake tunnel system, it is out of fortune and perhaps insightful of the Chinese designers to adopt this particular airframe layout.
> 
> That said...The F-117's engine radar blocker is much more sophisticated in design than mere appearance would give...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word 'absorb' in the above illustration does not mean to 'ingest' the signals as how absorbent materials does it. The word 'absorb' have a context of losses or more precisely to cause losses by any mean necessary.
> 
> So as far as the seeking radar is concerned, anything that denies it the reflected signals is an 'absorber', be it from material ingestion of the signals...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Or deliberate geometric redirection of reflected signals...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The grill assembly is based upon the phrase 'geometric absorber' as well as some use of material absorber.
> 
> So based upon what we know of reflection behaviors, there should be no doubt that the PAK can have an engine radar blocker that as far as denial of RCS goes it can be as effective as what the F-117 has. The question is how much of an effect on engine performance will it be since the PAK is supposed to have a much higher engine performance than the non-afterburn F-117.
> 
> But of course, practitioners of 'Chinese physics' would have other ideas.



Your point is faulty. You forgot to mention the F-117 and the radar-evading grille is only for subsonic flight. You can't use a grille for a supersonic aircraft. It disrupts the supersonic airflow.


----------



## senheiser

j20blackdragon said:


> *The PAK FA is a joke.*
> 
> LEVCONS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Framed canopy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fully exposed compressor face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gaps around the inlets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seams, gaps, protrusions, changes in surface material, sudden changes in shape, and surface
> 
> discontinuities all over the lower fuselage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conventional nozzles.



china has to import saturn engines from russia to be able to do a stealth fighter at all hahaha. J20 is fail, pak fa is much much better.


----------



## Martian2

senheiser said:


> china has to import saturn engines from russia to be able to do a stealth fighter at all hahaha. J20 is fail, pak fa is much much better.



No one has disputed that Russia is currently ahead of China in jet engine technology. The claim is the T-50/Pak-Fa is barely stealthy due to serious design flaws that everyone can see.


----------



## senheiser

Martian2 said:


> No one has disputed that Russia is currently ahead of China in jet engine technology. The claim is the T-50/Pak-Fa is barely stealthy due to serious design flaws that everyone can see.



i am not gonna argue what is stealthy and what isnt its pointless debate


----------



## Martian2

senheiser said:


> i am not gonna argue what is stealthy and what isnt its pointless debate



What if I told you the official Russian Embassy in India website claims a 0.5 square meter RCS for the T-50/Pak-Fa?

Would you accept your own government's claim regarding T-50/Pak-Fa stealth without dispute?


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Your point is faulty. You forgot to mention the F-117 and the radar-evading grille is only for subsonic flight. You can't use a grille for a supersonic aircraft. It disrupts the supersonic airflow.


And this argument is pointless. It is already well known that the F-117 was subsonic. The issue is: Is it possible to have a radar blocker that is of a different design than the F-117's? Answer: Yes.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> And this argument is pointless. It is already well known that the F-117 was subsonic. The issue is: Is it possible to have a radar blocker that is of a different design than the F-117's? Answer: Yes.



Show me a prototype or the test results for a radar blocker suitable for a supercruising supersonic aircraft.

I want to see a real design and its claimed effectiveness.

I'm getting tired of your b.s. pronouncements. I want to see something concrete.


----------



## Skull and Bones

Isn't it ironic, fan blades are visible in this picture. 






But not in a close-up shot, like this picture.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

Skull and Bones said:


> Isn't it ironic, fan blades are visible in this picture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But not in a close-up shot, like this picture.



Not at all. Sun was at a different angle or different light intensity. It happens all the time. Sometimes an object is in shadow and sometimes it is not, depending on the light source.

In the bottom photograph, the Sun was shining on the very bottom lip of the airduct. Hence, this presented a greater contrast for the camera and the automatic settings went for a sharp contrast (which made the airlet interior too dark).

On the other hand, the lighting in the first photograph was more even and it allowed the camera to narrow the contrast range for the photograph to capture more detail. People who use cameras understand these subtleties.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Show me a prototype or the test results for a radar blocker suitable for a supercruising supersonic aircraft.


And show me a credible argument against. Do not use 'Chinese physics'. I have already shown people here radar behaviors long before you got on board. In fact, *YOU* learned much about the issue from me. This is the first time *ANYONE* here know what the F-117's radar blocker look like and how effective it is based upon known radar signal behaviors.

So here it is again...






Show me a credible argument using real physics that based upon known radar behaviors, that it is impossible to design and create a blocker capable of working with a supersonic jet engine. Funny that you would crow about the J-20's DSI of being a radar blocker, despite the fact that the DSI was never intended so, but now you are at least implying that such a structure cannot be.



Martian2 said:


> I want to see a real design and its claimed effectiveness.
> 
> I'm getting tired of your b.s. pronouncements. I want to see something concrete.


The one with the greatest quantity of BS is *YOU*, pal. Go back to your dead playgrounds.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> And show me a credible argument against. Do not use 'Chinese physics'. I have already shown people here radar behaviors long before you got on board. In fact, *YOU* learned much about the issue from me. This is the first time *ANYONE* here know what the F-117's radar blocker look like and how effective it is based upon known radar signal behaviors.
> 
> So here it is again...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a credible argument using real physics that based upon known radar behaviors, that it is impossible to design and create a blocker capable of working with a supersonic jet engine. Funny that you would crow about the J-20's DSI of being a radar blocker, despite the fact that the DSI was never intended so, but now you are at least implying that such a structure cannot be.
> 
> 
> The one with the greatest quantity of BS is *YOU*, pal. Go back to your dead playgrounds.



Every time I ask for a mainstream reputable citation, you give me deafening silence.

That speaks volumes about your baloney claims and theories.

----------

However, I am indeed leaving soon. I can't stand it when people refuse to back up their claims with reputable citations. The general rule is that the more incredible the claim, the greater the need for a reputable citation. I can't seem to get a single reputable citation out of you.

One final thing, I already knew about the F-117 radar blocker and I have a color photograph of the gold mesh. As I understand it, it deflects radar upwards. So "no," I didn't learn it from you. I read about it on Australia Air Power. I never discussed the mesh radar blocker, because it is irrelevant to supersonic aircraft.

Anyway, adieu. You really need to work on your reputable citations to back up your sensational claims.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Every time I ask for a mainstream reputable citation, you give me deafening silence.
> 
> That speaks volumes about your baloney claims and theories.
> 
> ----------
> 
> However, I am indeed leaving soon. I can't stand it when people refuse to back up their claims with reputable citations. The general rule is that the more incredible the claim, the greater the need for a reputable citation. I can't seem to get a single reputable citation out of you.


I have supported my arguments far better than you have in this subject. People here know this. You have never been in the military, never worked on an aircraft, and never worked in a related industry. Why should we take you seriously?


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> Every time I ask for a mainstream reputable citation, you give me deafening silence.
> 
> That speaks volumes about your baloney claims and theories.
> 
> ----------
> 
> However, I am indeed leaving soon. I can't stand it when people refuse to back up their claims with reputable citations. The general rule is that the more incredible the claim, the greater the need for a reputable citation. I can't seem to get a single reputable citation out of you.




First of all you have left a million times already and you still come back!

second, the F-18 has a radar blocker, which shows that at least one design on a supersonic aircraft. 

But the point is not the radar blocker. 

I give it 50-50 that the T-50 will have/not have a blocker. 

I have posted the citation of the ITAE publications but while you demand citations you constantly ignore that one. 

There are more than one ways people have pursued to achieve LO. Have you ever considered that the Engineers at suckhoi don't care about the exposed compressor blades? 

The problem you have is you are not an engineer and you are not a tech, you see the planes as shapes.. we see the planes as engineering solutions to aviation problems... do you get it ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> I have supported my arguments far better than you have in this subject. People here know this. You have never been in the military, never worked on an aircraft, and never worked in a related industry. Why should we take you seriously?



Look at my thousands of posts. They are filled with reputable citations and solid reasoning. That's why.

----------

At Amalakas, I keep hoping you guys are on vacation. I look around and I don't see you guys. Once I start posting, you guys start popping out of nowhere. Then my aggravation goes up, because you numbskulls refuse to provide a citation when I ask you for one. Once I'm fed up, I need to relieve my stress. Thus, I'm gone again.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> One final thing, I already knew about the F-117 radar blocker and I have a color photograph of the gold mesh. As I understand it, it deflects radar upwards. So "no," I didn't learn it from you. I read about it on Australia Air Power. I never discussed the mesh radar blocker, because it is irrelevant to supersonic aircraft.


Bullsh1t. This is the first time you know how the F-117's radar blocker was designed based upon known radar signal behaviors. So yes, this is another instance where you learned another new thing from me. The issue is not whether the F-117's method is suitable for supersonic air flow or not. The issue is whether a design is possible.



Martian2 said:


> Look at my thousands of posts. They are filled with reputable citations and solid reasoning. That's why.


No, they are filled with highly convenient interpretations of sources. That is dishonesty from you.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> Bullsh1t. This is the first time you know how the F-117's radar blocker was designed based upon know radar signal behaviors. So yes, this is another instance where you learned another new thing from me. The issue is not whether the F-117's method is suitable for supersonic air flow or not. The issue is whether a design is possible.



Grrr....

Anyway, until next time.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Grrr....
> 
> Anyway, until next time.


This is where your nonsense will be challenged. Go back to your intellectually dead playground where others are more than willing to stroke your ego.


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> Look at my thousands of posts. They are filled with reputable citations and solid reasoning. That's why.
> 
> ----------
> 
> At Amalakas, I keep hoping you guys are on vacation. I look around and I don't see you guys. Once I start posting, you guys start popping out of nowhere. Then my aggravation goes up, because you numbskulls refuse to provide a citation when I ask you for one. Once I'm fed up, I need to relieve my stress. Thus, I'm gone again.



You shouldn't be aggravated, you shouldn't be anything. 

If you believe what you support, then you should have no problem. 

Again I am pointing out to you, that you see planes as shapes, not as engineering solutions, and as long as you do that, your positions will be biassed .


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> You shouldn't be aggravated, you shouldn't be anything.
> 
> If you believe what you support, then you should have no problem.
> 
> Again I am pointing out to you, that you see planes as shapes, not as engineering solutions, and as long as you do that, your positions will be biassed .


The man is a crybaby child. This is probably the one place where the majority of his posts are challenged. Not enough people outside of the Chinese members are willing to stroke his ego, hence he resorted to do it himself by boasting how many views he has on his pathetic video designed for the gullible.


----------



## antonius123

ptldM3 said:


> Right, and how is that so when the chin follows a *Circumference* of a perfect circle? And you still cant even spell elementaryouch, this comming from someone who is claiming i have no education.
> 
> Deny all you want but to proof is in the photo:



Either you are idiot or did not pass elementary math.
Should I bring cylinder picture infront of your face so that you recognize the cylinder shape?

Why dont you claim that PAKFA chin is also cylinder ..... 
Why dont you claim that F-22 chin is also cylinder... 
Why dont you claim that F-35 chin is also cylinder... 


Idiot 




> What experts? Kopp is not an expert in the field of low observability, he has no experience in that field. I have yet to see one real expert say a word. Real experts, people that know, dont talk, people who talk dont know.



Then who / where is the real low observability expert that denounce his statement .... idiot




> Dont play stupid, I have had many debates with you where I have provided sources.



Your evidence is a joke just like the above




> Firstly no one ever asked me to explain the equation, nor have I ever claimed I was expert that studied some random field of aviation, *you did*. *Amalakas asked you *to answer what the equation was and you never did. So much for your claims of being an expert. Your are a fraud and its been evident for some time.
> 
> Things dont work like that, *you* were asked what the equation was not me, so the only one running is *you*, so what is it?


Then how come you mentioned that equation that you yourself dont understand to debate me?

Amalakas just drag equation that he himself cannot explain the connection with my arguments. I've challenge him and he cant answer.

If you dont understand either, then better shut up.






> Wrong, where was your citation when I asked you to provide a source about the B-2? First you claimed the B-2 does not need to bank, and then when you looked like an utter fool you changed it too it does not need to bank HARD, I provided evidence that disproved your claim, yet you never provided a counter claim with proof.



I never claim that. It is your idiocy that made you missunderstand.
Where is you evidence about the expert that denounce kopp's suggestion about J-20?

Where is evidence that the J-20 chin is cylinder shape? 




> I have a clue to know that the J-20 has plenty of round shaping and massive corner reflectors from the tail fins.



Then prove to us that J-20 chin indeed is cylinder shape 




> And which link would that be?


See post #48




> No, it confirms that the J-20 has massive corner reflectors but you have too much petty pride to admit it:



This is more confirmation that you are really idiot.

Even 8 year old child will know that the corner you show above is not 90 degree.

You are demonstrating idiocy and embarrassing yourself here 

Every body know you are far from qualified to participate in this discussion


----------



## antonius123

j20blackdragon said:


> *The PAK FA is a joke.*
> 
> LEVCONS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Framed canopy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fully exposed compressor face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gaps around the inlets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seams, gaps, protrusions, changes in surface material, sudden changes in shape, and surface
> 
> discontinuities all over the lower fuselage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conventional nozzles.




I'd rather call this "SILENT FLANKER"


----------



## Safriz

this is not the final design of J-20...The plane is still a work in progress..
Plus these two prototypes are what Chinese are allowing the world to see...
who knows what secret improvement they are doing behind the scenes...So before giving a final verdict...keep in min that the final rpoduct may be very different...
Clue: YF-23 and F-22 were very different.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Then who / where is the real low observability expert that denounce his statement .... idiot


The one who said this...


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> The one with the blue corner?


 
Hahahahahahhah 

Read again your friend's claim please... I am tired dealing with idiocy



gambit said:


> The one who said this...


 
Really???

When did he denouce Kopp's claim? evidence please. No more idiocy


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Hahahahahahhah
> 
> Read again your friend's claim please... I am tired dealing with idiocy


I have. And it is *YOU* who are the idiot. In RCS control, the goal is to avoid the corner reflector completely, but if it is not possible, then avoid the 90 deg type. The J-20 have visible corner reflectors with those flight control surfaces. May be not exactly 90 deg, but corner reflectors nonetheless.



antonius123 said:


> Really???
> 
> When did he denouce Kopp's claim? evidence please. No more idiocy


Now who is the true idiot here? Kopp used Physical Optics only. Now explain why did this person, who have far greater experience in radar than Kopp, said that Physical Optics failed.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> I have. And it is *YOU* who are the idiot. In RCS control, the goal is to avoid the corner reflector completely, but if it is not possible, then avoid the 90 deg type. The J-20 have visible corner reflectors with those flight control surfaces. May be not exactly 90 deg, but corner reflectors nonetheless.



You dont read with brain.

Where/which corner on J-20 that is 90 degree, as your friend claimed... idiot.



> Now who is the true idiot here? *Kopp used Physical Optics only*. Now explain why did this person, who have far greater experience in radar than Kopp, said that Physical Optics failed.


 
That is your own assumption! if it is true that Kopp only use physical optics, then why dont you prove it instead of making another claim.

Why should we use physical optics just in order to see the deficiency of PAKFA's shape like the exposed fan blade, and how round is the PAKFA's nacelle + corner reflector of the tunnel??

You are the true idiot here


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> You dont read with brain.
> 
> Where/which corner on J-20 that is 90 degree, as your friend claimed... idiot.


So here it is again for the reading public to see the idiot who pretended to have aviation experience but then retracted to say only 'study' but never revealed what was that 'study'...

In RCS control, the goal is to avoid:

- The corner reflector
- If not possible, then avoid the 90 deg type

Not all corner reflectors are 90 deg type. The J-20 have corner reflectors because of the flight control surfaces configurations. They may not be exactly 90 deg, but they do return a majority of the radar signal.



antonius123 said:


> That is your own assumption! if it is true that Kopp only use physical optics, then why dont you prove it instead of making another claim.


Kopp said so.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2011-03.html


> The Physical Optics (PO) method is used to predict the RCS of complex targets, in this instance the Chengdu J-20 prototype. The three dimensional model for any such target comprises a collection of triangular facets, with shared edges.


It is pretty bad that you cannot do even basic research and ended up with eggs on your face.



antonius123 said:


> Why should we use physical optics just in order to see how exposed is the PAKFA's fan blade, and how round is the PAKFA's nacelle + corner reflector of the tunnel??
> 
> You are the true idiot here


This is why we know the idiot is *YOU*. We do not use PO on the engine and we use more than just PO on curvatures. 

So what area of aviation did you studied? More like *NONE* because if you did, you would not be making a fool out of yourself as badly as we enjoy seeing you do it.


----------



## gambit

Folks,

Here is where the man made a spectacular fool out of himself...



antonius123 said:


> That is your own assumption! *if it is true that Kopp only use physical optics*, then why dont you prove it instead of making another claim.


If? Here are APA's own words...

A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype


> The Physical Optics (PO) method is used to predict the RCS of complex targets, in this instance the Chengdu J-20 prototype. The three dimensional model for any such target comprises a collection of triangular facets, with shared edges.


Keep in mind that Kopp have no experience in radar.

Here are the words of a very famous person in the radar community...






Here are APA's own words again...



> At this time the simulator does not implement surface travelling wave modelling and associated edge or gap backscatter modelling, or edge diffraction scattering effect modelling.


In other words, even Kopp and APA had to admit the failures of the Physical Optics method when used *ALONE* to estimate the RCS of any complex body.

And yet this fool continues to refuse to admit these shortcomings.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> Folks,.........
> 
> And yet this fool continues to refuse to admit these shortcomings.



My grandfather used to say, "let a fool speak, eventually he will let himself down" !!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> So here it is again for the reading public to see the idiot who pretended to have aviation experience but then retracted to say only 'study' but never revealed what was that 'study'...
> 
> In RCS control, the goal is to avoid:
> 
> - The corner reflector
> - If not possible, then avoid the 90 deg type
> 
> *Not all corner reflectors are 90 deg type.* The J-20 have corner reflectors because of the flight control surfaces configurations. They may not be exactly 90 deg, but they do return a majority of the radar signal.



Then show us which degree other than 90 that is also corner reflector.

Citation please....

It is your bad habit to make claim without evidence, while drag internet article without knowing the relevance with the debate 




> Kopp said so.
> 
> A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype
> 
> It is pretty bad that you cannot do even basic research and ended up with eggs on your face.



Said so doesnt mean he said he only use so .. idiot

Either it is your IQ problem or your bad habit in twisting sentence.

Besides, you are also lying and twisting the article, as there is no evidence in the article you drag/quote that indicate Kopp use PO solely.

Where is the evidence that he said he only use PO to suggest that J-20 stealthier than PAKFA? liar??




> This is why we know the idiot is *YOU*. We do not use PO on the engine and we use more than just PO on curvatures.


The why you claim PO as the only tool Kopp use??

You are obviously idiot here, as you demonstrating problem with following debate.



> So what area of aviation did you studied? More like *NONE* because if you did, you would not be making a fool out of yourself as badly as we enjoy seeing you do it.



Again, when you loose you always drag my education background.

My education background has nothing to do here.

You have to show your quality if you want other people believe that you are an expert or have sufficient background



gambit said:


> Folks,
> 
> Here is where the man made a spectacular fool out of himself...
> 
> 
> If? Here are APA's own words...
> 
> A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype
> 
> Keep in mind that Kopp have no experience in radar.
> 
> Here are the words of a very famous person in the radar community...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are APA's own words again...
> 
> 
> In other words, even Kopp and APA had to admit the failures of the Physical Optics method when used *ALONE* to estimate the RCS of any complex body.
> 
> And yet this fool continues to refuse to admit these shortcomings.



FAILED!

No evidence that Kopp use PO method solely in suggesting J-20 shaping should be more stealthy than PAKFA. You claim but cant bring any evidence so far - except lie and twisting.

Folks can see that tt is you who claim Kopp use PO in his shaping suggestion. It means you are the idiotic fool here.



amalakas said:


> My grandfather used to say, "let a fool speak, eventually he will let himself down" !!


 
I believe your grandfather said so to your grandmother about you. 

No wonder if he was surprised with your ignorance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

gambit said:


> So here it is again for the reading public to see the idiot who pretended to have aviation experience but then retracted to say only 'study' but never revealed what was that 'study'...
> 
> In RCS control, the goal is to avoid:
> 
> - The corner reflector
> - If not possible, then avoid the 90 deg type
> 
> Not all corner reflectors are 90 deg type. The J-20 have corner reflectors because of the flight control surfaces configurations. They may not be exactly 90 deg, but they do return a majority of the radar signal.



I challenge someone to do a ray trace to show that these supposed corner reflectors on the J-20 actually return a majority of the radar signal.

Remember, the angle of reflection equals the angle of incidence.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Then show us which degree other than 90 that is also corner reflector.








That is called a 'pentagonal' corner reflector.

Corner reflector antenna with ground plate - Patent # 7495628 - PatentGenius


> ...by combining the two rectangular metal plates 2a and 2b so that the metal plates 2a and 2b form an apical angle of about *120.degree.*





antonius123 said:


> Said so doesnt mean he said he only use so .. idiot
> 
> Either it is your IQ problem or your bad habit in twisting sentence.
> 
> Besides, you are also lying and twisting the article, as there is no evidence in the article you drag/quote that indicate Kopp use PO solely.


No, the idiot is still *YOU*. In RCS modeling/predicting where a complex body with plates, curvatures, and edges are plenty, each type of radiator will require a different method of calculating their radiation. For example, with a diameter, we must calculate for specular reflection and if the diameter is less than 10 wavelengths, the creeping wave behavior must be calculated as well. All the while, the diameter's curvatures require us to calculate for surface wave radiation. So if Kopp did actually calculate for non-plate radiators, he would have stated so for the sake of full disclosure. Your argument mean you have *NO* experience in a technical and/or engineering related industry.



antonius123 said:


> Again, when you loose you always drag my education background.
> 
> My education background has nothing to do here.


You brought it up so therefore it is fair game. Since you originally claimed to have aviation experience, then retracted it to 'study', whatever that mean, and since aviation have many sub-disciplines, what was that 'study'?



antonius123 said:


> You have to show your quality if you want other people believe that you are an expert or have sufficient background


I have more than enough proven it, kid.

We now can definitively say without reservation that you are a fraud and a fool.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> I challenge someone to do a ray trace to show that these supposed corner reflectors on the J-20 actually return a majority of the radar signal.
> 
> Remember, the angle of reflection equals the angle of incidence.


Geezz... A corner reflector is essentially a highly directional antenna for either reception or transmission.

The use of a straight line with an arrow is usually meant to denote direction, not what the radar transmission actually look like. 

A true radar transmission is a cone. A non-90 deg corner reflector does not reflect the highest *CONCENTRATION* of the transmission but precisely because the transmission is conical in shape, *SOME* of it will be reflected back to source direction. A non-90 deg corner reflector is often used to test a radar's sensitivity to diffused/weakened signals.


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Then show us which degree other than 90 that is also corner reflector.
> 
> Citation please....
> 
> It is your bad habit to make claim without evidence, while drag internet article without knowing the relevance with the debate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Said so doesnt mean he said he only use so .. idiot
> 
> Either it is your IQ problem or your bad habit in twisting sentence.
> 
> Besides, you are also lying and twisting the article, as there is no evidence in the article you drag/quote that indicate Kopp use PO solely.
> 
> Where is the evidence that he said he only use PO to suggest that J-20 stealthier than PAKFA? liar??
> 
> 
> 
> The why you claim PO as the only tool Kopp use??
> 
> You are obviously idiot here, as you demonstrating problem with following debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, when you loose you always drag my education background.
> 
> My education background has nothing to do here.
> 
> You have to show your quality if you want other people believe that you are an expert or have sufficient background
> 
> 
> 
> FAILED!
> 
> No evidence that Kopp use PO method solely in suggesting J-20 shaping should be more stealthy than PAKFA. You claim but cant bring any evidence so far - except lie and twisting.
> 
> Folks can see that tt is you who claim Kopp use PO in his shaping suggestion. It means you are the idiotic fool here.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe your grandfather said so to your grandmother about you.
> 
> No wonder if he was surprised with your ignorance.




You keep asking for proof yet when you are pointed at the proof you disregard it. 
Not only that but you don't even understand the nature of what you say. 
You failed miserably in understanding what Kopp was saying and you were busted for it. you are a :


----------



## j20blackdragon

gambit said:


> The use of a straight line with an arrow is usually meant to denote direction, not what the radar transmission actually look like.
> 
> A true radar transmission is a cone. A non-90 deg corner reflector does not reflect the highest *CONCENTRATION* of the transmission but precisely because the transmission is conical in shape, *SOME* of it will be reflected back to source direction. A non-90 deg corner reflector is often used to test a radar's sensitivity to diffused/weakened signals.



The straight line with an arrow is a decent enough representation of where the main lobe is. If you would like to draw in the side lobes as well I don't mind.


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> The straight line with an arrow is a decent enough representation of where the main lobe is. If you would like to draw in the side lobes as well I don't mind.


That does nothing to detract from the truth on what a corner reflector does. Are you going to act like your clueless teenage Indonesian friend and deny that non-90 deg corner reflectors exists for the same purpose?


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> That is called a 'pentagonal' corner reflector.
> 
> Corner reflector antenna with ground plate - Patent # 7495628 - PatentGenius



This is again the proof of your severe IDIOCY, as you as usual drag article without clue / proper understanding.

That pentagonal corner reflector is still formed by 2 perpendicular plate (90 degree). The pentagonal word do not refer to the corner where the reflection happen directly.

Worse than that, there is no kind of pentagonal shape on J-20 as your delusional fantasy.

You are IDIOT 



> No, the idiot is still *YOU*. In RCS modeling/predicting where a complex body with plates, curvatures, and edges are plenty, each type of radiator will require a different method of calculating their radiation. For example, with a diameter, we must calculate for specular reflection and if the diameter is less than 10 wavelengths, the creeping wave behavior must be calculated as well. All the while, the diameter's curvatures require us to calculate for surface wave radiation. So if Kopp did actually calculate for non-plate radiators, he would have stated so for the sake of full disclosure. Your argument mean you have *NO* experience in a technical and/or engineering related industry.



You still dont get the simple point I show you above repeatedly, so patethic.
Kopp obviously do not solely refer to PO, as you accuse blindly without thinking.

So your accusation againts him is FAILED.



> You brought it up so therefore it is fair game. Since you originally claimed to have aviation experience, then retracted it to 'study', whatever that mean, and since aviation have many sub-disciplines, what was that 'study'?


Yeah, but it has nothing to do with discussion.
Is it so difficult for you to understand?

You can fool folks by distracting the topics in order to safe your failure here



> I have more than enough proven it, kid.
> 
> We now can definitively say without reservation that you are a fraud and a fool.


 
No you dont.

As the above, you are dragging no evidence except arbitrary article without understanding it properly

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

amalakas said:


> My grandfather used to say, "let a fool speak, eventually he will let himself down" !!


 
you must always been let down by yourself```


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> That does nothing to detract from the truth on what a corner reflector does. Are you going to act like your clueless teenage Indonesian friend and deny that non-90 deg corner reflectors exists for the same purpose?



The clueless here is you


*Read again carefully article you drag here* :
Corner reflector antenna with ground plate - Patent # 7495628 - PatentGenius

There is no non perpendicular corner reflector.
The pentagonal corner in your picture is not the meant corner reflector. It is still the perpendicular corner that reflect/return the wave.

With that low level understanding, you cant claim you have knowledge. Even you are far from expert.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lordwedggie

antonius123 said:


> No you dont.
> 
> As the above, you are dragging no evidence except arbitrary article without understanding it properly



No need to get yourself all worked up debating gambit mate. I think we all know where he's coming from. Can you read Chinese? If you do try this site: ³¬¼¶´ó±¾Óª¾üÊÂÂÛÌ³-×î¾ßÓ°ÏìÁ¦¾üÊÂÂÛÌ³ for technical debates, apparently many posters there are actual engineers working in the industry, or active/retired military, so you get opinions from both the end user and the developer (as my industry terms it), very interesting.


----------



## Esc8781

lordwedggie said:


> No need to get yourself all worked up debating gambit mate. I think we all know where he's coming from. Can you read Chinese? If you do try this site: ³¬¼¶´ó±¾Óª¾üÊÂÂÛÌ³-×î¾ßÓ°ÏìÁ¦¾üÊÂÂÛÌ³ for technical debates, apparently many posters there are actual engineers working in the industry, or active/retired military, so you get opinions from both the end user and the developer (as my industry terms it), very interesting.


 That's for f-16.net too they have real pilots, engineers, and maintainers; but one thing I don't like about the website you proposed, it is has a whole lot of spams. cheers


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> This is again the proof of your severe IDIOCY, as you as usual drag article without clue / proper understanding.
> 
> That pentagonal corner reflector is still formed by 2 perpendicular plate (90 degree). The pentagonal word do not refer to the corner where the reflection happen directly.


 No, kid. There are plenty of publicly available information on adjustable corner reflector antenna in radio communication. As for the image I posted, there are clearly non-90 deg angles formed by the frames and panels.

Here it is again, blind fool...






And if you think reflection behaviors occurs *ONLY* on corners that are exactly 90 deg, it is an even further confirmation that you have education and training no higher than grade school.

Now look at this source for one of those corner reflector antenna...

Corner reflector antenna

What does figure B say, fool?



antonius123 said:


> Worse than that, there is no kind of pentagonal shape on J-20 as your delusional fantasy.
> 
> You are IDIOT


Nope, the idiot here is still *YOU* for failing logical thinking. The issue is avoidance of corner reflectors in RCS control methods. It does not matter if the corner is 90 deg or not. Avoid them if possible. The B-2 have no vertical stabilators, so there are no corner reflectors formed by flight control surfaces. The F-117, F-22, and F-35 are of different designs and they must have vertical stabilators but not the 90 deg type. So for you to say that I say there is a pentagonal reflector on the J-20 is an epic failure of critical thinking.

If you have any real aviation 'study' like you claimed, we would not be having this debate. You are a fraud.



antonius123 said:


> You still dont get the simple point I show you above repeatedly, so patethic.
> 
> *Kopp obviously do not solely refer to PO,* as you accuse blindly without thinking.
> 
> So your accusation againts him is FAILED.


Since Kopp *DID NOT* say that he had a real J-20 in his measurement, does that mean he could have a real J-20? Do you really think that people is going to buy that line of 'logic'?

Again, it is clear to everyone outside of the Chinese circle here that you have absolutely *NO* aviation experience in general, let alone in the discipline of radar. This is also a clear case of failed logical thinking.



antonius123 said:


> Yeah, but it has nothing to do with discussion.
> Is it so difficult for you to understand?
> 
> You can fool folks by distracting the topics in order to safe your failure here


Yes it does. You tried to use your alleged aviation experience to shut the Indians up. I challenged you on what experience do you have. You then retracted it to merely 'study'. So since you brought it up once and is currently engaged in an aviation related subject, your claim is fair game.

So what did you 'study' in aviation? What a fraud you are.



antonius123 said:


> No you dont.
> 
> As the above, you are dragging no evidence except arbitrary article without understanding it properly


I understand it far better than you do. You never even read what Kopp did. Heck, I doubt if you understood the intro paragraph. And yet you failed to see the long section where Kopp admitted how Physical Optics failed and that he had no other tools to compensate. You failed at logical thinking here, fraud.



lordwedggie said:


> *No need to get yourself all worked up debating gambit mate.* I think we all know where he's coming from. Can you read Chinese? If you do try this site: ³¬¼¶´ó±¾Óª¾üÊÂÂÛÌ³-×î¾ßÓ°ÏìÁ¦¾üÊÂÂÛÌ³ for technical debates, apparently many posters there are actual engineers working in the industry, or active/retired military, so you get opinions from both the end user and the developer (as my industry terms it), very interesting.


Too late. All of you Chinese boys are already 'worked up'. Never thought that you would encounter someone with real aviation experience, did you?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lordwedggie

You are quite epic, though not for your words of wisdom but amusement. I have no idea how you find so much time but your devotion is certainly apparent and for that I salute you. As for being an aviation expert, yeah, sure kid.


----------



## gambit

lordwedggie said:


> You are quite epic, though not for your words of wisdom but amusement. I have no idea how you find so much time but your devotion is certainly apparent and for that I salute you. As for being an aviation expert, yeah, sure kid.


What is epic for amusement is a bunch of conscript rejects, literally no experience in the subjects they engages in, are demanding their words to be taken seriously.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> No, kid. There are plenty of publicly available information on adjustable corner reflector antenna in radio communication. As for the image I posted, there are clearly non-90 deg angles formed by the frames and panels.
> 
> Here it is again, blind fool...



You still dont get my point.

The 120 degree which form hexagonal in your picture above is not the meant corner that return the wave, but the inside one, that is perpendicular. Didn't I say you should read again your own article?

Again you are demonstrating clueless and idiocy as you think that the side corner that shaping hexagonal is the reflecting corner 



> And if you think reflection behaviors occurs *ONLY* on corners that are exactly 90 deg, it is an even further confirmation that you have education and training no higher than grade school.


Corner reflector do not only refer to reflecting, but returning! do you understand the difference?

Of course reflection behavior occurs in various kind of degree, but if we talking returning as meant in corner reflector, it does only in corner reflector (90 degree).

You obviously dont understand what corner reflector meant 




> Now look at this source for one of those corner reflector antenna...
> 
> Corner reflector antenna
> 
> What does figure B say, fool?



It is confirming that you have no clue about corner reflector.

As I said above, reflector <> corner reflector.

Reflector is just reflecting, but corner reflector is returning.
You miss understand the article as usual 



> Nope, the idiot here is still *YOU* for failing logical thinking. The issue is avoidance of corner reflectors in RCS control methods. *It does not matter if the corner is 90 deg or not*. Avoid them if possible. The B-2 have no vertical stabilators, so there are no corner reflectors formed by flight control surfaces. The F-117, F-22, and F-35 are of different designs and they must have vertical stabilators but not the 90 deg type. So for you to say that I say there is a pentagonal reflector on the J-20 is an epic failure of critical thinking.



You have no valid citation to back your claimed non 90 degree corner reflector. Then your talking is just an empty check - just as someone else told you.

So the issue is avoidance non 90 degree corner reflector only exist in your own FANTASY 

By your logic, even F-22 and F-35 also have detrimental corner reflector, which actually dont.





> If you have any real aviation 'study' like you claimed, we would not be having this debate. You are a fraud.



This debate is because you are clueless and not having enough basic knowledge as you think / expect other people to believe.




> Since Kopp *DID NOT* say that he had a real J-20 in his measurement, does that mean he could have a real J-20? Do you really think that people is going to buy that line of 'logic'?
> 
> Again, it is clear to everyone outside of the Chinese circle here that you have absolutely *NO* aviation experience in general, let alone in the discipline of radar. This is also a clear case of failed logical thinking.



If your claimed aviation background is not FAKE, you certainly will understand what Kopp's suggestion.

He never use any quantitative meassurement as you think, instead he is judging from SHAPING, and as Martian citation said: stealth (rcs) mainly is about SHAPING; this principle is something that clueless person like you do not understand.




> Yes it does. You tried to use your alleged aviation experience to shut the Indians up. I challenged you on what experience do you have. You then retracted it to merely 'study'. So since you brought it up once and is currently engaged in an aviation related subject, your claim is fair game.
> 
> So what did you 'study' in aviation? What a fraud you are.



You only try to derail the debate, since you are spoiling your reputation in this real debate 

Folks will see how you miss understand a lot of article and Credible Expert Suggestion.




> I understand it far better than you do. You never even read what Kopp did. Heck, I doubt if you understood the intro paragraph. And yet you failed to see the long section where Kopp admitted how Physical Optics failed and that he had no other tools to compensate. You failed at logical thinking here, fraud.



Really??

I dont buy it. As until now you fail to prove a lot of thing, especially your failure to understand Kopp's suggestion and your failure to show Reputable Expert that counter Kopp on his J-20 stealthier suggestion.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> You still dont get my point.
> 
> The 120 degree which form hexagonal in your picture above is not the meant corner that return the wave, but the inside one, that is perpendicular. Didn't I say you should read again your own article?


Fail. All corner reflectors are directional, regardless of their degrees. This means you have no education and training in radio propagation.



antonius123 said:


> Corner reflector do not only refer to reflecting, but returning! do you understand the difference?


There is a difference in 'returning' versus 'reflecting'?  Show us a source explaining the differences.



antonius123 said:


> Of course reflection behavior occurs in various kind of degree, but if we talking returning as meant in corner reflector, it does only in corner reflector (90 degree).
> 
> You obviously dont understand what corner reflector meant
> 
> It is confirming that you have no clue about corner reflector.
> 
> As I said above, reflector <> corner reflector.
> 
> Reflector is just reflecting, but corner reflector is returning.
> You miss understand the article as usual


This is clearly a desperate attempt by someone who have no relevant experience whatsoever and is trying to save face by making up sh1t as he goes along.

Here is an example of a communication antenna with variable sides corner reflectors...






Now see if you can find the advantages and disadvantages of having non-90 deg corner reflectors.

If we turn the above example sideways, we can see the J-20's corner reflectors.



antonius123 said:


> You have no valid citation to back your claimed non 90 degree corner reflector. Then your talking is just an empty check - just as someone else told you.
> 
> So the issue is avoidance non 90 degree corner reflector only exist in your own FANTASY


I got plenty while you have proven yourself to be a complete idiot.



antonius123 said:


> By your logic, even F-22 and F-35 also have detrimental corner reflector, which actually dont.


Of course they do. But not based upon your limited understanding of the subject. We know by now you are a fraud when you claimed to have aviation experience.



antonius123 said:


> If your claimed aviation background is not FAKE, you certainly will understand what Kopp's suggestion.
> 
> *He never use any quantitative meassurement* as you think, instead he is judging from SHAPING, and as Martian citation said: stealth (rcs) mainly is about SHAPING; this principle is something that clueless person like you do not understand.


Complete nonsense.

So what was your 'study' in aviation?


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Fail. All corner reflectors are directional, regardless of their degrees. This means you have no education and training in radio propagation.



You keep claiming without any evidence. Aren't you ashamed?

Your evidence is required.

If you understand your own article and picture, you will know that the corner reflector meant is not the side hexagonal ones, but the inside and perpendicular one.

You are stubborn idiot and faked.




> There is a difference in 'returning' versus 'reflecting'?  Show us a source explaining the differences.



Simple: Reflecting is not always returning.

Surprising people who claim big like you even dont know the basic; no wonder you are clueless about corner reflector.




> This is clearly a desperate attempt by someone who have no relevant experience whatsoever and is trying to save face by making up sh1t as he goes along.
> 
> Here is an example of a communication antenna with variable sides corner reflectors...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now see if you can find the advantages and disadvantages of having non-90 deg corner reflectors.
> 
> If we turn the above example sideways, we can see the J-20's corner reflectors.



CAnt you read it is side angle??

As I said, it is side angle; that is the non 90 degree angle meant. Not the reflecting angle meant.




> I got plenty while you have proven yourself to be a complete idiot.


I believe there are thousands you can drag from internet, but it will be useless if you dont understand and clueless.



> Of course they do. But not based upon your limited understanding of the subject. We know by now you are a fraud when you claimed to have aviation experience.



More hilarious as you bring another claim that F-22 has detrimental corner reflector which means F-22 still failed to become stealth fighter. It means the stringent effort to make F-22 stealth is a failure.

Now bring me evidence that F-22 has detrimental corner reflector.

You are fraud here.




> Complete nonsense.
> 
> So what was your 'study' in aviation?



What your study in Aviation??

Why you are so clueless about a lot of things??


----------



## j20blackdragon

A 90 degree corner reflector behaves like this.






Now I want someone to do a ray trace for this 120 degree corner reflector. I don't care who does it. Someone step up to the plate.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> What your study in Aviation??


I have 10 yrs in the USAF. That have been established to people a long time ago.

You claimed to have aviation experience, in other words, you claimed to be in an exclusive club, and yet you failed basic knowledge of many principles and critical thinking skills. If you do have real aviation experience and tried to use it to shut people up, you should have no hesitation in telling us what do have.

The Chinese boys here, despite them being often intellectually dishonest in their claims, at least they are wise enough not to pretend to have experience they do not have. They know that in any military oriented forums, there are always at least a few who have genuine life experiences. For you to come in and boast about your aviation 'study' to try to shut the Indians up, and now refuses to tell us what experience you have, mean you are nothing more than a foolish teenager.

So if you have real aviation experience or 'study', you should have no problems telling us what.



j20blackdragon said:


> A 90 degree corner reflector behaves like this.
> 
> Now I want someone to do a ray trace for this 120 degree corner reflector. I don't care who does it. Someone step up to the plate.


Please explain why are there non-90 deg corner reflector in communication and what are the advantages.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

j20blackdragon said:


> A 90 degree corner reflector behaves like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I want someone to do a ray trace for this 120 degree corner reflector. I don't care who does it. Someone step up to the plate.


 
Thank you blackdragon.

I am wondering how is the clueless joker "gambit" will describe how the 120 degree corner could be the corner reflector as he claim.

Gambit, please explain!

Please understand that corner reflector must *RETURNING BACK the wave to it's sender* as shown in the above blue perpendicular corner, not just reflecting.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Gambit, please explain!
> 
> Please understand that corner reflector must *RETURNING BACK the wave to it's sender* as shown in the above blue perpendicular corner, not just reflecting.


So what was your area of 'study' in aviation?


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> I have 10 yrs in the USAF. That have been established to people a long time ago.
> 
> You claimed to have aviation experience, in other words, you claimed to be in an exclusive club, and yet you failed basic knowledge of many principles and critical thinking skills. If you do have real aviation experience and tried to use it to shut people up, you should have no hesitation in telling us what do have.
> 
> The Chinese boys here, despite them being often intellectually dishonest in their claims, at least they are wise enough not to pretend to have experience they do not have. They know that in any military oriented forums, there are always at least a few who have genuine life experiences. For you to come in and boast about your aviation 'study' to try to shut the Indians up, and now refuses to tell us what experience you have, mean you are nothing more than a foolish teenager.
> 
> So if you have real aviation experience or 'study', you should have no problems telling us what.



In what division of the USAF? it is your own claim right? any proof/evidence?

Based on the evidence of your argumentation, it is clear that your self proclaimed expert is fraud, as you are clueless in a lot of basic things.



> Please explain why are there non-90 deg corner reflector in communication and what are the advantages.



Again you are trying to distract your counterpart and evading his question to you. It is really your bad habit.

Please answer his question first before you are asking another question.
If you are really expert then you wont distract to another question.



gambit said:


> So what was your area of 'study' in aviation?



Why? cant you answer the question? 

Your old trick doesnt work.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> In what division of the USAF? it is your own claim right? any proof/evidence?
> 
> Based on the evidence of your argumentation, it is clear that your self proclaimed expert is fraud, as you are clueless in a lot of basic things.


There are no 'division' in the USAF. Besides, what unit I served with is not the point, technical specialty is the point. Mine was avionics, from the F-111 to the F-16.

So what was your 'study' in aviation? You should have no problems telling us. You lied about yourself once. You should have no problems making up another lie now.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> There are no 'division' in the USAF. Besides, what unit I served with is not the point, technical specialty is the point. Mine was avionics, from the F-111 to the F-16.
> 
> So what was your 'study' in aviation? You should have no problems telling us. You lied about yourself once. You should have no problems making up another lie now.



Any evidence?

If that is true, why are you so clueless??

It should be simple for you to explain and bring the relevant evidence (not irrelevant article with wrong interpretation) if you are not FRAUD.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Any evidence?
> 
> If that is true, why are you so clueless??
> 
> It should be simple for you to explain and bring the relevant evidence if you are not FRAUD.


If you have any real aviation 'study' and/or experience, bring it. It is a simple thing to say: 'I used to overhaul pneudraulics on the 727' or something like that. You can show your superior knowledge by showing us what was your 'study'.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> If you have any real aviation 'study' and/or experience, bring it. It is a simple thing to say: 'I used to overhaul pneudraulics on the 727' or something like that. You can show your superior knowledge by showing us what was your 'study'.



Any proof?

Otherwise there is only 2 possibility:
1. You are the clueless maintenance guy (your knowledge is limited to maintenance, but you are daring to talk aviation, stealth, etc)
2. You are FRAUD


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Any proof?
> 
> Otherwise there is only 2 possibility:
> 1. You are the clueless maintenance guy (your knowledge is limited to maintenance, but you are daring to talk aviation, stealth, etc)
> 2. You are FRAUD


Just as we suspected: You are a nobody. A teenager foolish enough to think he can get away with pretense and got busted.

Kid, anyone who have any real experience would have no problems *AT ALL* saying what he does, or did, for a living, regardless of what other people say about themselves.

So what was your area of 'study' in aviation?


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Just as we suspected: You are a nobody. A teenager foolish enough to think he can get away with pretense and got busted.
> 
> Kid, anyone who have any real experience would have no problems *AT ALL* saying what he does, or did, for a living, regardless of what other people say about themselves.
> 
> So what was your area of 'study' in aviation?



It is you who failed to answer and bring evidence of your own claim 

Why cant you answer blackdragon's and my question about how 120 degree corner will behave as a corner reflector as questioned above? That is very very essential that you need to response instead distracting to your other self proclaimed expert things. Why cant you?


----------



## Esc8781

antonius123 said:


> Any proof?
> 
> Otherwise there is only 2 possibility:
> 1. You are the clueless maintenance guy (your knowledge is limited to maintenance, but you are daring to talk aviation, stealth, etc)
> 2. You are FRAUD


 Look at his avatar 77th Fighter Squadron, that means he has the engine experience anyways. Motto: Once A Gambler, Always A Gambler. Gambit did you Gamble?  I'm just joking.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> It is you who failed to answer and bring evidence of your own claim
> 
> Why cant you answer blackdragon's and my question about how 120 degree corner will behave as a corner reflector as questioned above?


But I did answered the question. It is not my fault if the two of you have a false understanding of what is a corner reflector and based your arguments upon false premises.

Your consistency in refusing to tell us what was your area of 'study' in aviation will only secure what everyone suspected: You are a fraud.


----------



## antonius123

Esc8781 said:


> Look at his avatar 77th Fighter Squadron, that means he has the engine experience anyways.


 
Oooh... that avatar is the evidence?

OK, then it mean the 1st possibility for him : clueless maintenance guy who is daring to talk beyond his capability


----------



## gambit

Esc8781 said:


> Look at his avatar 77th Fighter Squadron, that means he has the engine experience anyways.


He ain't that smart to figure that out. But not engine for me.



antonius123 said:


> Oooh... that avatar is the evidence?
> 
> OK, then it mean the 1st possibility for him : clueless maintenance guy who is daring to talk beyond his capability


Fine. Then you should have no problems telling us what was your area of 'study' in aviation.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> But I did answered the question. It is not my fault if the two of you have a false understanding of what is a corner reflector and based your arguments upon false premises.
> 
> Your consistency in refusing to tell us what was your area of 'study' in aviation will only secure what everyone suspected: You are a fraud.


 
Nope you dont!

In fact you ignore blackdragon and my question about the ray trace on the 120 degree corner.

While your cant/fail to defend your claimed your side angle of the hexagonal corner as the meant corner reflector.



gambit said:


> He ain't that smart to figure that out. But not engine for me.
> 
> 
> Fine. Then you should have no problems telling us what was your area of 'study' in aviation.



As I said I dont see any relevance of this kind question of yours, except as your effort to derail us from the topic since you fail to defend your clueless.

OK??

Now let me sleep in serene with beautiful sleeping 
Bye, see you tomorrow


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Nope you dont!
> 
> In fact you ignore blackdragon and my question about the ray trace on the 120 degree corner.
> 
> While your cant/fail to defend your claimed your side angle of the hexagonal corner as the meant corner reflector.


Yeah...Just as we know: You are a liar about your aviation experience.

I toyed with you enough just for giggles. What you think of me is irrelevant because there are plenty people here who are far smarter than you who understood what I said and who now see you for what you are: A clueless teenager.


----------



## Esc8781

Hey I rather listen to the guy who served in the air force, not a random guy from the internet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Esc8781 said:


> Hey I rather listen to the guy who served in the air force, not a random guy from the internet.


Ultimately, we are just a bunch of 'random guys' from the Internet. But if you are going to debate in a highly technical area, it would behoove you to have relevant experience in said area. Either that or come out from the start and say you know nothing and are just here to ask questions and learn. People are very tolerant of that kind of honesty and will be helpful to uninformed questions.

This guy is completely the opposite. He started out by claiming he has aviation experience and tried to shut the Indians up with that claim. Then when challenged on what is that experience, he backed down to 'study' and refuses to tell us what is that 'study'. It is a hole he cannot get out. He has no choice but to continue to maintain that fraud. On the technical front, his understanding of basic principles in this subject is nonexistent but he has no problems making assumptions, then refuses to consider the possibility that those assumptions could be wrong. This guy is definitely a 'head case'.


----------



## Esc8781

gambit said:


> Ultimately, we are just a bunch of 'random guys' from the Internet. But if you are going to debate in a highly technical area, it would behoove you to have relevant experience in said area. Either that or come out from the start and say you know nothing and are just here to ask questions and learn. People are very tolerant of that kind of honesty and will be helpful to uninformed questions.
> 
> This guy is completely the opposite. He started out by claiming he has aviation experience and tried to shut the Indians up with that claim. Then when challenged on what is that experience, he backed down to 'study' and refuses to tell us what is that 'study'. It is a hole he cannot get out. He has no choice but to continue to maintain that fraud. On the technical front, his understanding of basic principles in this subject is nonexistent but he has no problems making assumptions, then refuses to consider the possibility that those assumptions could be wrong. This guy is definitely a 'head case'.


 That is me I want to learn I know nothing, but I am learning something new everyday.


----------



## lordwedggie

gambit said:


> What is epic for amusement is a bunch of conscript rejects, literally no experience in the subjects they engages in, are demanding their words to be taken seriously.



READ WHAT YOU WROTE. Why would ANYONE take you seriously???


----------



## gambit

lordwedggie said:


> READ WHAT YOU WROTE. Why would ANYONE take you seriously???


You Chinese boys do. What you know about 'stealth' came from me.


----------



## ptldM3

antonius123 said:


> Either you are idiot or did not pass elementary math.
> Should I bring cylinder picture infront of your face so that you recognize the cylinder shape?





Let me explain this in a way that even the most feeble minded individuals can understand. Below is a photo of the J-20. Note, the red outline on the lower chin, it is a perfect circle, and not just curvature. A cylinder is also a perfect circle. Furthermore, the J-20s chin a long tubular like structure, so is a cylinder.

Than again you brought this on yourself by claiming the pak-fa is full of rounder/cylinder shapes.










antonius123 said:


> Why dont you claim that PAKFA chin is also cylinder .....




Because it isnt, the pak-fa has a *flat* chin, J-20 has a *round* chin, do you understand the difference?






antonius123 said:


> Why dont you claim that F-22 chin is also cylinder...
> Why dont you claim that F-35 chin is also cylinder...





Because neither of those are.








antonius123 said:


> Idiot






Come up with something better.






antonius123 said:


> Then who / where is the real low observability expert that denounce his statement .... Idiot







This is what any reasonable person would call unreasonable. Do you expect real people that have real experience in the field to go on television, or create a webpage dedicated to denounce anyone; specifically Copp. I guess all those claims where experts made statements about the J-20 being a poor aircraft must be true because no one denounced them.






antonius123 said:


> Your evidence is a joke just like the above






Ouch, good playground comeback, but in the intellectual world we provide intelligent counter claims, other than empty one liners.





antonius123 said:


> Then how come you mentioned that equation that you yourself dont understand to debate me?
> 
> Amalakas just drag equation that he himself cannot explain the connection with my arguments. I've challenge him and he cant answer.
> 
> If you dont understand either, then better shut up.






Dont bring me into this, you were asked what the equation was because you claimed to have aviation experience. Dont try to sneak around the subject.








antonius123 said:


> *Where is you evidence about the expert that denounce kopp's suggestion about J-20*?





*Where is the expert statement denouncing **Richard Aboulafias statement *on the J-20. You see where this is going? Your tactics are cheap.











antonius123 said:


> Then prove to us that J-20 chin indeed is cylinder shape




Already have.





antonius123 said:


> See post #48







Like I said where is the credibility, post 48 cited Kopp and his flawed methods.






antonius123 said:


> Why should we use physical optics just in order to see the deficiency of PAKFA's shape like the exposed fan blade, and how round is the PAKFA's nacelle + *corner reflector of the tunnel*??





Caught in your own web, how is a tunnel a corner reflector when *you* claimed a corner reflector has to be 90 degrees, and please explain for everyone how a tunnel is any different than an Intake? If you claim a tunnel to be detrimental than the same principle applies to an intake. Both channel and direct airflow.








antonius123 said:


> Corner reflector do not only refer to reflecting, but returning!





Wow, please enlighten everyone what is the difference between the two. A corner reflector, will always create a return, the degree of the corner reflector will determine how strong the return is. 








j20blackdragon said:


> A 90 degree corner reflector behaves like this.




That is how all corner reflectors behave regardless of the degree, as I stated the degree of the corner will determine how strong a return is. The adjacent inter structures of a corner reflector will determine how much EM energy is harnessed and concentrated and how much is dissipated outwards, but eliminating all returns is not possible since you still have a *corner*, key word is corner.





j20blackdragon said:


> Now I want someone to do a ray trace for this 120 degree corner reflector. I don't care who does it. Someone step up to the plate.




Or we can just demonstrate this:


----------



## j20blackdragon

ptldM3 said:


> Or we can just demonstrate this:



The only thing you've demonstrated is how much of a fraud you are. 

Question: does anyone see a problem with ptldM3's ray trace?


----------



## baqai

wow 

/me distributes popcorn to everyone ...

and everyone goes JERRY JERRY JERRY JERRY !!!!


----------



## ptldM3

j20blackdragon said:


> The only thing you've demonstrated is how much of a fraud you are.
> 
> Question: does anyone see a problem with ptldM3's ray trace?




The problem is that you are posting photographs of things you have no understanding in , so why don&#8217;t *you* explain what the problem is instead of asking others. The only thing those photos show is how various &#8216;incident&#8217; angles create various reflective angles.


Here is one of the photos *you* have posted:







So, are you now telling everyone that you were a fraud when you posted the above image? Which of course you are, but now explain for everyone *what the problem *is and how it *relates* to your photos.


If you were on to something and you actually knew i was wrong you would just have shut me up instead of asking other to find what was wrong, so the real fraud is you


----------



## j20blackdragon

ptldM3 said:


> The problem is that you are posting photographs of things you have no understanding in , so why dont *you* explain what the problem is instead of asking others. The only thing those photos show is how various incident angles create various reflective angles.
> 
> 
> Here is one of the photos *you* have posted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, are you now telling everyone that you were a fraud when you posted the above image? Which of course you are, but now explain for everyone *what the problem *is and how it *relates* to your photos.
> 
> 
> If you were on to something and you actually knew i was wrong you would just have shut me up instead of asking other to find what was wrong, so the real fraud is you


 
This is hilarious.

If you want me to toy with you some more, I'll gladly do it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ptldM3

j20blackdragon said:


> This is hilarious.
> 
> If you want me to toy with you some more, I'll gladly do it.





Why have you still not answered? You claimed i was wrong, i asked you to explain how i was wrong and how those pictures you posted relate to the subject. All i got from you so far has been the same photos.

And sorry just because the vertical stabilizers were activated during the time the photo was taken does not mean that they are constantly in use. In fact vertical stabilizers are used the *least* out of all flight control surfaces. More of which the tail fins create additional corner reflects in relation to the aft fuselage.


----------



## eachus

ptldM3 said:


> You do not know that an engine has been ejected upon impact it could have simply been that the nozzle broke apart, Furthermore, the picture reveals very little, for all we know the engine could be just out of view of the photo, perhaps it could be many yards out of the photo, the point is that there is only one photo that is revealing only one angle.
> 
> Even if the J-10 crashed with enough force to create a hole, a rice field which is flooded in water simply flood the hole with water. I also mentioned many times before that pilots can dump their fuel, so the fact that you see little fire damage is likely the result of fuel dumping coupled with a wet muddy environment.



this guy has 0% credibility. said saw J10 has been down at least 5, can not prove any.
these fake photos were 100% fake, he still painted the artificial story in his colors to lie. 
a picture show the "accident" limited on 1/5 acre of rice land.
the 500 - 600 km/hr falling J10 could not make a den on the soft mud. he said water covered.
do you guys see any hole? the heavy machine make can float on water after crash? 

J10 can not eject engine in air, only Russian fighters can. Russian fighters often have engines burn.
US fighter could not eject engines in air neither, nobody has seen one. 
the 600 km/hr vertical crashed J10 had strong parts flew away, the soft parts stay on without much damage?
this guy still argue that was the real accident.


if you compare 2 photos he posted, look at the locations where did farmers stand, 
you can tell the photos are fake.


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> The only thing you've demonstrated is how much of a fraud you are.
> 
> Question: does anyone see a problem with ptldM3's ray trace?


When you guys see the words 'corner reflector', did it occurred to anyone that it begs the question of whether there are any other types of reflectors? Probably not. Not one of you guys have proven himself to be sufficiently self critical of what he know and what he does not know.

In long range communication, the reflector antenna is the most frequently used where high gain are required. Of the reflector class, the parabolic reflector, aka 'dish', is the most prominent.

Other reflectors are:

- Parabolic cylinder

Projects-doc-282-v1: Directivity of a Parabolic Cylinder Antenna


> The 21 cm project is based on a *parabolic cylinder antenna* with receivers placed periodically along the focus line of the antenna.



- Parabolic torus

The parabolic torus reflector antenna


> A multiple-beam antenna in which the reflecting surface is a *parabolic torus* can be used to scan an arc of over 90-deg with a performance virtually unchanged over the entire range.



- Spherical

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=1144675&tag=1


> A study is made of *spherical reflectors* for use as wide-angle scanning antennas.



Then there is the multiple reflectors type but the designs under this are not applicable to our discussion relating to radar cross section (RCS). The three above and the corner reflector are of single reflector type and are often found on any aircraft's body. Each structure create a different radiation pattern from the others. If there is a tranmitting antenna like a simple dipole that is placed in front of a reflector, the entire assembly is called an 'active reflector antenna'.

A circular active reflector atenna (CARA), energy distribution calculations, and an experimental test :: Institutional Repository


> Such a device is called a circular *active reflector* antenna (CARA),...



Without a transmitting antenna, the label is "passive reflector antenna'.

Passive reflectors


> This document deals with the '*antenna-passive reflector*' association used in microwave links.



From an RCS control perspective, we look for the passive reflector type such as the 90 deg corner reflector created by the vertical and horizontal stabilators joining.






In the above illustration, the angle between the sides is called the 'aperture angle'.

IEEE Xplore - Abstract Page


> An experimental comer reflector was erected at the Table Mesa antenna range near Boulder. *The aperture angle of this antenna was made adjustable to any value between 20 and 180 degrees.* The widths and lengths of the reflecting surfaces were each adjustable from 0.4 to 5.0 wavelengths. Measurements of gain were made for numerous combinations of lengths and widths of reflecting surfaces. These measurements were made with a half-wave dipole in the first, second and third maximum positions. *The aperture angle was adjusted to maximize the gain.* The principal results are presented in the form of contours of constant gain plotted for a range of widths and lengths of reflecting surfaces from 0.4 to 5.0 wavelengths. These graphs should be useful to a designer of corner-reflector antennas.


The highlighted are significant. First, it mean the phrase 'corner reflector' is not restricted to the 90 deg type. Second, it mean altering the aperture angle affects gain and reflected power. This paper is decades old and the information within have been used by radar testing specialists the world over whenever they need to design and build target corner reflectors for radar testing -- what I used to do after the USAF.

We can design these target enhancers to help a weapon's radar to hit a ship or even a *SPECIFIC* part of a ship. The greater the departure from 90 deg by the aperture angle, the weaker the reflected signals, and the greater the odds of a miss. That is how we learn the effectiveness of a weapon's radar system under a variety of conditions, from natural such as weather to man made such as chaff. Inside the corner reflector, the main beam may not return to source direction but the side lobes will approach each side differently. We can calculate how the side lobes will reflect and whether they can be detected or not. Then we build to verify.

Before 'stealth', in aviation, usually when a new discovery is made or a new technology developed, a new aircraft design will have a lead from the appropriate technology branch. For example, when the 'area rule' was discovered, aerodynamicists with their new delta wing designs dominated the 'Century' series. When the jet engine was new, the Propulsion branch dominated with the P-80 and later with the F15 and F-16 with their powerful engines that skewed the thrust to weight ratio. For the A-10, the Armament branch dominated, they essentially told everyone else to design their systems to support the Vulcan cannon.

With 'stealth' starting with the F-117, the Electrical Engineering branch took the lead and have been ever since. As far as the RCS control engineer is concerned, every aircraft is a conglomeration of different reflectors of different sizes and shapes. Every structure must have the EE's input. Granted, to keep the design flight worthy, aeerodynamics must take priority, but now the aerodynamicists cannot ignore the EE and often times must concede to the EE's demands.

So for RCS control, the rules from Electrical Engineering are:

- Avoid the corner reflector.
- If not possible, then avoid the 90 deg type.

The first rule basically say *ALL* reflectors are evil. Does not matter if it is corner or parabolic. The corner type just happens to be the most common, but any structure that focuses and concentrate reflected signals unidirectionally is an evil structure because there is a chance that just a little will be enough to give you away. So do not have it anywhere.

The second rule basically say that since aerodynamic necessity trumps RCS considerations, then avoid the 90 deg corner reflector because it is the best concentrator of reflected signals. So if you must have the corner reflector, avoid the 90 deg type and use it sparingly.

The B-2 is the first rule. Everything else, including the J-20, is the second rule. From the side view, the F-22 have one corner reflector, where the vertical stabilator created it with a part of the horizontal stabilator and with a part of the wing. From the side view, the J-20 have two corner reflectors: one from the vertical and horizontal stabilators, one from the ventral and horizontal stabilator.

So when I said that the F-22's flight control surfaces created corner reflectors and the ID village idiot laughed because he thought he did a 'gotcha' on me, it revealed that your little pet is a fraud when he said he has aviation experience or 'study' but refuses to tell us what.

I do not expect you Chinese boys to believe what I posted above despite the sources I presented to show the items and terminologies are legit. I have seen enough of your guys' behaviors to know the lot of you is sufficiently arrogant and full of yourselves to think that if you have never heard of <something> it does not exist, no matter how much proofs and logic are in front of you. You guys' disdain for experience is unique to you while everyone else appreciates it when they know they do not have it. For the Chinese members here, it is inconceivable that *THEY COULD BE WRONG.* You would rather twist and abuse the laws of nature than to concede to your errors.


----------



## antonius123

j20blackdragon said:


> This is hilarious.
> 
> If you want me to toy with you some more, I'll gladly do it.


 
So hilarious .. 

I dont know what to call whether it is Indian Physics, Russian Physics, or Vietnam physics with that kind of optical reflection. But for sure so many FRAUD here. Some irresponsible people are easily claim them self expert, have strong valid background etc by dragging internet articles, self proclaiming etc. But in fact what they are only demonstrating clueless and idiocy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> So hilarious ..
> 
> I dont know what to call whether it is Indian Physics, Russian Physics, or Vietnam physics with that kind of optical reflection. But for sure so many FRAUD here. Some irresponsible people are easily claim them self expert, have strong valid background etc by dragging internet articles, self proclaiming etc. But in fact what they are only demonstrating clueless and idiocy.


So what was your 'study' in aviation?


----------



## antonius123

ptldM3 said:


> Let me explain this in a way that even the most feeble minded individuals can understand. Below is a photo of the J-20. Note, the red outline on the lower chin, it is a perfect circle, and not just curvature. A cylinder is also a perfect circle. Furthermore, the J-20s chin a long tubular like structure, so is a cylinder.
> 
> Than again you brought this on yourself by claiming the pak-fa is full of rounder/cylinder shapes.



Your red circle is round, but the j-20 chin is definitely is nor cylinder

You have made so many basic/fundamental mistakes with that math/physics.




> Because it isnt, the pak-fa has a *flat* chin, J-20 has a *round* chin, do you understand the difference?



I can't discuss anymore with some one who has no clue even to basic math and physics + idiocy.

You dont even know what round shape, what cylinder shape, what flat shape. It is so embarrassing.




> Because neither of those are.
> 
> Come up with something better.



This is junk



> This is what any reasonable person would call unreasonable. Do you expect real people that have real experience in the field to go on television, or create a webpage dedicated to denounce anyone; specifically Copp. I guess all those claims where experts made statements about the J-20 being a poor aircraft must be true because no one denounced them.



This is idiocy.

Why for someone like you who easily drag article from internet, cant you find any REPUTABLE EXPERT who denounce kopp, if exist??

If you cant find, it means your claim is baseless.
You have poor understanding, poor knowledge to the basic math, physics etc, and now you dont have any credible expert to support your fantasy.




> Ouch, good playground comeback, but in the intellectual world we provide intelligent counter claims, other than empty one liners.
> 
> Dont bring me into this, you were asked what the equation was because you claimed to have aviation experience. Dont try to sneak around the subject.



This is junk. Whats the point?
You are asking people the equation that even you yourself have no clue.




> *Where is the expert statement denouncing **Richard Aboulafias statement *on the J-20. You see where this is going? Your tactics are cheap.



Which Richard Aboulafia's statement?

Who is he? which statement of his that contradict to kopp?? is he Reputable one? how is his reputation compared to kopp's?





> Already have.
> 
> Like I said where is the credibility, post 48 cited Kopp and his flawed methods.



Read again carefully.




> Caught in your own web, how is a tunnel a corner reflector when *you* claimed a corner reflector has to be 90 degrees, and please explain for everyone how a tunnel is any different than an Intake? If you claim a tunnel to be detrimental than the same principle applies to an intake. Both channel and direct airflow.



Explain why has to be the same with intake?
Is tunel's 90 degree corner exposed to radar's wave?

You are idiot.




> Wow, please enlighten everyone what is the difference between the two. A corner reflector, will always create a return, the degree of the corner reflector will determine how strong the return is.
> 
> That is how all corner reflectors behave regardless of the degree, as I stated the degree of the corner will determine how strong a return is. The adjacent inter structures of a corner reflector will determine how much EM energy is harnessed and concentrated and how much is dissipated outwards, but eliminating all returns is not possible since you still have a *corner*, key word is corner.



That imply you have very poor on physics.

Take a look at the picture that blackdragon bring.

It is something unfamiliar with you?? did you not learn about this??









> Or we can just demonstrate this:


 
That is demonstrating your idiocy and your poor basic physics.

Blackdragon has slapped you, hope you understand what he is trying to correct and teach you.



gambit said:


> Yeah...Just as we know: You are a liar about your aviation experience.
> 
> I toyed with you enough just for giggles. What you think of me is irrelevant because there are plenty people here who are far smarter than you who understood what I said and who now see you for what you are: A clueless teenager.



You are FRAUD, it is proven already.

Yeah there could be plenty people who fall for your lie, as saying: blind man lead blind men.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> You are FRAUD, it is proven already.
> 
> Yeah there could be plenty people who fall for your lie, as saying: blind man lead blind men.


So you have no aviation experience at all despite your earlier claim.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> So you have no aviation experience at all despite your earlier claim.



Do you think with aviation maintenance experience (assumed it is true) you can talk theory and science beyond your practical maintenance knowledge?


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Do you think with aviation maintenance experience (assumed it is true) you can talk theory and science beyond your practical maintenance knowledge?


At least I have real aviation experience, including cockpit time at 'hard TF' in an F-111E over England and later in an F-16B over the Gulf of Mexico. What do you have other than a lie then got busted ? 

Post 306 is something neither you nor the Chinese boys will ever be able to give to the readers.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> At least I have real aviation experience, including cockpit time at 'hard TF' in an F-111E over England and later in an F-16B over the Gulf of Mexico. What do you have other than a lie then got busted ?
> 
> Post 306 is something neither you nor the Chinese boys will ever be able to give to the readers.


 

The guy thinks that tech & maintenance is akin to fixing cars. He doesn't even know it is an advanced engineering discipline that leads to higher degrees in most western countries. 

and then he claims he has aviation exp. yes at this point i believe he has been a passenger in a regional flight!


----------



## j20blackdragon

gambit said:


> So for RCS control, the rules from Electrical Engineering are:
> 
> - Avoid the corner reflector.
> - If not possible, then avoid the 90 deg type.
> 
> The first rule basically say *ALL* reflectors are evil. Does not matter if it is corner or parabolic. The corner type just happens to be the most common, but any structure that focuses and concentrate reflected signals unidirectionally is an evil structure because there is a chance that just a little will be enough to give you away. So do not have it anywhere.
> 
> The second rule basically say that since aerodynamic necessity trumps RCS considerations, then avoid the 90 deg corner reflector because it is the best concentrator of reflected signals. So if you must have the corner reflector, avoid the 90 deg type and use it sparingly.
> 
> The B-2 is the first rule. Everything else, including the J-20, is the second rule.



I agree with all of it.

For example, something like this would probably be stealthier than the F-22, but less maneuverable. 

So is it better than the F-22?

It would be a better bomber definitely, but is that all we're looking for?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> At least I have real aviation experience, including cockpit time at 'hard TF' in an F-111E over England and later in an F-16B over the Gulf of Mexico. What do you have other than a lie then got busted ?
> 
> Post 306 is something neither you nor the Chinese boys will ever be able to give to the readers.


 
What ever real aviation experience you claim, obviously the knowledge you have demonstrated here suggest where your level is. Also at least your Fraud tendency is obvious in the way you drag article with self proclaim but with missunderstanding + inability to defend/response.



amalakas said:


> The guy thinks that tech & maintenance is akin to fixing cars.



No i dont. It is you who think that way.



> He doesn't even know it is an advanced engineering discipline that leads to higher degrees in most western countries.
> 
> and then he claims he has aviation exp. yes at this point i believe he has been a passenger in a regional flight!



Maintenance job is not an engineering job.

Even non degree person with adequate apprentice or practice could be a maintenance guy.

You are FRAUD and idiot.


----------



## Esc8781

antonius123 said:


> What ever real aviation experience you claim, obviously the knowledge you have demonstrated here suggest where your level is. Also at least your Fraud tendency is obvious in the way you drag article with self proclaim but with missunderstanding + inability to defend/response.
> 
> 
> 
> No i dont. It is you who think that way.
> 
> 
> 
> Maintenance is not engineering.
> 
> Even non degree person with adequate apprentice or practice could be a maintenance guy.
> 
> You are FRAUD and idiot.


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> I agree with all of it.
> 
> For example, something like this would probably be stealthier than the F-22, but less maneuverable.
> 
> *So is it better than the F-22?*
> 
> It would be a better bomber definitely, but is that all we're looking for?


Not necessarily. It is easy to take apart an aircraft and highlight one component's technological advances, shape, feel, smell, taste, whatever, and exaggerate to your heart's content. What make an aircraft 'better' than another, especially when they are within only a few years of technology flux, is how the aircraft integrate diverse features and capabilities into an efficient package. The F-15 is a more powerful aircraft than the F-16 but as our resident airline pilot who is a former F-15 IP admitted F-15 pilots do not like to engage the smaller F-16. Too small. Too agile. Too quick. Keep in mind that 'quick' is not the same as 'fast'. So if go by the F-15 pilots' admission, is the F-16 a 'better' fighter?



amalakas said:


> The guy thinks that tech & maintenance is akin to fixing cars. He doesn't even know it is an advanced engineering discipline that leads to higher degrees in most western countries.
> 
> and then he claims he has aviation exp. yes at this point i believe he has been a passenger in a regional flight!


Notice he still dodges the fact that he lied about his aviation experience, which he later retracted to vague 'study' but still would not reveal what is that 'study'.


----------



## ptldM3

antonius123 said:


> Your red circle is round, but the j-20 chin is definitely is nor cylinder
> 
> You have made so many basic/fundamental mistakes with that math/physics.





Denial, denial, denial. The red circle fits the counter of the J-20s chin, perfectly, we can all see that in the photo. More of which the J-20s chin is long, which means it would very much behave similar to a cylinder when eliminated.

But instead of telling me I dont understand basis fundamentals or calling me an idiot, why dont you actually provide some solid evidence for your claim. You claim that the J-20s chin is not round while the illustration shows that the circle fits the contour of the chin perfectly.






antonius123 said:


> *I can't discuss *anymore with some one who has no clue even to basic math and physics + idiocy.






Cant or are *unable to?* The red circle fit the contour of the chin, the only way this is possible is because the lower chin has the exact contour of a perfect circle, thus the red circle and the chin fit like a perfect puzzle.








antonius123 said:


> You dont even know what round shape, what cylinder shape, what flat shape. It is so embarrassing.






More like you dont, remember it was you that asked why the pak-fas chin is not round. Any photo would reveal that the pak-fa has a perfectly flat chin. 






antonius123 said:


> *This is junk*





Such an insightful and well thought out rebuttal. Youre desperately trying to stay relevant but have nothing to challenge me with.








antonius123 said:


> This is idiocy.
> 
> Why for someone like you who easily drag article from internet, cant you find any REPUTABLE EXPERT who denounce kopp, if exist??
> 
> If you cant find, it means your claim is baseless.
> You have poor understanding, poor knowledge to the basic math, physics etc, and now you dont have any credible expert to support your fantasy.






You are asking me to find a particular expert that denounces Kopp, by this token I can also post opinions of people such as Richard Aboulafia and because there is no one denouncing him shredding the J-20 he must be credible, right? 


So lets use your tactics against you: *you find *an expert denouncing Richard Aboulafia's statement. 










antonius123 said:


> Which Richard Aboulafia's statement?




These:




> this thing is just sort of cobbled together






> Theres no better way of guaranteeing a radar reflection and compromise of stealth than adding canards to the aircraft.






antonius123 said:


> Who is he? which statement of his that contradict to kopp?? is he Reputable one? how is his reputation compared to kopp's?







> aviation analyst with the Teal Group, an aerospace and defense consulting firm.














antonius123 said:


> Explain why has to be the same with intake?
> Is tunel's 90 degree corner exposed to radar's wave?
> 
> You are idiot.





This only demonstrates that you have zero critical thinking skills and zero knowledge of anything aviation. The tunnels that you see on the pak-fa as well as F-22 channel airflow. Those tunnels are angled downwards. An intake is also a tunnel, but instead of channeling airflow downwards it channels it to the side. Now please explain how a tunnel is a 90 degree corner reflector.





antonius123 said:


> That imply you have very poor on physics.
> 
> Take a look at the picture that blackdragon bring.
> 
> It is something unfamiliar with you?? did you not learn about this??





I dont hold a degree in Chinese physics, instead I hold a *real* degree. The trollinsky was trying to point out how the vertical stabilizer was *active* during the time the photo was taken, thus he tried to claim that a corner reflector would not be possible based on angle of deflection. But this only demonstrates how desperate he as well as you are. The vertical stabilizers are not always active. Unless you expect the J-20 to be flying around with its vertical stabilizers locked, its safe to say your Chinese physics fails. Moreover, those vertical stabilizers create additional corner reflectors in relation to the fuselage.

What your thanking buddy did was a desperate last ditch attempt to undermine the truth by pointing at something that has little relevance, the truth is that tail fin produces additional corner reflectors. Here is a picture of the j-20s V-tails while they are not active:














antonius123 said:


> That is demonstrating your idiocy and *your poor basic physics*.





Sorry, I never studied *Chinese physics*.





antonius123 said:


> Blackdragon has slapped you, hope you understand what he is trying to correct and teach you.




The guy pointed out how the V-tails were active when the picture was taken, that is not a slapping but a desperate attempt to establish something in the J-20s defense. If anyone has been getting slapped around its you two.











eachus said:


> this guy has 0% credibility. said saw J10 has been down at least 5, can not prove any.





More like you are stubbornly in denial, your own government acknowledged at least some of the crashes because they could not hid the fact that they had dead pilots.





eachus said:


> these fake photos were 100% fake, he still painted the artificial story in his colors to lie.
> a picture show the "accident"* limited on 1/5 acre *of rice land.




*Where is the proof?* How do you know where the aircraft made initial impact? 

Once again to prove your utter ignorance:


Saab JAS-39 Gripen crashing in landing - YouTube



That is enough to dismiss your Chinese physics. The Grippen came to an abrupt stop almost immediately after it began to tumble.

Also just because some aircraft may leave craters when they crash does not mean that they all do. Look at the following crashes, no craters.


http://por-img.cimcontent.net/api/assets/bin-200912/fb7605827f4b12b3166cdbfd63424e9f.jpg

http://exiledonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/60319323.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Bosnia_mig29.jpg






eachus said:


> *the 500 - 600 km/hr falling J10 *




*Post proof *that says it was traveling at 500-600 km, and that it was falling.






eachus said:


> could not make a den on the soft mud. he said water covered.
> do you guys see any hole? the heavy machine make can float on water after crash?





Do you see any holes in the photos I posted?





eachus said:


> J10 can not eject engine in air, only Russian fighters can. Russian fighters often have engines burn.





Fail! The J-10 had a *Russian engine*. Whether or not an engine stays secure has nothing to do with engine type, instead it has to do with how well secure the engine is and how strong the frame is. The other concern in regards to an engine staying secure is how much force the impact of the crash has and where the impact occurs.

And the rest of your argument is some made up nonsense and you know this very well.










eachus said:


> the 600 km/hr vertical crashed J10 had strong parts flew away, the soft parts stay on without much damage?
> this guy still argue that was the real accident.




Again where is the proof of this 600km/hr nose dive? Stop making stories up, its evident that the aircraft made an emergency landing. Parts such as wing often break apart and what is left is the fuselage similar to that on the picture.


Look, it's a Mirage and it looks suspicilously familiar to the J-10 wreckage, it must also be fake:









eachus said:


> if you compare 2 photos he posted, look at the locations where did farmers stand,
> you can tell the photos are fake.





Wow, has it ever occurred to you that the photos were taken at different times or that they were taken at different angles? Talk about lack of critical thinking. I get a feeling that Im arguing with a pre adolescent boy that lacks basic adult skills in critical/abstract thinking.


----------



## amalakas

ptldM3 said:


> Wow, has it ever occurred to you that the photos were taken at different times or that they were taken at different angles? Talk about lack of critical thinking. I get a feeling that I&#8217;m arguing with a pre adolescent boy that lacks basic adult skills in critical/abstract thinking.




or even worst a grown man with delusions of intelligence

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

ptldM3 said:


> Denial, denial, denial. The red circle fits the counter of the J-20s chin, perfectly, we can all see that in the photo. More of which the J-20s chin is long, which means it would very much behave similar to a cylinder when eliminated.
> 
> But instead of telling me I dont understand basis fundamentals or calling me an idiot, why dont you actually provide some solid evidence for your claim. You claim that the J-20s chin is not round while the illustration shows that the circle fits the contour of the chin perfectly.



It is you who denial.

What make you become idiot?? see the picture bellow yourself, how come that shape you called cylinder?? you are making yourself laughable and ruin your credibility.












> Cant or are *unable to?* The red circle fit the contour of the chin, the only way this is possible is because the lower chin has the exact contour of a perfect circle, thus the red circle and the chin fit like a perfect puzzle.



See your self the above picture.

How come you claim the circle fit the non cylinder shape ?? 





> More like you dont, remember it was you that asked why the pak-fas chin is not round. Any photo would reveal that the pak-fa has a perfectly flat chin.



You can put the same circle and see how it round 




> Such an insightful and well thought out rebuttal. Youre desperately trying to stay relevant but have nothing to challenge me with.


Alot.

Challenge you = challenge idiocy.





> You are asking me to find a particular expert that denounces Kopp, by this token I can also post opinions of people such as Richard Aboulafia and because there is no one denouncing him shredding the J-20 he must be credible, right?
> 
> 
> So lets use your tactics against you: *you find *an expert denouncing Richard Aboulafia's statement.



You havent answered my question.

I repeat again: Who is Richard Aboulafia, how credible and reputable is he? what journal he wrote? and what has he stated againts J-20 stealthier than Pakfa?




> These:


Source please.

His credibility is not convincing.

If he said so then he ruin his own credibility. Why Rafale with canard is stealthier that more exposed fan blade SU-27?




> This only demonstrates that you have zero critical thinking skills and zero knowledge of anything aviation. The tunnels that you see on the pak-fa as well as F-22 channel airflow. Those tunnels are angled downwards. An intake is also a tunnel, but instead of channeling airflow downwards it channels it to the side. Now please explain how a tunnel is a 90 degree corner reflector.



No it is you that demonstrate not only zero critical thinking and zero aviation knowledge, but also zero logic.

If the 90 degree tunnel is not exposed to radar wave, then why it has to reflect/return the zero radar wave? you are idiot!




> I dont hold a degree in Chinese physics, instead I hold a *real* degree. The trollinsky was trying to point out how the vertical stabilizer was *active* during the time the photo was taken, thus he tried to claim that a corner reflector would not be possible based on angle of deflection. But this only demonstrates how desperate he as well as you are. The vertical stabilizers are not always active. Unless you expect the J-20 to be flying around with its vertical stabilizers locked, its safe to say your Chinese physics fails. Moreover, those vertical stabilizers create additional corner reflectors in relation to the fuselage.
> 
> What your thanking buddy did was a desperate last ditch attempt to undermine the truth by pointing at something that has little relevance, the truth is that tail fin produces additional corner reflectors. Here is a picture of the j-20s V-tails while they are not active:



You are drawing the WRONG wave reflection! as your reflection line violate the physic rule.

The reflected ray and incident ray have to have the same degree of angle, thats the rule, while you are drawing totally different angle.

It demonstrate how poor your basic physics knowledge.




> Sorry, I never studied *Chinese physics*.


The picture of reflection above is general and basic physics.

I can see you never studied physics.





> The guy pointed out how the V-tails were active when the picture was taken, that is not a slapping but a desperate attempt to establish something in the J-20s defense. If anyone has been getting slapped around its you two.



He is saying how wrong you draw the reflected wave on the J-20 as your draw violate basic physics.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## eachus

ptldM3 said:


> Again where is the proof of this 600km/hr nose dive? Stop making stories up, its evident that the aircraft made an emergency landing. Parts such as wing often break apart and what is left is the fuselage similar to that on the picture.
> 
> 
> Look, it's a Mirage and it looks suspicilously familiar to the J-10 wreckage, it must also be fake:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, has it ever occurred to you that the photos were taken at different times or that they were taken at different angles? Talk about lack of critical thinking. I get a feeling that Im arguing with a pre adolescent boy that lacks basic adult skills in critical/abstract thinking.


 

a fighter in air falling down at least has a speed 500-600km/hr,
that is common sense proof. if a plane fell into a rice land without 
landing evidence, question is fake story or nose diving. I am not sure it 
nose diving, no holes on muddy land, and the plane was on mud, not in mud. 
and some the plane body was in "good" condition. even a car accident 
at 60km/hr can not have condition like that good. that from common sense
is 100% fake pics. 

?aircraft made an emergency landing? landing within 1/5 acre of rice land?
no evidence of landing path? it is plain lie. 

you can fly a plane "emergency landing" without fuel, without an engine? 
it is plain lie.

you claim an engine can be ejected, should me an example. it is plain lie.



" the photos were taken at different times or that they were taken at different angles? Talk about lack of critical thinking. "

thay is plain lie pointing to 2 photos.
look at the plane location, look at where people stand.
they crashed plane moved to another piece of rice field? 
the plane can move after lose the engine without fuel? 
and after days of crashed? 

you are a proved liar!!!



antonius123 said:


> Alot.
> 
> Challenge you (ptldM3) = challenge idiocy.




man, that is the post of the day!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## amalakas

eachus said:


> a fighter in air falling down at least has a speed 500-600km/hr,
> that is common sense proof. if a plane fell into a rice land without
> landing evidence, question is fake story or nose diving. I am not sure it
> nose diving, no holes on muddy land, and the plane was on mud, not in mud.
> and some the plane body was in "good" condition. even a car accident
> at 60km/hr can not have condition like that good. that from common sense
> is 100% fake pics.
> 
> ?aircraft made an emergency landing? landing within 1/5 acre of rice land?
> no evidence of landing path? it is plain lie.
> 
> you can fly a plane "emergency landing" without fuel, without an engine?
> it is plain lie.
> 
> you claim an engine can be ejected, should me an example. it is plain lie.
> 
> 
> 
> " the photos were taken at different times or that they were taken at different angles? Talk about lack of critical thinking. "
> 
> thay is plain lie pointing to 2 photos.
> look at the plane location, look at where people stand.
> they crashed plane moved to another piece of rice field?
> the plane can move after lose the engine without fuel?
> and after days of crashed?
> 
> you are a proved liar!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> man, that is the post of the day!





I seriously don't think you are doing your self any favours by agreeing with antonious123 ... seriously...


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> No it is you that demonstrate not only zero critical thinking and *zero aviation knowledge*, but also zero logic.


So what was your 'study' in aviation again? Did we missed that post where you showed us?


----------



## ptldM3

antonius123 said:


> It is you who denial.
> 
> What make you become idiot?? see the picture bellow yourself, how come that shape you called cylinder?? you are making yourself laughable and ruin your credibility.




Your picture doesnt work--fail. And yes the chin fits the contour of a perfect circle. Denial doesnt mean it is not true.







antonius123 said:


> You can put the same circle and see how it round





Another epic fail. The pak-fa has a flat chin. Youre now just making a fool out of yourself.





antonius123 said:


> Alot.
> 
> Challenge you = challenge idiocy.





More like you have nothing to challenge me with thus you resort to one liners that name calling. Instead of attacking me attack the argument, something you have not done so far.







antonius123 said:


> You havent answered my question.
> 
> I repeat again: Who is Richard Aboulafia, how credible and reputable is he? what journal he wrote? and what has he stated againts J-20 stealthier than Pakfa?






You really have some audacity and no morals, you want me to find a specific person that challenges Copp, yet when I ask you to find a specific person that challenges Richard Aboulafia you simple refuse and instead question the mans credentials. The point here is how silly and petty your tactics are, you demand we find someone that challenges Copp but when I use your same tactics and I ask you to find someone that challenges Richard Aboulafia, you attack the mans crudentials. How pathetic of you. Now I ask you, find someone denouncing Aboulafia.





antonius123 said:


> Source please.
> 
> His credibility is not convincing.






The man actually worked with some of leading aerospace companies in the world, if that is not convincing than what is?

Here is your source:


Richard L. Aboulafia, Vice President, Analysis










antonius123 said:


> If he said so then he ruin his own credibility. Why Rafale with canard is stealthier that more exposed fan blade SU-27?




No, you ruin your credibly, there are no official RCS numbers for either aircraft. The Rafale was also specifically designed around RCS reduction. There are many features found on the Rafale that would reduce its RCS, the SU-27 was never designed with that emphasis.






antonius123 said:


> No it is you that demonstrate not only zero critical thinking and zero aviation knowledge, but also zero logic.
> 
> If the 90 degree tunnel is not exposed to radar wave, then why it has to reflect/return the zero radar wave? you are idiot!





You must have been using some psychedelic drugs when you wrote this. Who said anything about a tunnel not being exposed to radar. Please quote me on that. Also since when did the tunnels on the pak-fa/F-22 become 90 degrees? The question was why is an intake which essentially is a tunnel any different from a tunnel found next to the intake? Stop dodging the question that I asked many times and answer, if you arent able to than shut up.





antonius123 said:


> You are drawing the WRONG wave reflection! as your reflection line violate the physic rule.
> 
> The reflected ray and incident ray have to have the same degree of angle, thats the rule, while you are drawing totally different angle.





Using worlds like incident ray doesnt make your argument convincing. My picture followed the same incident and reflection behavior of the same picture you used:

Which would be this:








So are you now calling yourself a liar? Or are your seriously using the lame excuse that because the v-tails are active that corner reflectors do not apply? Like I stated before, the J-20s v-tails can not always be active. Moreover, you still are refusing to except the truth that the J-20s fins create additional corner reflectors. What you are doing is losing the argument and stooping to the lowest of low by bringing up irrelevant claims such as the V-tails, being active during the time of the photo, or demanding I find someone specifically denouncing Copp because you claim that since no one is denouncing him that he has to be right. 





antonius123 said:


> It demonstrate how poor your basic physics knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> The picture of reflection above is general and basic physics.
> 
> I can see you never studied physics.






Correct, I never studied Chinese physics.















eachus said:


> *a fighter in air falling down at least has a speed 500-600km/hr*,
> that is common sense proof.




Apparently you have never heard of a stall. Many aircraft that crash land/crash go into stalls, where they are either dangerously below the minimum airspeed or they or at or near zero airspeed . 


Here is one famous crash:


Anatoly Kvochur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




> a bird was sucked into the turbofan of his right engine (a bird strike), causing the engine to burst into flames. Kvochur immediately turned the remaining engine to full afterburner. *However his speed, at 180 kilometres per hour (110 mph), was too slow to maintain stability *on one engine.






Here is more proof, this time in video form. The F-4 in the video, while in a stall was probably traveling well under 100km an hour at the time of the crash.


F-4 Phantom Stall & Crash - YouTube





eachus said:


> if a plane fell into a rice land without






What makes you think it fell? The aircraft was clearly involved in a forced landing based on the minimal damage to the aircraft.





eachus said:


> landing evidence, question is fake story or nose diving.





The picture is real and you know it, your are just neck deep in your own crap to admit it. You have no valid claims, just twisted delusions. The fact is the Chinese media has reported the crash, even the division that the J-10 belonged to is know--2nd Air Division. The location of the crash is also known--Guilin. On top of that we have authentic photos. 








eachus said:


> nose diving, no holes on muddy land, and the plane was on mud, not in mud.





You clearly are slow. If the aircraft makes a forced landing that does not mean there will be large holes. In fact there are dozens of videos that prove that. You watch too many movies if you think that there should simply be a crater. Clearly large pieces of the aircraft are intact, thus there can not be any large noticeable craters. Even if there was some damage to the ground the aircraft is in standing water. The waters would simply fill any holes.






Hey, look everyone, its an X-31. The US Air Force, must of faked their official photos of the wreckage because there is no hole or crater.











eachus said:


> and some the plane body was in "good" condition. even a car accident
> at 60km/hr can not have condition like that good. that from common sense
> is 100% fake pics.





When an automobile crashes it takes the full grunt of the impact, this is even worse if its a head on collision. An aircraft, on the other hand, can merely land with no power or without working landing gears to constitute a crash. Further, if the aircraft stalls at low altitude it will likely have minimal damage as long as it lands on the fuselage as apposed to a nose dive.






eachus said:


> ?aircraft made an emergency landing? landing within 1/5 acre of rice land?
> no evidence of landing path? it is plain lie.




Again where is the evidence. I asked you to post proof of this 1/5 acre landing where is it? The X-31 wreckage must also be real because it crashed in its own footprint. 






eachus said:


> *you can fly a plane "emergency landing" without fuel, without an engine?
> it is plain lie.*
> 
> Never heard of a glider have you?
> 
> Or better yet Air Transat Flight 236?
> 
> 
> Air Transat Flight 236 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 06:13 UTC, while still 135 miles (217 km) from Lajes,[4] *engine no. 2 on the right wing flamed out *because of fuel starvation. Captain Piché ordered full thrust from the remaining operational engine, , and the plane descended to 33,000 feet (10,000 m), unable to stay at its 39,000 feet (12,000 m) cruising altitude with only one engine operating. Ten minutes later, the crew sent a Mayday to Santa Maria Oceanic air traffic control. *Thirteen minutes later, engine no. 1 also flamed *out at while *the aircraft was still approximately 65 nautical miles (120 km) from Lajes Air Base*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eachus said:
> 
> 
> 
> you claim an engine can be ejected, should me an example. it is plain lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I claimed that the engines nozzles could have broken off. But yes, an engine can be ejected from an aircraft. Its no lie my naïve friend, an engine is one of the heaviest and most dense parts of an aircraft, a hard impacts can cause it to break off.
> 
> Here is proof you fool:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wreckage recovered from ocean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plain old wreckage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eachus said:
> 
> 
> 
> " the photos were taken at different times or that they were taken at different angles? Talk about lack of critical thinking. "
> 
> thay is plain lie pointing to 2 photos.
> look at the plane location, look at where people stand.
> they crashed plane moved to another piece of rice field?
> the plane can move after lose the engine without fuel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im going to be a nice as possible when I say this but.you are stupid. The plane did not move, the camera man did. *Time proximity, and angle *all play a factor in the way objects are perceived in pictures. One photo was taken from far away, another photo was taken up close to the wreckage, thus it might appear that the people are standing closer. Equally as important is that the picture was taken from another angle, so by the time the camera man walked around the wreckage to take a closer shot of the aircraft the by standards could also have walked closer to the wreckage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eachus said:
> 
> 
> 
> and after days of crashed?
> 
> you are a proved liar!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are plain stupid, as explained above the concept of time, proximity and angle might seem new to you but I learned how proximity and angle can be used to manipulate a painting/drawing back when I took art in college.
> 
> And if you didnt look pathetic enough the crash has been confirmed by Chinese news agencies. Hard to hid a crash when dozens of eye witnesses converge on the wreckage and start taking photographs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eachus said:
> 
> 
> 
> man, that is the post of the day!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is and you are the jester that everyone is laughing at. Great that you received some thanks from your buddies,they are as clueless and dull as you. They thanked you for nonsense such as aircraft cant fly without an engine, they thanked you for claiming an aircraft crashing down has to have a speed of at least 500-600km, they thanked you for you conspiracy theory regarding the photos. All those claims have been dismissed with sources and your buddies have been caugt with their pants down
Click to expand...


----------



## ptldM3

antonius123 said:


> It is you who denial.
> 
> What make you become idiot?? see the picture bellow yourself, how come that shape you called cylinder?? you are making yourself laughable and ruin your credibility.




Your picture doesn&#8217;t work--fail. And yes the chin fit&#8217;s the contour of a perfect circle. Denial doesn&#8217;t mean it is not true.







antonius123 said:


> You can put the same circle and see how it round





Another epic fail. The pak-fa has a flat chin. You&#8217;re now just making a fool out of yourself.





antonius123 said:


> Alot.
> 
> Challenge you = challenge idiocy.





More like you have nothing to challenge me with thus you resort to one liners that name calling. Instead of attacking me attack the argument, something you have not done so far.







antonius123 said:


> You havent answered my question.
> 
> I repeat again: Who is Richard Aboulafia, how credible and reputable is he? what journal he wrote? and what has he stated againts J-20 stealthier than Pakfa?






You really have some audacity and no morals, you want me to find a specific person that challenges Copp, yet when I ask you to find a specific person that challenges Richard Aboulafia you simple refuse and instead question the man&#8217;s credentials. The point here is how silly and petty your tactics are, you demand we find someone that challenges Copp but when I use your same tactics and I ask you to find someone that challenges Richard Aboulafia, you attack the mans crudentials. How pathetic of you. Now I ask you, find someone denouncing Aboulafia.





antonius123 said:


> Source please.
> 
> His credibility is not convincing.






The man actually worked with some of leading aerospace companies in the world, if that is not convincing than what is?

Here is your source:


Richard L. Aboulafia, Vice President, Analysis










antonius123 said:


> If he said so then he ruin his own credibility. Why Rafale with canard is stealthier that more exposed fan blade SU-27?




No, you ruin your credibly, there are no official RCS numbers for either aircraft. The Rafale was also specifically designed around RCS reduction. There are many features found on the Rafale that would reduce it&#8217;s RCS, the SU-27 was never designed with that emphasis.






antonius123 said:


> No it is you that demonstrate not only zero critical thinking and zero aviation knowledge, but also zero logic.
> 
> If the 90 degree tunnel is not exposed to radar wave, then why it has to reflect/return the zero radar wave? you are idiot!





You must have been using some psychedelic drugs when you wrote this. Who said anything about a tunnel not being exposed to radar. Please quote me on that. Also since when did the tunnels on the pak-fa/F-22 become 90 degrees? The question was why is an intake which essentially is a tunnel any different from a tunnel found next to the intake? Stop dodging the question that I asked many times and answer, if you aren&#8217;t able to than shut up.





antonius123 said:


> You are drawing the WRONG wave reflection! as your reflection line violate the physic rule.
> 
> The reflected ray and incident ray have to have the same degree of angle, thats the rule, while you are drawing totally different angle.





Using worlds like &#8216;incident ray&#8217; doesn&#8217;t make your argument convincing. My picture followed the same incident and reflection behavior of the same picture you used:

Which would be this:








So are you now calling yourself a liar? Or are your seriously using the lame excuse that because the v-tails are active that corner reflectors do not apply? Like I stated before, the J-20&#8217;s v-tails can not always be active. Moreover, you still are refusing to except the truth that the J-20&#8217;s fins create additional corner reflectors. What you are doing is losing the argument and stooping to the lowest of low by bringing up irrelevant claims such as the V-tails, being active during the time of the photo, or demanding I find someone specifically denouncing Copp because you claim that since no one is denouncing him that he has to be right. 





antonius123 said:


> It demonstrate how poor your basic physics knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> The picture of reflection above is general and basic physics.
> 
> I can see you never studied physics.






Correct, I never studied Chinese physics.















eachus said:


> *a fighter in air falling down at least has a speed 500-600km/hr,
> that is common sense proof*.




Apparently you have never heard of a stall. Many aircraft that crash land/crash go into stalls, where they are either dangerously below the minimum airspeed or they are at or near zero airspeed. 


Here is one famous crash:


Anatoly Kvochur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




> a bird was sucked into the turbofan of his right engine (a bird strike), causing the engine to burst into flames. Kvochur immediately turned the remaining engine to full afterburner. However his speed, *at 180 kilometres per hour (110 mph), was too slow to maintain stability *on one engine.






Here is more proof, this time in video form. The F-4 in the video, while in a stall was probably traveling well under 100km an hour at the time of the crash.


F-4 Phantom Stall & Crash - YouTube





eachus said:


> if a plane fell into a rice land without






What makes you think it fell? The aircraft was clearly involved in a forced landing based on the minimal damage to the aircraft.





eachus said:


> landing evidence, question is fake story or nose diving.





The picture is real and you know it, your are just neck deep in your own crap to admit it. You have no valid claims, just twisted delusions. The fact is the Chinese media has reported the crash, even the &#8217;division&#8217; that the J-10 belonged to is know--2nd Air Division. The location of the crash is also known--Guilin. On top of that we have authentic photos. 








eachus said:


> nose diving, no holes on muddy land, and the plane was on mud, not in mud.





You clearly are slow. If the aircraft makes a forced landing that does not mean there will be large holes. In fact there are dozens of videos that prove that. You watch too many movies if you think that there should simply be a crater. Clearly large pieces of the aircraft are intact, thus there can not be any large noticeable craters. Even if there was some damage to the ground the aircraft is in standing water. The waters would simply fill any holes.






Hey, look everyone, it&#8217;s an X-31. The US Air Force, must of faked their official photos of the wreckage because there is no hole or crater.











eachus said:


> and some the plane body was in "good" condition. even a car accident
> at 60km/hr can not have condition like that good. that from common sense
> is 100% fake pics.





When an automobile crashes it takes the full grunt of the impact, this is even worse if it&#8217;s a head on collision. An aircraft, on the other hand, can merely land with no power or without working landing gears to constitute a crash. Further, if the aircraft stalls at low altitude it will likely have minimal damage as long as it lands on the fuselage as apposed to a nose dive.






eachus said:


> ?aircraft made an emergency landing? landing within 1/5 acre of rice land?
> no evidence of landing path? it is plain lie.




Again where is the evidence. I asked you to post proof of this &#8216;1/5 acre&#8217; landing where is it? The X-31 wreckage must also be fake because it crashed in its own footprint.






eachus said:


> you can fly a plane "emergency landing" without fuel, without an engine?
> it is plain lie.




Never heard of a glider have you? 

Or better yet Air Transat Flight 236?


Air Transat Flight 236 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




> At 06:13 UTC, while still 135 miles (217 km) from Lajes,[4] engine no. 2 on the right wing flamed out because of fuel starvation. Captain Piché ordered full thrust from the remaining operational engine, , and the plane descended to 33,000 feet (10,000 m), unable to stay at its 39,000 feet (12,000 m) cruising altitude with only one engine operating. Ten minutes later, the crew sent a Mayday to Santa Maria Oceanic air traffic control. Thirteen minutes later, engine no. 1 also flamed out at while the aircraft was still approximately 65 nautical miles (120 km) from Lajes Air Base.







eachus said:


> you claim an engine can be ejected, should me an example. it is plain lie.




I claimed that the engines nozzles could have broken off. But yes, an engine can be ejected from an aircraft. It&#8217;s no lie my naïve friend, an engine is one of the heaviest and most dense parts of an aircraft, a hard impacts can cause it to break off. 

Here is proof you fool:






Wreckage recovered from ocean.







Plain old wreckage.





eachus said:


> " the photos were taken at different times or that they were taken at different angles? Talk about lack of critical thinking. "
> 
> thay is plain lie pointing to 2 photos.
> look at the plane location, look at where people stand.
> they crashed plane moved to another piece of rice field?
> the plane can move after lose the engine without fuel?



I&#8217;m going to be a nice as possible when I say this but&#8230;.you are stupid. The plane did not move, the camera man did. Time proximity, and angle all play a factor in the way objects are perceived in pictures. One photo was taken from far away, another photo was taken up close to the wreckage, thus it might appear that the people are standing closer. Equally as important is that the picture was taken from another angle, so by the time the camera man walked around the wreckage to take a closer shot of the aircraft the by standards could also have walked closer to the wreckage.







eachus said:


> and after days of crashed?
> 
> you are a proved liar!!!






And you are plain stupid, as explained above the concept of time, proximity and angle might seem new to you but I learned how proximity and angle can be used to manipulate a painting/drawing back when I took art in college.

And if you didn&#8217;t look pathetic enough the crash has been confirmed by Chinese news agencies. Hard to hid a crash when dozens of eye witnesses converge on the wreckage and start taking photographs.






eachus said:


> man, that is the post of the day!




Yes, it is and you are the jester that everyone is laughing at. Great that you received some thanks from your buddies, they are as clueless and dull as you. They thanked you for nonsense such as aircraft can&#8217;t fly without an engine, they thanked you for claiming an aircraft crashing down has to have a speed of at least 500-600km, they thanked you for you conspiracy theory regarding the photos. All those claims have been dismissed with sources.


----------



## skydrill_2

antonius123 said:


>







hehe i learned this physics in class 4 itself......



.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## feilong

X 31 95 Aerial (X31-95Aerial.jpg) - 12453289 - Free Image Hosting at TurboImageHost

Who the idiot showing a plane crashed on sand bed (hot dessert) with rocks, didn't you realized sand bed is harden then mud? Why he posting plane crashed on solid road, hard rock but cannot even find a real plane crashed on mud? When you trying to proof, Chinese plane crashed on rice field with mud. You know better what mud mean? Mud is not meaning a cup ok got it? Mud is water or rain combine with soils. Stop fooling yourself, get a real plane and crashed like you telling Chinese plane crashed in rice field and you see the different.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## eachus

ptldM3 said:


> Apparently you have never heard of a stall. Many aircraft that crash land/crash go into stalls, where they are either dangerously below the minimum airspeed or they are at or near zero airspeed.
> 
> 
> Here is one famous crash:
> 
> 
> Anatoly Kvochur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Here is more proof, this time in video form. The F-4 in the video, while in a stall was probably traveling well under 100km an hour at the time of the crash.
> 
> 
> F-4 Phantom Stall & Crash - YouTube
> 
> 
> What makes you think it fell? The aircraft was clearly involved in a forced landing based on the minimal damage to the aircraft.
> 
> 
> 
> The picture is real and you know it, your are just neck deep in your own crap to admit it. You have no valid claims, just twisted delusions. The fact is the Chinese media has reported the crash, even the &#8217;division&#8217; that the J-10 belonged to is know--2nd Air Division. The location of the crash is also known--Guilin. On top of that we have authentic photos.
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly are slow. If the aircraft makes a forced landing that does not mean there will be large holes. In fact there are dozens of videos that prove that. You watch too many movies if you think that there should simply be a crater. Clearly large pieces of the aircraft are intact, thus there can not be any large noticeable craters. Even if there was some damage to the ground the aircraft is in standing water. The waters would simply fill any holes.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, look everyone, it&#8217;s an X-31. The US Air Force, must of faked their official photos of the wreckage because there is no hole or crater.
> 
> http://www.turboimagehost.com/p/12453289/X31-95Aerial.jpg.html
> 
> 
> 
> When an automobile crashes it takes the full grunt of the impact, this is even worse if it&#8217;s a head on collision. An aircraft, on the other hand, can merely land with no power or without working landing gears to constitute a crash. Further, if the aircraft stalls at low altitude it will likely have minimal damage as long as it lands on the fuselage as apposed to a nose dive.
> 
> 
> 
> Again where is the evidence. I asked you to post proof of this &#8216;1/5 acre&#8217; landing where is it? The X-31 wreckage must also be fake because it crashed in its own footprint.
> 
> 
> Never heard of a glider have you?
> 
> Or better yet Air Transat Flight 236?
> 
> 
> Air Transat Flight 236 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> I claimed that the engines nozzles could have broken off. But yes, an engine can be ejected from an aircraft. It&#8217;s no lie my naïve friend, an engine is one of the heaviest and most dense parts of an aircraft, a hard impacts can cause it to break off.
> 
> Here is proof you fool:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wreckage recovered from ocean.
> 
> 
> http://www.turboimagehost.com/p/12452878/f-16wreckage.jpg.html
> 
> 
> Plain old wreckage.
> 
> 
> 
> I&#8217;m going to be a nice as possible when I say this but&#8230;.you are stupid. The plane did not move, the camera man did. Time proximity, and angle all play a factor in the way objects are perceived in pictures. One photo was taken from far away, another photo was taken up close to the wreckage, thus it might appear that the people are standing closer. Equally as important is that the picture was taken from another angle, so by the time the camera man walked around the wreckage to take a closer shot of the aircraft the by standards could also have walked closer to the wreckage.
> 
> 
> 
> And you are plain stupid, as explained above the concept of time, proximity and angle might seem new to you but I learned how proximity and angle can be used to manipulate a painting/drawing back when I took art in college.
> 
> And if you didn&#8217;t look pathetic enough the crash has been confirmed by Chinese news agencies. Hard to hid a crash when dozens of eye witnesses converge on the wreckage and start taking photographs.




ok, I dont agree with you, but I still thank for your time on researching.
you obviously did a lot of work to reply my message. anyway, 
here is a logic problem. 

you proved a fighter can eject/broke off an engine from its body in air. 
you can prove a fighter can eject fuel in air before landing. 
you can prove a fighter can smash on to ground. 
you can prove a fighter lost speed and crash on land and completely burned. 
you can prove a fighter can be emerging landing. 


however, you can not combine these together. 
the photos show some wreckages were in extremely good condition --- does not like smash into ground. 
the crashed plane did not have engine, can not emerging landing, can not soft landing. 
if the plane lost speed, you dont have time to eject fuel, emerging landing is impossible.
if the plane lost speed, eject engine or engine broke away is likely a case.
if a plane broke off engine in air, no wreckage is in good condition. 
no landing path evidence prove it was not a soft landing crash, likely smash into ground.
there is no holes, no evidence of big collision show, that should be a soft landing.

the 2 photos you posted show the crashed fighter was not in the same location,
it was in 2 different rice fields, "where villiages stand" was a proof of fake photos.
look at the main rice field road(green, grassy, and tall race field path). from one
photo, it was very close, not other rice field path between. other photo has 
a rice field path between, and the main-green-grassy-tall path was far away. 
the angle of the crashed plane was different to the tall grassy path. 

those are very obvious errors on the fake photos.


----------



## Zabaniyah

My brain! My poor brain!! ><


----------



## eachus

ptldM3, there is a simple mistake. 
for instance, you did many trial tests on T50, 

1) one test you can fly T50 at max speed 2.5M. 
2) one test you can fully load T50 which carry 10 tons of weapon,
3) one test you fly T50 max range 5000km without refuel

now you concluded the T50 can load up 10tons and fly at speed 2.5M for all 5000Km without refuel. 
something 1+2 != 3.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BlueDot_in_Space

eachus said:


> ptldM3, there is a simple mistake.
> for instance, you did many trial tests on T50,
> 
> 1) one test you can fly T50 at max speed 2.5M.
> 2) one test you can fully load T50 which carry 10 tons of weapon,
> 3) one test you fly T50 max range 5000km without refuel
> 
> now you concluded the T50 can load up 10tons and fly at speed 2.5M for all 5000Km without refuel.
> something 1+2 != 3.


----------



## ptldM3

eachus said:


> ok, I dont agree with you, but I still thank for your time on researching.
> you obviously did a lot of work to reply my message. anyway,
> here is a logic problem.
> 
> you proved a fighter can eject/broke off an engine from its body in air.
> you can prove a fighter can eject fuel in air before landing.
> you can prove a fighter can smash on to ground.
> you can prove a fighter lost speed and crash on land and completely burned.
> you can prove a fighter can be emerging landing.
> 
> 
> however, you can not combine these together.





Indeed I have proven all of those things. Let me remind you that you doubted all of them but have now conceded, so what makes you believe that all of those actions are not possible?






eachus said:


> the photos show some wreckages were in extremely good condition --- does not like smash into ground.






Aircraft dont always smash into the ground, sometimes they may make a hard or even soft landing but them after the touchdown the aircraft may flip after the wing clips the ground, a tree, or something else. Damage may be light or severe, it all depends on a magnitude of factors. It also doesnt help your argument that the rice field was soft and wet, this will of course limit the severity of the damage.






eachus said:


> the crashed plane did not have engine, can not emerging landing, can not soft landing.




You do not know that the aircraft did not have an engine, my guess is that the nozzle broke off. Even if we give you the benefit of the doubt, the aircraft would still be able to perform an emergency landing and even a soft touchdown even with no engine power, given that the aircraft had enough altitude and airspeed. Remember flight 236 flew 129km with no engines and, in fact, flight 236 could have gone further because it was forced to circle the runway and bleed off as much speed as possible before it made an emergency landing.






eachus said:


> if the plane lost speed, you dont have time to eject fuel, emerging landing is impossible.





This is a big if. If an aircraft losses engine power a pilot can often maintain enough airspeed to bring the aircraft down for a hard/crash landing, every aircraft has a particular *lift-to-glide ratio*. 


And yes you would have time to dump plenty of fuel, unless the aircraft was extremely low and lost power while at a slow airspeed. Dumping fuel not only minimizes damage when the aircraft lands/crashes but also improves its lift-to-glide ratio. Furthermore, we dont know how much fuel the J-10 was carrying, it could have been very little.


Here is how much fuel an F-15 can dump:


F-15E.info: Strike Eagle reference and resources - F-15E.info - Fuel Dumping System






> Approximate fuel dumping rate is 390 lbs/min for the right internal wing tank, 260 lbs/min for the of left internal wing tank and 1,260 lbs/min for tank 1. This gives a *total dumping rate of 910 lbs/min.*








eachus said:


> if the plane lost speed, eject engine or engine broke away is likely a case.





You dont make any sense.






eachus said:


> if a plane broke off engine in air, no wreckage is in good condition.







Very unlikely that an engine would break off while an aircraft is in the air even of a catastrophic explosion occurred. Speculation of whether or not the engine broke off or not is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that an aircraft can still maintain flight without an engine, and again the condition of the aircraft is also irrelevant. Every crash is different.

My brother lost power in his aircraft, he managed to glide it for some time, the aircraft unfortunately clipped a building. The building was not large but the aircraft was completely destroyed, nothing but the tail end remained. Then you get violent crashes to where the aircraft looks like its in decent condition, the point is that there are too many factors involved in what determines the extent of how bad an aircraft is damaged.






eachus said:


> no landing path evidence prove it was not a soft landing crash, likely smash into ground.




How can you see whether or not there was a landing path? The aircraft was in a wet rice field with standing water. This is like landing or crashing into an ocean. Water does not leave a footprint, thus you will not see anything






eachus said:


> there is no holes, no evidence of big collision show, that should be a soft landing.




Does not need to be a hole, even if it was a violent landing, even the picture of the X-31 showed that there was not hole, nor was there any kind of landing path. The X-31 simply crashed down. If the X-31 did not leave a hole or any landing path than what makes you think that an aircraft crashing down in water would leave anything?






eachus said:


> *the 2 photos you posted show the crashed fighter was not in the same location*, it was in 2 different rice fields, "where villiages stand" was a proof of fake photos.





Yes it was, the two photos were just taken at different distances, one photos was taken probably 100 yards from the wreckage, and the other picture was taken up close to the wreckage.


Look here:



This picture is taken *far from the wreckage *as well as the spectators:








This picture was taken *close to the wreckage *as well as spectators.











You also are not accounting for the *time laps *and angle of the pictures, by the time the camera man moved closer to the wreckage the spectators could have also moved. 






eachus said:


> look at the main rice field road(green, grassy, and tall race field path). from one
> photo, it was very close, not other rice field path between. other photo has
> a rice field path between, and *the main-green-grassy-tall path was far away*.






Duh, of course that green patch of grass is closer in one photo---because the camera man moved *closer to the wreckage *to take the photo.





eachus said:


> the angle of the crashed plane was different to the tall grassy path.





This is another duh moment, of course the angle of the crash is different the camera man took two photos, from *two different angles*. Both the right and left side of the aircraft was photographed, one was a close up the other was from far away.


----------



## antonius123

ptldM3 said:


> Your picture doesn&#8217;t work--fail. And yes the *chin* fit&#8217;s the contour of a *perfect circle*. Denial doesn&#8217;t mean it is not true.



Is this what you call fit, idiot?






Even CONE which is perfectly fit to your circle is not the same as Cylinder. You are really idiot.





CONE SHAPE <> Cylinder Shape (eventhough fit to the circle)


Btw circle means : a curve with points having the equidistant (the same distant) to a certain point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle




You cannot say J-20 chin is circle if the curve is not a closed curve with equidistant.


Idiocy + lack of basic math & physics.





> Another epic fail. The pak-fa has a flat chin. You&#8217;re now just making a fool out of yourself.



It is cylinder according to your own idiot understanding 



> More like you have nothing to challenge me with thus you resort to one liners that name calling. Instead of attacking me attack the argument, something you have not done so far.



As I said, because the problem with you is idiocy.





> You really have some audacity and no morals, you want me to find a specific person that challenges Copp, yet when I ask you to find a specific person that challenges Richard Aboulafia you simple refuse and instead question the man&#8217;s credentials. The point here is how silly and petty your tactics are, you demand we find someone that challenges Copp but when I use your same tactics and I ask you to find someone that challenges Richard Aboulafia, you attack the mans crudentials. How pathetic of you. Now I ask you, find someone denouncing Aboulafia.



He doesnt challenge Copp. It is you who has missunderstanding on Richard's statement due to your myopic and bias.




> The man actually worked with some of leading aerospace companies in the world, if that is not convincing than what is?
> 
> Here is your source:
> 
> 
> Richard L. Aboulafia, Vice President, Analysis




This is what he said:

_Teal Group analyst Richard Aboulafia has also raised *doubts* about the use of canards on a design that is intended to be low-observable: &#8220;There&#8217;s no better way of guaranteeing a radar reflection and compromise of stealth_
Chengdu J-20 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See.. he only *DOUBT* the use of canard for low-observability.

First => He never said that PAKFA will be more stealthy than J-20 judging from the shape; He never said that Canard is certainly much more detrimental than round shape/expose fan blade/corner reflector. (*HE NEVER CONTRA COPP!!!*)

Second => He only DOUBT about canard; DOUBT imply "his personal belief" rather than a "scientific statement". Doubt is as weak as believe - compared to suggestion/analysis.

Got it?




> No, you ruin your credibly, there are no official RCS numbers for either aircraft. The Rafale was also specifically designed around RCS reduction. There are many features found on the Rafale that would reduce it&#8217;s RCS, the SU-27 was never designed with that emphasis.



That is answering your argument, idiot.

The low rcs design on Rafale like "hidden fan blade", minimize square tunel/corner reflector is the answer rather than removing canard.

It means Rafale's canard is much less detrimental compared to other things (fan blade, square tunnel, round shape).





> You must have been using some psychedelic drugs when you wrote this. Who said anything about a tunnel not being exposed to radar. Please quote me on that. Also since when did the tunnels on the pak-fa/F-22 become 90 degrees? The question was why is an intake which essentially is a tunnel any different from a tunnel found next to the intake? Stop dodging the question that I asked many times and answer, if you aren&#8217;t able to than shut up.



It is you using drugs when saying J-20 chin fit perfectly to circle 

You are referring to the 90 degree tunnel on the outside of F-22/J-20 right?

There is no such 90 degree tunnel on F-22/J-20/F-35.
Show me if there is! 




> Using worlds like &#8216;incident ray&#8217; doesn&#8217;t make your argument convincing. My picture followed the same incident and reflection behavior of the same picture you used:
> 
> Which would be this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you now calling yourself a liar? Or are your seriously using the lame excuse that because the v-tails are active that corner reflectors do not apply? Like I stated before, the J-20&#8217;s v-tails can not always be active. Moreover, you still are refusing to except the truth that the J-20&#8217;s fins create additional corner reflectors. What you are doing is losing the argument and stooping to the lowest of low by bringing up irrelevant claims such as the V-tails, being active during the time of the photo, or demanding I find someone specifically denouncing Copp because you claim that since no one is denouncing him that he has to be right.



You are idiot.

Your drawing of incident and reflected ray/line on J-20 is not the same as that corner reflector picture above. Either You are a pathetic LIAR or Drunk or Totally idiot.






The degree of the incident and reflected one is not the same!





> Correct, I never studied Chinese physics.


Correct!

More exactly to say that you never study physics + idiot.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> You cannot say J-20 *chin is circle* if the curve is not a closed curve with equidistant.


He did not say so. He said the J-20's lower front fuselage has the *CONTOUR* of a curvature of a circle.

If you have this bad of a reading comprehension problem, as we have seen continually, you have no business in this discussion.

So what was your 'study' in aviation?


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> He did not say so. He said the J-20's lower front fuselage has the *CONTOUR* of a curvature of a circle.
> 
> If you have this bad of a reading comprehension problem, as we have seen continually, you have no business in this discussion.
> 
> So what was your 'study' in aviation?


 
Read again what I wrote above. Everything was answered!

The contour doesnt fit the curvature of a circle.

It is you who has the pathetic reading comprehension problem

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Is this what you call fit, idiot?
> 
> 
> 
> *Even CONE which is perfectly fit to your circle is not the same as Cylinder.* You are really idiot.
> 
> More exactly to say that you never study physics + idiot.



A cylinder is simply a cone whose apex is at infinity genius....


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> A cylinder is simply a cone whose apex is at infinity genius....



Yeah.. just like oval is a circle which has been punched

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> Yeah.. just like oval is a circle which has been punched




an oval is an ellipse in math, Circles are special cases of ellipses, obtained when the intersecting plane is orthogonal to the cone's axis. 

man did you even have an education ?


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> an oval is an ellipse in math, Circles are special cases of ellipses, obtained when the intersecting plane is orthogonal to the cone's axis.
> 
> man did you even have an education ?




You are really IDIOT. Thats a satire for you.

Either elipse, circle, cone, cylinder, those are different shape, idiot.


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> You are really IDIOT. Thats a satire for you.
> 
> Either elipse, circle, cone, cylinder, those are different shape, idiot.



Oh my GOD !! 

Please go back and finish school ..please ...


----------



## pakindia

amalakas said:


> Oh my GOD !!
> 
> Please go back and *finish school* ..please ...



do we ever finish school??? "complete your schooling" is the term.....i think you need to brush up your english and need to go school.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

pakindia said:


> do we ever finish school??? "complete your schooling" is the term.....i think you need to brush up your english and need to go school.



ha.. depends where you picked up english. You are obviously of the old uk colonies lineage. Whatever the masters do, the colonies do it better.. 

Not to mention that schooling is a process, school is the institutionalised education


----------



## pakindia

^^^^am i listening this from a greek?? cant even match pakistan's a$$???? .....failure in economy in the west and ruled by great civilisations the entire human era??????

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

amalakas said:


> ha.. depends where you picked up english. You are obviously of the old uk colonies lineage. Whatever the masters do, the colonies do it better..



I'm sure Greeks know all about colonialism.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> Read again what I wrote above. Everything was answered!
> 
> The contour doesnt fit the curvature of a circle.
> 
> It is you who has the pathetic reading comprehension problem


What you wrote -- *EVERYTHING SO FAR IN THIS DISCUSSION* -- are gibberish typical of the ignorant and the pretender.

So...Since you claimed to have 'aviation experience' to shut the Indians up, what was that 'aviation experience' or 'study'?



antonius123 said:


> He doesnt challenge Copp. It is you who has missunderstanding on Richard's statement due to your myopic and bias.


Of course he did. You do not have to address your target directly. Any time you publish something, be it an opinion or an analysis, that is contrary to what came before, that is a challenge.



antonius123 said:


> This is what he said:
> 
> _Teal Group analyst Richard Aboulafia has also raised *doubts* about the use of canards on a design that is intended to be low-observable: Theres no better way of guaranteeing a radar reflection and compromise of stealth_
> Chengdu J-20 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> See.. he only *DOUBT* the use of canard for low-observability.
> 
> First => He never said that PAKFA will be more stealthy than J-20 judging from the shape; He never said that Canard is certainly much more detrimental than round shape/expose fan blade/corner reflector. (*HE NEVER CONTRA COPP!!!*)
> 
> Second => He only DOUBT about canard; DOUBT imply "his personal belief" rather than a "scientific statement". Doubt is as weak as believe - compared to suggestion/analysis.


If doubt is as weak as belief compared to analysis, then Kopp's poor attempt at analysis using only Physical Optics qualified that weak belief. We know by now you did not read what Kopp did.

So what was your 'aviation experience' or 'study' again...??? 



amalakas said:


> Oh my GOD !!
> 
> Please go back and finish school ..please ...


Go back...??? He is *STILL* in school. He is probably a teenager living off ma and pa and thought he could make 'something' of himself on an anonymous Internet forum. Never in his juvenile mind that he would meet adults who have the experience he pretended to have.


----------



## amalakas

pakindia said:


> ^^^^am i listening this from a greek?? cant even match pakistan's a$$???? .....failure in economy in the west and ruled by great civilisations the entire human era??????



What you wrote makes no sense ... 




j20blackdragon said:


> I'm sure Greeks know all about colonialism.



Yes .. we actually do .. we kind of invented it when we almost reached your lands .. and back then ..there where no planes and cannons.


----------



## j20blackdragon

amalakas said:


> What you wrote makes no sense ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes .. we actually do .. we kind of invented it when we almost reached your lands .. and back then ..there where no planes and cannons.



Here's a movie I think you would enjoy.


----------



## amalakas

j20blackdragon said:


> Here's a movie I think you would enjoy.



You think with this pathetic attempt you will enrage me or insult me ? 

you have to try harder. What is this suppose to mean ? Empires come and go and if you were a lit bit less history wise challenged you would know that after the greek empire there was the roman, and then the byzantine and then the ottoman so 2 out of 4 major empires were greek and one was greek cultured and saturated.. I'd say that is not bad over 3000 or so years... get it ?


----------



## Surenas

amalakas said:


> What you wrote makes no sense ...
> 
> Yes .. we actually do .. we kind of invented it when we almost reached your lands .. and back then ..there where no planes and cannons.



Greek empire or Macedonian empire? I think the last one.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Guys, please stay on topic.

At the current stage, the J-20 is still not flawless, some modifications are required, especially the rear needs to be replaced with the flat nozzled engines.

Hopefully we can see it being done within this year.


----------



## Esc8781

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Guys, please stay on topic.
> 
> At the current stage, the J-20 is still not flawless, some modifications are required, especially the rear needs to be replaced with the flat nozzled engines.
> 
> Hopefully we can see it being done within this year.


 Should they add the YF-23 nozzle? 




or the F-22 nozzle?


----------



## j20blackdragon

Esc8781 said:


> Should they add the YF-23 nozzle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or the F-22 nozzle?



The simplest solution would be to do the F-35 nozzles.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Esc8781 said:


> Should they add the YF-23 nozzle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or the F-22 nozzle?



The F-22 type of nozzle is more likely.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> What you wrote -- *EVERYTHING SO FAR IN THIS DISCUSSION* -- are gibberish typical of the ignorant and the pretender.
> 
> So...Since you claimed to have 'aviation experience' to shut the Indians up, what was that 'aviation experience' or 'study'?



All you can do is pretending as if you were an expert by dragging article from internet, ignoring, jeering, faking.. instead answering your counter part's challenge.



> Of course he did. You do not have to address your target directly. Any time you publish something, be it an opinion or an analysis, that is contrary to what came before, that is a challenge.



Then tell us in which statement of his that Richard Aboulafia denounce Carlo Kopp's suggestion/analysis about J-20 should be stealthier than PAKFA judging from the shaping?



> If doubt is as weak as belief compared to analysis, then Kopp's poor attempt at analysis using only Physical Optics qualified that weak belief. We know by now you did not read what Kopp did.
> 
> So what was your 'aviation experience' or 'study' again...???



Till now we are still waiting your EVIDENCE that Copp only use Physical Optics for his suggestion, where is it??? 

It is confirming your bad habit of throwing empty check and claiming without ability to prove/back it, but acting delusional as if it were already proven fact 

Cmon.. you are ruining your reminding credibility more and more here.




> Go back...??? He is *STILL* in school. He is probably a teenager living off ma and pa and thought he could make 'something' of himself on an anonymous Internet forum. Never in his juvenile mind that he would meet adults who have the experience he pretended to have.



If that is the case you should be ashamed of your self, as you are unable to defend your claim and argument against a schoolboy teenager


----------



## pakindia

amalakas said:


> What you wrote makes no sense ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes .. we actually do .. we kind of invented it when we almost reached your lands .. and back then ..there where no planes and cannons.



haha the first ever nuclear weapon(brahmastra) and plane(garuda and many others) in the world was invented in the indian subcontinent...check wiki or british encyclopedia or any other sources.....LOL


----------



## amalakas

pakindia said:


> haha the first ever nuclear weapon(brahmastra) and plane(garuda and many others) in the world was invented in the indian subcontinent...check wiki or british encyclopedia or any other sources.....LOL



ahh yes.. right back then when Atlantis was trading and the chariots of the gods were flying ..yes yes yes...


Back on topic. 

I am certain the J-20 will fly at least with some flat nozzles. I do not know if they will be adopted for the plane though ..


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> All you can do is pretending as if you were an expert by dragging article from internet, ignoring, jeering, faking.. instead answering your counter part's challenge.


Fine...Then show us what was your 'study' and/or 'aviation experience'. If you are so confident that what I posted are worthless, show everyone how good you are.



antonius123 said:


> Then tell us in which statement of his that Richard Aboulafia denounce Carlo Kopp's suggestion/analysis about J-20 should be stealthier than PAKFA judging from the shaping?


Terrible reading comprehension. You obviously have never written a technical paper.



antonius123 said:


> Till now we are still waiting your EVIDENCE that Copp only use Physical Optics for his suggestion, where is it???


And it is clear that you have never read Kopp's so-called 'analysis'.

So what was your 'study' in aviation again?


----------



## gambit

Esc8781 said:


> Should they add the YF-23 nozzle?


Not possible. The YF-23 does not have nozzles in the traditional sense. What they did was place the exhaust completely topside.






The jet's exhausts are simply not sensory 'accessible' from below. Such a structural modification for the J-20 to this route would be extensive enough to qualify as designing a new aircraft.



Esc8781 said:


> or the F-22 nozzle?


More technically possible than the YF-23 but would still be an engineering challenge and financially costly. The F-35's method of serrated nozzle is more likely and less money outlay.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Fine...Then show us what was your 'study' and/or 'aviation experience'. If you are so confident that what I posted are worthless, show everyone how good you are.


I dont say your post is worthless, I said you mostly post article without understanding.
You are demonstrating terrible reading comprehension




> Terrible reading comprehension. You obviously have never written a technical paper.


Is that all you can do?? bring nothing while your counter part challenge you for any evidence required to prove your claim?

Then where is your answer for my question above? 



> And it is clear that you have never read Kopp's so-called 'analysis'.
> 
> So what was your 'study' in aviation again?



Is that all you can do?

If your accusation is true, then why dont you just bring the EVIDENCE as requested the above? or at least where I am wrong, instead throwing another empty word.

Thes above 2 replies of you have been the "*SOLID EVIDENCE*" that you cant defend your empty check anymore, and it is confirming what I have said above that all you can do is just faking, ignoring, jeering and throwing empty claims as usual


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> I dont say your post is worthless, I said you mostly post article without understanding.
> You are demonstrating terrible reading comprehension


Fine...Then show us what was your aviation 'study' and/or 'experience' to demonstrate your 'superior' understanding. 



antonius123 said:


> Is that all you can do?? bring nothing while your counter part challenge you for any evidence required to prove your claim?


That is all that is needed. If you have ever written a technical paper, you would know that it can be used to challenge someone on purely technical grounds without even mentioning the target.

So what was your aviation 'experience' or 'study' again...??? 



antonius123 said:


> If your accusation is true, then why dont you just bring the EVIDENCE as requested the above? or at least where I am wrong, instead throwing another empty word.
> 
> Thes above 2 replies of you have been the "*SOLID EVIDENCE*" that you cant defend your empty check anymore, and it is confirming what I have said above that all you can do is just faking, ignoring, jeering and throwing empty claims as usual


But I did bring evidence. And here it is again...

A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype


> The Physical Optics (PO) method is used to predict the RCS of complex targets, in this instance the Chengdu J-20 prototype.
> 
> At this time the simulator does not implement surface travelling wave modelling and associated edge or gap backscatter modelling, or edge diffraction scattering effect modelling.


If APA did any simulation on other than specular reflection, they would have said so. That is because they have written plenty of technical papers in the past. Something that apparently you have never done but tried to lie about yourself. But I doubt that you would understand the source.

Face it...You are a fraud. Stay in school. Shut up. And may be you will learn something.


----------



## eachus

ptldM3 said:


> the 2 photos you posted show the crashed fighter was not in the same location, it was in 2 different rice fields, "where villiages stand" was a proof of fake photos. look at the main rice field road(green, grassy, and tall rice field path). from one photo, it was very close, not other rice field path between. other photo has a rice field path between, and the main-green-grassy-tall path was far away. the angle of the crashed plane was different to the tall grassy path.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was, the two photos were just taken at different distances, one photos was taken probably 100 yards from the wreckage, and the other picture was taken up close to the wreckage.
> 
> Look here:
> This picture is taken *far from the wreckage *as well as the spectators:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This picture was taken *close to the wreckage *as well as spectators.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You also are not accounting for the *time laps *and angle of the pictures, by the time the camera man moved closer to the wreckage the spectators could have also moved.
> 
> Duh, of course that green patch of grass is closer in one photo---because the camera man moved *closer to the wreckage *to take the photo.
> 
> 
> This is another duh moment, of course the angle of the crash is different the camera man took two photos, from *two different angles*. Both the right and left side of the aircraft was photographed, one was a close up the other was from far away.




lets put down all technical arguments first, just compare with 2 pictures there. 
photo #1, the vertical tail of the J10 was perpendicular(around 90degree) to the tall grassy path where ppl stood. the distance of the J10 tail to the grassy path was around 15-20 feet, no more than 20 feet.

photo #2, the vertical tail of the J10 was around 30 degree to the tall grassy path, very far behind. the distance of of the J10 tail to the tall grassy path was at least 80 feet, no less than 80 feet if measure follow in the tail's direction. 

that is huge and very obvious different. unless you are intended to refuse the fact. 
if you dont agree, please input your opinion of what you think those numbers were.
photo #1, angle of vertical tail to the tall grassy path, the distance to the tall grassy path. 
photo #2, angle of vertical tail to the tall grassy path, the distance to the tall grassy path. 

from those as proof, the pictures are 100% fake.


----------

