# Top 10 future weapons of CHINA



## DrSomnath999

*10.TYPE 99A2 tank*





China is researching the so-called "Enhanced third generation MBT"----Type 99-A2 MBT with an integrated propulsion system, powerful active protection system, Shaped ERA armor, reaction improved aiming system and digital battlefield information terminal.
The "Integrated Propulsion System" is a module includes engine, transmission, cooling system and fuels tank. Besides, the modified 1500HP transverse mounted engine brings a smaller sized module and changes the inlet and exhaust position of tank.
The well-known feature of Type 99 MBT is the laser-countermeasure device, but the actual performance is unclear. And in Type 99-A2 MBT, the laser-countermeasure will be replaced by other active protection system (APS), such as a Chinese copy of Russian Arena tank APS. In the picture, a bulged device fixed on turret right side is believed to be a part of experimental protection system.
Of course, the APS can not be an alternative of all other conventional protections. It has been known that Type 99-A2 MBT has arrow-shaped ERA armor instead of former spaced armor covered by ERA liner.
As alike as the improved Hunter-Killer fire control system of Type 99-A2 MBT, the digital battlefield information terminal can not observed from the appearance.
Armor Classified, Al2O3, ERA, composite
Primary
armament	125 mm smoothbore tank gun, compatible with Chinese 140 mm guns or 155 mm for Type 99KM 



*9 HQ-19/SA- 400TRIUMF*




Development 
It is believed that the Chinese Hong Qi-19 (HQ-19) Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) system, was a joint development programme with the Russian Federation. The HQ-19 system appears to use the same missiles, sensors, battle management and launch vehicles as the Russian S-400 Triumf. The Russian S-400 introduced three new missiles, the 9M96, 9M96/2 and the 40N6, which can be fitted in new canisters replacing all or some of the S-300 (SA-10/-20) missile canisters on the S-300 Transporter-Erector-Launcher (TEL) vehicles. Development of the third version, the 40N6, was reported to have been completed in December 2002, but no further details are available and this has not been confirmed. The HQ-19 system could be adapted as an Anti-Satellite weapon (ASAT) system, for use against satellites in Low Earth Orbit (LEO).

Radar

The S-400s radar is capable of tracking over 100 targets at ranges of over 400 km (250 mi), and engaging up to 12 of these targets at varying ranges, depending on the missile used (see infobox). For stealth targets the detection range will be less than 100 km (62 mi)

Missiles



The 40N6 very long range missile is capable of destroying slow airborne targets at ranges up to 400 km (250 mi). Due to its large size and low manoeuvrability it is generally unsuitable for intercepting smaller targets such as fighter aircraft or cruise missiles.
The 48N6 long range missile is capable of destroying airborne targets at ranges up to 250 km (160 mi).
The 9M96 short range missile is capable of destroying airborne targets at ranges up to 120 km (75 mi). It has the highest hit probability against fast, manoeuvrable targets such as fighter aircraft.
The ABM capabilities are near the maximum allowed under the (now void) Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

*8.WZ-10 ATTACK CHOPPER*




Internet source photos revealed that the Z-10 has a conventional attack helicopter layout, with the pilot and weapons operator seated in tandem, stepped cockpits. The helicopter has a five-blade main rotor and a four-blade tail rotor. Two engines are podded to the helicopter just to the rear of the cockpit. The fuselage has a sloped side to reduce its radar cross section (RCS), and is slender and tapered to the rear, with fixed landing gear. The tail boom tapers to the rear, with a high, swept-back fin with square tip. The flats are unequally tapered with a square tip, while the belly fin has the rear landing wheel attached. The tail rotor is mounted on the right side.

The helicopter is thought to be fitted with a fly-by-wire (FBW) control system, and a modern glass cockpit with multifunctional display (MFD) screens. The helicopter crew may also be equipped with a helmet-mounted sight (HMS) for head-up display of information and weapon control.
Specifications (estimated)


General characteristics
Crew: 2
Length: 14.15 m (ft)
Rotor diameter: 13.0 m[6] (ft)
Height: 3.85 m (ft)
Empty weight: 5,540 kg[6] (lb)
Loaded weight: 7,000 kg (lb)
Useful load: 1,500 kg[6] (lb)
Max takeoff weight: ? kg (lb)
Powerplant: 2 × WZ-9 turboshaft[6], 1000 kw (1340 shp) each

Performance
Maximum speed: 300+ km/h[6]
Cruise speed: 270+ km/h[6]
Ferry range: 800+ km[6] ()
Service ceiling: 6,400 m (ft)
Rate of climb: over 12+ m/s[6] (ft/min)

Armament
Guns: 23 mm or 30 mm autocannon mounted on chin turret with grenade launchers, or 14.5 mm Gatling gun
Hardpoints: 4
Rockets: 57 mm, 90 mm multi-barrel unguided rocket pods
Missiles:
Up to 8 ATGM air-to-surface missiles
Up to 8 TY-90 air-to-air missiles
Up to 4 PL-5, PL-7, PL-9 air-to-air missiles

Avionics
YH millimetre-wave fire-control radar
YH-96 electronic warfare suite

*7.STEALTH WARSHIPS*

*(i) Type_054A_frigate*




It is a development of the Type 054 frigate, using the same hull but with improved sensors and weapons.The Type 054A carries HQ-16 medium-range air defence missiles in a VLS system. The HQ-16 provides area air defence from all engagement angles up to a range of 50km; the HQ-7 carried on the Type 054 have inferior range and engagement angles.
The 4 AK-630 close-in weapon systems (CIWS) of the Type 054 were replaced with 2 Type 730 CIWS on the Type 054A. The autonomously-operating Type 730 provide improved reaction time against close-in threats.
The Type 054A retains its predecessor's stealth features, including sloped hull design, radar absorbent materials, and cleaner profile.

*(ii)Lanzhou_class_destroyer*




The Type 052C destroyer (NATO code name Luyang II class, often referred to as Lanzhou class after the lead ship name) is a class of destroyer built by the People's Republic of China. The destroyers feature an active phased array radar system with four statically-mounted antennas proving continuous 360-degree coverage and multiple missile direction capability for the vertically launched HHQ-9 long-range air defence missiles. This class represents China's first true long-range fleet air defence capability and is similar in outward appearance to the US AEGIS air defence system.
Armament
8 YJ-62 Anti-ship Missile in 2 x quad cells
48 vertically launched HHQ-9 SAM
8 HN-2 land attack cruise missiles [6]
8 C-805 anti-ship / land attack cruise missiles
1 x 100 mm gun
2 x 30 mm Type 730 CIWS
4 x Type 726-4, 18 barrel decoy Multiple rocket launcher
2 x Triple 324 mm ASW torpedo tubes
Aviation: 1 Kamov Ka-28 ASW helicopter

*(iii)Houbei_class_missile_boat*




The boats incorporate stealth features and wave-piercing catamaran hulls
Armament:	 Anti-ship missiles: 8 C-801/802/803 in friction stir welded aluminium missile launch containers[4] or
 Land-attack missiles: 8 Hongniao missile-2 long range land attack cruise missiles.[5]
 Surface-to-air missiles: FLS-1 surface-to-air launcher with 12 QW class MANPAD missiles
 1 × licensed copy of KBP AO-18 6-barrel 30 mm gun (AK-630) by ZEERI


*6. UCAV*

*(i)Chengdu Pterodactyl I/Yilong*




Developed by the Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group (CAC), a division of the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC),[2][3] the Pterodactyl I bears a distinct similarity in appearance to the Predator/Reaper family of drones developed by the United States.[3][4] The drone is capable of being fitted with a variety of sensors, including a forward looking infrared turret and synthetic aperture radar;[2] in addition, the aircraft is capable of carrying weapons.[4] The Pterodactyl I's total payload capacity for sensors and weapons is 200 kilograms (440 lb).

*(ii)Anjian (Dark Sword)* 




It is obviously designed for high manoeuvrability at supersonic speeds, having a flat, triangular shape with an additional large wing area and swing canards, hinting at Chinas J-10 multi-role combat aircraft (which itself strongly resembles jets such as the Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen). Its large intake underneath the fuselage implies high speed, agility and angle-of-attack, further suggesting that the aircraft will be powered by a turbofan.

At the Zhuhai air show, a staff member called the aircraft the future of Chinese unmanned combat aviation, emphasising its projected ability to evade enemy radar and to engage in air-to-air combat.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## DrSomnath999

*5.BALLISTIC MISSILES.*
*(i) DF-41*




The Dongfeng-41 (DF-41, CSS-X-10) (&#19996;&#39118;-41, Chinese: "East Wind"), is a Chinese nuclear solid-fueled road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missile currently under service with the Second Artillery Corps.
It has an estimated operational range of 15,000 km, is capable of MIRV delivery (up to 12), and can cover any position on the planet. The project started in the 1980s, and is now quite likely coupled with the JL-2 program.

Specifications

Warhead	:nuclear 12 MIRVs (single 1 MT or MIRV with selectable 20, 90, 150 kTs)
Engine	:Three-stage solid propellant
Operational range:	~15,000 kms (~9,320 miles)

Guidance system	:Inertial with COMPASS

Launch platform	:Silo, road-mobile TEL
*(ii) JL-2*




The JL-2 (&#24040;&#28010;-2 Jù Làng-2, Giant Wave 2) is a Chinese second-generation intercontinental-range submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) which has a two-stage, solid-liquid fuelled propulsion design. 

Specifications

Warhead	nuclear: single or MIRVs (up to 10), 1050 to 2800 kg
Blast yield	:25-1000 kt ?
Propellant	:2-stage solid-fueled 1st stage liquid-fueled 2nd stage


Operational range:	8600 km (JL-2), 12,000 km = 7,456 miles (JMA), 14,000 km = 8,699 miles (JMB)

Launch platform	:Type 094 Jin class submarine

*(iii)ANTI SHIP BALLISTIC MISSILE DF-21D (CSS-5 Mod-4)*




The US Department of Defense has stated that China has developed and reached initial operating capability [10] of a conventionally-armed[11] high hypersonic[1] land-based anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) based on the DF-21. This would be the world's first ASBM and the world's first weapons system capable of targeting a moving aircraft carrier strike group from long-range, land-based mobile launchers.[12][13] [14] These would combine maneuverable reentry vehicles (MaRVs) with some kind of terminal guidance system. Such a missile may have been tested in 2005-6, and the launch of the Jianbing-5/YaoGan-1 and Jianbing-6/YaoGan-2 satellites would give the Chinese targeting information from SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) and visual imaging respectively. The upgrades would greatly enhance China's ability to conduct sea-denial operations to prevent US carriers from intervening in the Taiwan Strait.

*4. aircraft carrier PLAN 83 Shi Lang & 3-4indigenous AC*




Displacement:	est. 50,00060,000 tons[1] (conventional) 93,000 tons (nuclear)[2]

Propulsion:	Conventional and nuclear[2]
Aircraft carried:	Shenyang J-15/Chinese Naval Flanker, Chengdu J-10C,J-19?

*3.Chengdu J-20*




Avionics



The production J-20 may incorporate an advanced fly-by-wire (FBW) system fully integrated with the fire-control and the engine systems. Its fire-control radar is expected to be Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) (Type 1475/KLJ5?).[53]
According to recent pictures from the internet, two small dark diamond shaped windows can be seen on both sides of the nose, which could house certain EO sensors, such as MAWS and/or IRST. Two additional windows are seen underneath the rear fuselage, plus two more on top of the forward fuselage above the canard wings, suggesting a distributed situational awareness system similar to the EODAS onboard American F-35 was installed providing a full 360° coverage.

Cockpit
The aircraft features a "pure" glass cockpit (two large color liquid crystal display (LCD) and several smaller ones and a wide-angle holographic head-up display (HUD)). Many of these subsystems have been tested onboard J-10Bs to speed up the development.[53]
Armament
The J-20 has a large belly weapon bay for short/long-range air-to-air missiles (AAM) (PL-10, PL-12C/D & PL-21) and two smaller lateral weapon bays behind the air inlets for short-range AAMs (PL-10).[53]
One photo depicts the same air to air loadout as the F-22, that is six medium range air to air missiles and two short range.
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, but he agrees with others, such as Shih Hiao-wei of Defense International monthly and Bill Sweetman of Aviation Week, that some parts on the J-20 will challenge its ability to remain stealthy from all directions: "The aft fuselage, tailbooms, fins/strakes and axi-symmetric nozzles are not compatible with high stealth performance, but may only be stop-gap measures to expedite flight testing of a prototype."[58] As of January 2011 the engine nozzles were clearly non-stealthy; this may be due to the fact that the final "fifth generation" engines had not been completed yet.[2][59] However, one of the prototypes uses WS-10G engines with stealthy jagged-edge nozzles and tile

*Jian-10B Multirole Fighter Aircraft*





The J-10B is a modified variant of the J-10 multirole fighter aircraft, with modifications in airframe and avionics. Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC) of AVIC began to develop a follow-on variant of its J-10 fighter around 2004/05. A J-10B prototype reportedly made its maiden flight in December 2008. Photos of the aircraft began to emerge on the Chinese Internet in March 2009. Once commissioned, the J-10B is likely going to become the standard for later J-10 productions.
Rampless Inlet

The J-10B features a chin-mounted diffuser supersonic inlet (DSI) air inlet. The traditional rectangle-shape air inlet on the J-10 requires a large moveable inlet ramp to generate a rearward leaning oblique shock wave to aid the inlet compression process. The ramp sits at an acute angle to deflect the intake air stream from the longitudinal direction. The air inlets comprises many moving parts, which increases the aircrafts weight and radar reflections.

The newly designed rampless inlet, first tested on the FC-1/JF-17 fighter design by Chengdu, employs a one-piece bump at the top of the inlet replacing the movable ramp. This eliminates all moving parts on the inlet, lightening the overall weight and reducing the aircrafts radar signature.

Electro-Optic Targeting System

The J-10B has been added with an electronic-optic targeting system (EOTS) commonly found on all fourth-generation Russian fighter aircraft such as Su-27 and MiG-29. Placed forward of the cockpit canopy to the right, the system comprises an infrared search and track (IRST) sensor and a laser rangefinder, which can detect enemy targets passively without requiring to turn on the fire-control radar, thus reducing the chance of the aircraft being detected. The EOTS of the J-10B is likely based on a Russian design.
Tailfin ECM Pod

The upper edge of J-10Bs tailfin is curved, in contrast to the straight-edged tailfin of the J-10. A large fairing is added to the tip of the tailfin to accommodate electronic warfare and countermeasures (EW/ECM) equipment.

ECM Antenna Array

The J-10B has four black antenna arrays attached externally to the fuselage, a larger one on either side of the cockpit and a smaller one on either side of the rear fuselage near the engine nozzle. The specific purpose of these antennas is unknown but they are thought to be for electronic countermeasures purpose.


*2.cruise missiles*
*(i)HN-2000 *





A stealthy, supersonic cruise/anti-ship missile has been reported under development. It is reported to be equipped with a millimeter wave radar, infrared image mapping, synthetic aperture radar (SAR), and Beidou satellite guidance. It has an accuracy of up to 1-3 meters and a range of 4000 km

*(ii)CJ-10 & DH 10*





The CJ-10 is a land attack cruise missile (LACM) currently in service with the Second Artillery Corps of the People's Republic of China. 
The CJ-10A is an air-launched variant with a range of 2,0002,200 km, intended to arm the Xian H-6K strategic nuclear bomber which can carry six of the missiles under its wings.
Specifications
Engine	: Solid fueled

Operational range : 2,500km > 3,000+ km (CJ-20)
Speed:	Mach 2.5+ (CJ-10) 
Guidance system:	Inertial + possibly GPS

Launch platform	:8 axle TEL (CJ-10) ,Xian H-6K (CJ-10A)

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## DrSomnath999

*1. NUCLEAR SUBMARINES *

*(i) SSBN type094 submarine & type 96 submarine*





General characteristics
Displacement:	8,000 tons surfaced , 9,000 tons submerged
Length:	133 m 
Propulsion:	Nuclear reactor, 1 shaft


Armament:	Torpedoes: six 533 mm bow tubes Missiles: 12 JL-2 SLBM,16 JL-2 SLBM (Type 2),20-24 JL-2 SLBM (Type 3)





The Type 096 submarine is a new class of SSBN rumored to be in development for the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). Little information exists about the project. Some sources suggests that the new submarine will carry 24 SLBMs. It will be the successor to the Type 094 SSBN currently under evaluation by the PLAN.

*(ii)SSGNType 093 submarine & type 95 submarine*




Design

The Type 093 is estimated to be roughly 7000t displacement when dived. The Type 093 is estimated to be 110 metres (360 ft) long with a beam of 11m and can dive to a maximum depth of 400 metres (1,300 ft). It is estimated to have a noise level of 110db[3] and have an endurance of 80 days. This submarine is the first to incorporate flank linear array sonars designated as H/SQG-207 in its design, and this linear flank array was designed by the 715th Institute, with deputy chief designer Mr. Li Qihu (&#26446;&#21551;&#34382, who was the chief designer of H/SQ-2 262/262A/262B/262C/H-SQG-4 sonars used to upgrade Type 035, 033, both 091 and 092, 035G, and 039 submarines.
The improved Type 093G incorporates new technologies such as retractable diving planes and a modified hull for greater acoustic stealth.[
Weapons

The Type 093 is expected to be armed with six 533 mm and/or 650 mm torpedo tubes that will launch Russian or indigenous wire-, acoustic, and wake-homing torpedoes as well as anti-ship and land attack cruise missiles. This could include the submarine launched version of YJ-83 anti-ship missile. Currently YJ-83 is not believed to be nuclear tipped. Nuclear deterrence missions are delegated to the 092 Xia class and 094 Jin class SSBN.





It is anticipated that Type 095 submarines will have a substantially reduced acoustical signature, incorporating the latest Russian submarine technology, within a larger version of the Xia/Jin hull type.[3][6][7] The Type 095's acoustical signature is estimated to be superior to Soviet-era Victor III (Project 671RTM) submarines but inferior to Akula I (Project 971) submarines initially introduced in the late 1980s.[1][2] Additionally, it is also speculated that Type 095 submarines may be armed with long-range anti-ship HY-4 cruise missiles and act as a potential undersea escort for any future PLAN aircraft carrier task forces

*PLEASE NOTE*
This is my personal assumption of top 10 future weapons,i have tried my 
level best to give as much accurate list i could.If i by chance had missed out any weapon or u want to change the list then plz comment
I hope u would appreciate my hard work.THANK YOU

*FROM THE AUTHOR*
This article is dedicated to to all the great peoples of CHINA

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## DrSomnath999

*PLA Railgun*




It is known that the PLA has invested heavily in both technologies. Chinese work on railguns may extend back to the 1980s, and an unconfirmed report emerged in January 2008 that the PLA had tested a 25kg railgun round in 2006 and was able to deploy a 50kg round with a range over 200nm.Then, in early 2011, an image appeared on a Chinese web page showing what may be an early Chinese small-caliber rail gun. However, it cannot be confirmed that this represented an actual test model or perhaps an engineering model for display purposes.The prospect of an early PLA railgun deployment, however, is important when considering future U.S. offensive and defensive responses.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DrSomnath999

*CHINA's Future AAM *




Three new variants of the PL-12 have been unveiled with newer ones in development:
PL-12B: with improved guidance system
PL-12C: with foldable tailfins for internal carriage on 5th-generation fighters
PL-12D: with a belly inlet and ramjet engine for even longer range attacks, similar to the PL-21

*LETRI &#8220;PL-13&#8221; &#8220;Sino-Meteor&#8221;*







In 2008 an image appeared on the Chinese internet showing a solid ramjet powered AAM evidently based on the existing PL-12 design. The status of this design is not clear. Conceptually it is closest to the MBDA Meteor AAM planned for the Royal Air Force.

If such a missile is in development it would likely be similar in performance to the Meteor, which has exceptionally high endgame lethality due to the increased sustained G capability arising from persistent engine thrust, compared to conventional single and dual pulse rocket AAMs

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## DrSomnath999

*PLA Hypersonic Weapon*




Informal sources suggest the Chengdu Aircraft Co. has already tested a hypersonic aircraft similar to the U.S. X-43A, which could lead to early development of an aircraft or missile launched weapon version. A X-43A shape tested in a Chinese hypersonic wind tunnel and possible hypersonic projectile shape investigated by naval scholars (bottom). . Source: Journal of Astronautics

The PLA is also focused on achieving technology breakthroughs to enable advanced supersonic (up to Mach 4) and hypersonic (Mach 5 and higher) combat. The 1986 869 Program to select a manned space vehicle that resulted in a preference for space plane concepts gave a boost to university and corporate level hypersonic research. Today the Chengdu and Shenyang Aircraft Corporations likely have multiple hypersonic programs underway, while the China Aerospace Corporation works on a Shuttle-like space plane. Major Chinese university centers for PLA-funded or directed hypersonic research in aerodynamics, materials and engines include: the Institute of Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences; Northwestern Polytechnical University; Harbin Institute of Technology; National University of Defense Technology; Beijing University; the Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics; the Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics and the Nanjing University of Science and Technology. Informal Chinese sources suggest that the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation has designed and tested a hypersonic test vehicle similar to the hydrogen-powered NASA X-43A[65]. Such a vehicle could be developed into a hypersonic weapon.[66] Chinese academic literature suggest PLA interest in multiple scramjet-powered and combined engine concepts for atmospheric and LEO capable platforms. A mid-2010 study by researchers at the Institute of Mechanics suggests PLA interest in what could develop into a nearer term option, a Mach 3 speed lifting body platform.[67] An unmanned or manned version of sufficient size could perform surveillance or strike missions at very high altitudes that would stress current U.S. interception capabilities.

---------- Post added at 11:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:31 AM ----------

*PLA Hypersonic Weapon*




Informal sources suggest the Chengdu Aircraft Co. has already tested a hypersonic aircraft similar to the U.S. X-43A, which could lead to early development of an aircraft or missile launched weapon version. A X-43A shape tested in a Chinese hypersonic wind tunnel and possible hypersonic projectile shape investigated by naval scholars (bottom). . Source: Journal of Astronautics

The PLA is also focused on achieving technology breakthroughs to enable advanced supersonic (up to Mach 4) and hypersonic (Mach 5 and higher) combat. The 1986 &#8220;869 Program&#8221; to select a manned space vehicle that resulted in a preference for space plane concepts gave a boost to university and corporate level hypersonic research. Today the Chengdu and Shenyang Aircraft Corporations likely have multiple hypersonic programs underway, while the China Aerospace Corporation works on a Shuttle-like space plane. Major Chinese university centers for PLA-funded or directed hypersonic research in aerodynamics, materials and engines include: the Institute of Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences; Northwestern Polytechnical University; Harbin Institute of Technology; National University of Defense Technology; Beijing University; the Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics; the Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics and the Nanjing University of Science and Technology. Informal Chinese sources suggest that the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation has designed and tested a hypersonic test vehicle similar to the hydrogen-powered NASA X-43A[65]. Such a vehicle could be developed into a hypersonic weapon.[66] Chinese academic literature suggest PLA interest in multiple scramjet-powered and combined engine concepts for atmospheric and LEO capable platforms. A mid-2010 study by researchers at the Institute of Mechanics suggests PLA interest in what could develop into a nearer term option, a Mach 3 speed lifting body platform.[67] An unmanned or manned version of sufficient size could perform surveillance or strike missions at very high altitudes that would stress current U.S. interception capabilities.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## DrSomnath999

*CHINA"S EMP weapons *

China is developing electromagnetic pulse weapons Beijing could use against U.S. aircraft carriers in any future conflict over Taiwan, a U.S. report says.

The EMPs are part of China's so-called "assassin's mace" arsenal to allow a technologically inferior China to defeat U.S. military forces, the report by the National Ground Intelligence Center said.

The declassified 2005 intelligence report provides details on China's EMPs and plans for their use, The Washington Times reported Friday.

EMPs mimic a gamma-ray pulse caused by a nuclear blast and can disable all electronics, including computers and automobiles, over wide areas.

"For use against Taiwan, China could detonate at a much lower altitude (30 to 40 kilometers) ... to confine the EMP effects to Taiwan and its immediate vicinity and minimize damage to electronics on the mainland," the report said.

Chinese military writings have discussed building low-yield EMP warheads but "it is not known whether [the Chinese] have actually done so," the report concluded.
Report: China developing EMP weapons - UPI.com

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## siegecrossbow

Moved the thread from Indian Defence?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## DrSomnath999

*CHINA'S ANTI SATELLITE WEAPONS*

the PLA may be developing a new wave of ASAT weapons targeting U.S. assets in LEO. The SC-19 is likely based on the KT-1 4-stange space launch vehicle (SLV), a derivative of the DF-21 medium range ballistic missile (MRBM), that must be transported by rail or road to its launch intercept position. But in 2006 the China Aerospace Corporation revealed a program to develop an air-launched small satellite launcher similar to the U.S. Orbital Sciences Pegasus, which could be more rapidly deployed to its launch position by a Xian Aircraft Corporation (XAC) H-6 bomber. 





Air Launched ASAT #1: While there has been no update since its unveiling at the 2006 Zhuhai Airshow, this air launched space launch vehicle could easily be reconfigured for ASAT missions.


Then in late 2009 a wall mural likely created for the then 50th Anniversary of the PLA Air Force depicted a four-turbofan powered transport aircraft using a nose-mounted laser to attack a satellite. This aircraft is similar to the Boeing AL-1A chemical laser armed Boeing 747 transport, which the Obama Administration cut back in 2009 to only a single prototype. While U.S. defense officials reportedly were concerned the AL-1A could not be defended in contested airspace in order to shoot down tactical missiles, perhaps the PLA has decided this concept works better as an ASAT weapon rather than an anti-missile platform.[10] XAC is apparently developing a four-turbofan engine transport aircraft that could carry a chemical laser system.




Air Launched ASAT # 2: This 2009 mural depiction of a laser armed four-engine aircraft could mean that the PLA sees this concept serving ASAT missions better than anti-missile missions. The XAC transport that could carry the laser seen below. Source: Chinese Internet

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

*CHINA'S LASER WEAPONS*
****************************************************
********** CLASSIFIED SECTIONS WITHHELD FROM RELEASE **********
****************************************************************




2. (unclassified) the beam director's gimbal configuration is based on an elevation inside an azimuth mount with the elevation axis mounted to the outside yoke. the beam director is of the cassegrain type and uses the classical configuration of a paraboloidal concave primary mirror and a hyperboloidal convex secondary mirror. the beam folding technique utilized by this design permits a relatively compact beam director size with corresponding reductions in device weight and jitter, factors which influence a beam director's pointing and tracking accuracy.





3. (unclassified) the coude path consists on seven mirrors, precision pointing and tracking is accomplished by the seventh mirror in this configuration, a fast steering-mirror situated behind the primary mirror. in tracking mode, the fast-steering mirror transmits a relatively low-powered laser beam through a concentric hole in the primary mirror to the secondary mirror. the beam is then reflected back to the primary mirror's reflective surface and out of the beams director's expanding telescope to the target.

4. (unclassified) the purpose of the fast-steering mirror is to compensate for beam wander caused by device jitter and atmospheric turbulence. beam stabilization provided by the fast-steering mirror maximizes the amount of tracking beam energy on the target, resulting in a corresponding increase in return laser signal. optimization of the laser weapon's pointing and tracking capability is then accomplished. a high-power weapon beam can then be transmitted through the same coude path to engage the target.

5. (unclassified) movement of the fast-steering mirror is accomplished using three piezoelectric actuators located at 120 degree intervals around the mirror's faceplate, adjustable pressure springs attached to the mirror's backplate and base maintain contact between the back of the mirror and the actuators, state of two millimeters, maximum mirror pointing angels are plus or minutes two minutes. actuator deformation is implemented by application of plus or minus 700 volts at 200 hertz.

6. (unclassified) when operating in a closed optical loop, the fast steering mirror can provide a tracking accuracy of 4 microradians. when operating with an adaptive optics wavefront compensation device, which can effect additional beam energy on the target, tracking precision can be as high as 1 microradian. (for more information on this subject, see naic weekly wire 43-98 dated 23 oct 98.)

7. (unclassified) by comparison, china's own "rough estimate' for conducting an air defense mission requires a pointing and tracking accuracy of less than 10 microradians. an antisatellite laser mission requires submicroradian pointing and tracking capability. (for more information on this subject, see naic weekly wire 43-98 dated 23 oct 98.)

************************************************** **************
********** classified sections withheld from release **********
************************************************** **************
3. (unclassified) the chinese design for correcting wavefront distortions uses an adaptive optic system consisting of a continuous faceplate deformable mirror made of silicon dioxide (sio2). the deformation mirror has a diameter of 120 millimeters (mm) and a thickness of 2 mm. sixty-one piezoelectric lead magnesium niobate (pzt) actuators provide the wavefront compensation which can deform the sio2 mirror plus or minus 3 micrometers. pzt actuator deformation is implemented by the application of plus or minus 350 volts. actuator separation is 16.4 mm and response frequency range is about 2 kilohertz. to combat temperature extremes and subsequent mirror deformation effects, the adaptive optic mirror is situated within a thermostatic environment.

4. (unclassified) image wandering is controlled by a two-dimensional fast-steering, piezoelectric mirror 140 mm in diameter. the maximum tilting angle is plus or minus two arc minutes. actuator deformation is implemented by the application of plus or minus 700 volts at frequencies around 200 hertz.

5. (unclassified) real-time wavefront sensing is conducted using a shack-hartmann wavefront sensor. the wavefront sensor consists of an 8 by 8 array of subapertures. the sensors associated with each subaperture are responsive to 0.818 micrometer radiation. wavefront processor operates at 300 megahertz.

6. (unclassified) operating in a closed loop, the fast steering and deformable mirrors improve the tracking of balloon-borne targets positioned at an oblique angle at an unknown distance from the laser source. tests indicate the system's tracking precision can be as high as 1 microradian while far-field energy on target can be "increased substantially."

7. (unclassified) in comparison, china's "rough estimates" for conducting a laser antisatellite mission call for submicroradian pointing and tracking capability with laser intensities on the target of 1000 watts per square centimeter. (for more information on this subject, see naic weekly wire 43-98 dated 23 oct 98.)

************************************************** **************
********** classified sections withheld from release **********
************************************************** **************
4. (unclassified) the table shows a requirement for a 4 meter (m) diameter beam director mirror for an antisatellite mission. this mirror production requirement can probably be met by the nanjing astronomical instrument research center which is currently producing a 4.3 m diameter mirror for the beijing observatory. this mirror is scheduled to be installed in the year 2000.

5. (unclassified) the table shows china's air defense laser beacon and adaptive optics requirements for a capability to induce rayleigh backscatter from the target and for its associated adaptive mirror to have "a few actuators", respectively, china has already met the technological requirements of producing laser beacon-induced rayleigh backscatter signals and has the capability to produce adaptive optics having 69 actuators.

1. (unclassified) citing the speed of light operation of high-energy laser weapons, li hui, director of the beijing institute of remote sensing equipment, a developer of optical precision and photoelectronic guidance systems for surface-to-air missiles, has cited laser technology as the only effective means to counter cruise missiles.

2. (unclassified) li hui has encouraged the acceleration of laser weapon development. as a means to accelerate this inclusion, li has stressed that the anti-cruise missile laser weapon utilizes chinas most mature high-energy laser technology, the deuterium-fluoride chemical laser.

************************************************** **************
********** classified sections withheld from release **********
************************************************** **************
6. (unclassified) li hui's statement advocating ground-based laser weapons for use against missiles is not the first by a chinese weapons developer. the 1028th research institute (ri) of the ministry of information industry, a major chinese developer of integrated air defense systems, has analyzed the use of lasers in future warfare. such uses include active jamming of electro-optics, blinding combatants and damaging sensors, causing laser-guided weapons to deviate from their true targets, and target destruction.

7. (unclassified) the 1028 ri's analysis concluded with the statement, "the appearance of laser weapons will have a significant impact on modern warfare. on today's electronic battlefield, it is natural for defensive systems to use low-energy laser weapons to damage enemy electronic equipment. when high-energy lasers that can directly destroy tanks, planes and ships develop and mature, they w]ll be formidable offensive weapons." (for more information on this subject, see naic weekly wire 25-98 dated 19 jun 98).


TABLE I

CHINA'S "ROUGH ESTIMATES" FOR 
LASER WEAPON SYSTEMS REQUIREMENTS
(UNCLASSIFIED)

LASER AIR DEFENSE ANTI-
SENSOR LASER SATELLITE
BLINDING WEAPON WEAPON
================================================================
OPERATIONAL RANGE 0.5-10 1-500 500-1000
(KILOMETERS)

TARGET SPEED LESS THAN LESS THAN 8
(KILOMETERS/SECOND) 1 1

TARGET HARD KILL 10-10XX2 10XX4 10XX3
IRRADIANCE
(WATTS/CENTIMETER)

LASER BRIGHTNESS 10XX11 2 X 10XX14- 2 X 10XX17-
(JOULES/STERADIAN) 10XX14 2 X 10XX17 10XX19

DWELL TIME 1-10 1-10 1-10
(SECONDS)

AVERAGE POWER 30-3 X 10XX4-5 X 10XX6 - 
ON TARGET (WATTS) 10XX4 10XX6 10XX7

BEAM QUALITY LOW APPROX. 2
REQUIREMENTS 2 - 3 

LASER WAVELENGTH 1 - 10 1 - 10 APPROX.
(MICROMETERS) 1

OUTPUT BEAM LESS THAN 1 - 1.5 4
DIAMETER (METERS) 1 METER 

POINTING & TRACKING LESS THAN LESS THAN LESS THAN
REQUIREMENTS 10 10 1
(MICRORADIANS)

ADAPTIVE OPTICS NOT A FEW MANY
REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED ACTUATORS ACTUATORS

BEACON NOT REFLECTED MULTIPLE
REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED TARGET LIGHT BEACONS
AND RAYLEIGH
BEACONS
http://www.softwar.net/redlite.html

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## indushek

Good collection Somanath, i think that the hypersonic weapon and the emp weapons are really futuristic of all.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mech

I tried reading but i had to give up 'cause its all in caps and I'm not comfortable with that.


----------



## DrSomnath999

*CHINA'S MRLs*
*WS-2*





During the 2004 Zhuhai Air Show, SCAIC revealed its latest WS-2 multiple launch rocket system. The weapon is fitted with 6 box-shape launchers and fires 400mm rockets to a maximum range of 400 km, which is long enough to travel through the Taiwan Strait and attack Taiwan targets should a war break out. It is speculated that WS-2 is going to be a cheaper alternative to the expensive short range ballistic missiles in Chinese inventory. The WS-2 is fitted with a primitive cascade inertial terminal guidance to compensate the degraded accuracy caused by the long distance flight of the rocket. In 2008, it was revealed that sub-munitions are developed for WS-2, including a specialized anti-radar version, which is a rocket containing three UAVs. Once the rocket is fired to the target area, the UAVs are released the same way like other sub-munitions. The seekers would seek out target radar signals as UAVs begun to cruise, and once locked on to the radar, UAV would home in and attack. Some domestic Chinese military enthusiasts have claimed such technology was based on the principle of Israeli Harpy anti-radar UAVs, but this could not be confirmed by independent sources outside China.
A WS-1E and WS-2 rocket battalion shared the same equipment and is armed with:
Firing command truck (5 men): 1;
Rocket launch truck (3 men): 6;
Transport and loading truck (3 men): 6~9;
Rockets per launch truck: 30~48;
Preparation time (from traveling to firing) < 12 minutes
Firing density: better than 1/600 m
Accuracy: better than 0.3%

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

*CHINA'S CONVENTIONAL SUBMARINE*

*Type 041 submarine*




The Type 041 submarine[2] (NATO code name Yuan class) is a class of diesel-electric submarine in the People's Liberation Army Navy. This class was first launched at Wuhan Shipyard and is the successor of the Type 039. The improved "A" variant was also launched.

Design

The Type 041 inherits the tail design of the Type 039 (NATO codename: Song class) with four diving planes and a single large shaft. The teardrop shaped hull and large sail suggest heavy Kilo influence. The teardrop shape also suggests a pressurized double hull design inherited from the Kilo. A pair of foreplanes are positioned in the middle of the sail. The submarine is equipped with indigenously developed cabin-raft (shock absorbers) system that helped to reduce noise level by over 35dB. Additionally, the submarine is covered with rubber anti-sonar protection tiles to reduce the risk of detection. A new improved "A" variant was also launched.
Weapons

The Type 041 has six 533 mm torpedo tubes. These can be used to launch indigenous as well as Russian-made torpedoes. The general designer of the torpedo and missile launching system is Mr. Sun Zhuguo (&#23385;&#26609;&#22269;, 1937-). The Type 041 is also believed to be capable of launching YJ-8X (C-80X) series anti-ship missiles. The missile uses inertial + terminal active radar guidance. It carries a 165 kg time-delayed semi-armour-piercing high-explosive warhead, with a maximum range of 80~120 km and speed of Mach 0.9.
The Type 041 is also capable of firing the CY-1 ASW missile under water, but the status of the missile is in question because nothing is heard about its production. The CY-1 ASW missile has a maximum range of 18 km (10 nm), and when using A244 or Mark 46 torpedo as a payload.
This class is designed to replace the aging Romeo and Ming Class SSKs that previously formed the backbone of the PLAN conventional submarine force. At least one ship have been commissioned as of 2005 by the PLAN.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## April.lyrics

many of above weapons have already in sevice.

besides,never rank weapons like that.this is more like a program of DISCOVERY.meaningless.


----------



## DrSomnath999

*CHINA'S NANOTECHNOLOGICAL WEAPONS*
Nanotechnology weapons are those which are so microscopic that most people can&#8217;t even visualize anything so small. A nanotechnology weapon works on the molecular level inside the human body. Nanotechnology can have many civilian, and even beneficial, uses. However, nanotechnology weapons may prove to be far more dangerous than nuclear weapons. Mr. Navrozov&#8217;s interview indicates that China&#8217;s effort to weaponize nanotechnology applications is far more advanced than that of any other nation on earth. Russia and the USA may be capable of developing such weapons, but Mr. Navrozov asserts it would take a dictatorship in Russia to mobilize enough assets to match China&#8217;s efforts and the USA would need to wake up &#8220;from its sleep&#8221; re: China&#8217;s existential threat to the USA&#8217;s existence. Russia may be slipping back into a dictatorial mode via Mr. Putin and Mr. Medvedev, but the American leadership seems comatose concerning the dangers posed by Chinese nanotechnology weaponry. The first link asserts that when China has developed a nanotechnology superweapon, it may simply give other nations &#8220;an ultimatum for unconditional surrender or just the annihilation of the West without any ultimatum.&#8221; He cites Eric Drexler, apparently an early researcher on nanotechnology, as stating that nanotechnology weapons would be &#8220;a rather surgical system of seeking and destroying enemy human beings as cancerous polyps&#8230;leaving the [attacked] nation&#8217;s infrastructure intact to be repopulated&#8221; (emphasis added). Keep this quote in mind when we examine biblical possibilities below. China has a massive population and needs &#8220;living space&#8221; in other nations for its teeming millions. As we will see, a perfected nanotechnology weapon could eliminate native populations in attacked nations and the Chinese could simply walk in and take over everything the targeted nation previously owned.
TonyRogers.com | Nanotechnology and Chinas Post-Nuclear Super-Weapons
LATEST UPDATE ON CHINESE NANOTECHNOLOGY WEAPONS and DOES CHINA INTEND TO &#8220;INHERIT THE EARTH?&#8221; « Prophecy Updates and Commentary

*Fourth-Generation Nuclear Weapons*

First- and second-generation nuclear weapons are atomic and hydrogen bombs developed during the 1940s and 1950s, while third-generation weapons comprise a number of concepts developed between the 1960s and 1980s, e.g. the neutron bomb, which never found a permanent place in the military arsenals.

Fourth-generation nuclear weapons are new types of nuclear explosives that can be developed in full compliance with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) using inertial confinement fusion (ICF) facilities such as the NIF in the US, and other advanced technologies which are under active development in all the major nuclear-weapon states - and in major industrial powers such as Germany and Japan.11

In a nutshell, the defining technical characteristic of fourth-generation nuclear weapons is the triggering - by some advanced technology such as a superlaser, magnetic compression, antimatter, etc. - of a relatively small thermonuclear explosion in which a deuterium-tritium mixture is burnt in a device whose weight and size are not much larger than a few kilograms and litres.

Since the yield of these warheads could go from a fraction of a ton to many tens of tons of high-explosive equivalent, their delivery by precision-guided munitions or other means will dramatically increase the fire-power of those who possess them - without crossing the threshold of using kiloton-to-megaton nuclear weapons, and therefore without breaking the taboo against the first-use of weapons of mass destruction.

Moreover, since these new weapons will use no (or very little) fissionable materials, they will produce virtually no radioactive fallout. Their proponents will define them as "clean" nuclear weapons - and possibly draw a parallel between their battlefield use and the consequences of the expenditure of depleted uranium ammunition.12

In practice, since the controlled release of thermonuclear energy in the form of laboratory scale explosions (i.e., equivalent to a few kilograms of high-explosives) at ICF facilities like NIF is likely to succeed in the next 10 to 15 years, the main arms control question is how to prevent this know-how being used to manufacture fourth-generation nuclear weapons.

As we have already seen, nanotechnology and micromechanical engineering are integral parts of ICF pellet construction. But this is also the case with ICF drivers and diagnostic devices, and even more so with all the hardware that will have to be miniaturised and 'ruggedised' to the extreme in order to produce a compact, robust, and cost-effective weapon.

A thorough discussion of the potential of nanotechnology and microelectromechanical engineering in relation to the emergence of fourth-generation nuclear weapons is therefore of the utmost importance. It is likely that this discussion will be difficult, not just because of secrecy and other restrictions, but mainly because the military usefulness and usability of these weapons is likely to remain very high as long as precision-guided delivery systems dominate the battlefield.

It is therefore important to realise that the technological hurdles that have to be overcome in order for laboratory scale thermonuclear explosions to be turned into weapons may be the only remaining significant barrier against the introduction and proliferation of fourth-generation nuclear weapons. For this reason alone - and there are many others, beyond the scope of this paper - very serious consideration should be given to the possibility of promoting an 'Inner Space Treaty' to prohibit the military development and application of nanotechnological devices and techniques.
Weapon and Technology: 4th Generation Nuclear Nanotech Weapons

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

April.lyrics said:


> besides,never rank weapons like that.this is more like a program of DISCOVERY.meaningless.


what the f*** is this?do u think this forum is a miltary organisation & u are military officer here.This is a miltary forum & this kind of things should be posted in military forum ,Do u want me to post it in a **** website forum


----------



## MZUBAIR

Now Compare it With Indian Future Procurements !!!!


----------



## below_freezing

nanotech weapons are just fantasy. theres no way anyone can engineer a replicating, controllable/programmable nanorobot that can do all that it takes to be a weapon.

the US is far ahead of China in truly apocalyptical weapons like race specific viruses.

Some of my classmates have suspected that AIDS was a US military project designed to control the population of black Africans such that they can't compete with whites for resources, to distract them from mining their own resources (leaving them to be mined by Western multinationals) and to make huge profits for the drug companies.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## DrSomnath999

MZUBAIR said:


> Now Compare it With Indian Future Procurements !!!!


how did u know that ,i was going to post a thread in future ,MAN u r magician or a witch

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## lem34

Hey as China and Pakistan are close in military shouldnt future chunese weapons be pakistani future weapons as well lol


----------



## DrSomnath999

below_freezing said:


> nanotech weapons are just fantasy. theres no way anyone can engineer a replicating, controllable/programmable nanorobot that can do all that it takes to be a weapon.


every weapon which are going to be developed looks like fantasy ,but once it is produced then everybody starts beleiving it .



below_freezing said:


> the US is far ahead of China in truly apocalyptical weapons like race specific viruses.
> 
> 
> Some of my classmates have suspected that AIDS was a US military project designed to control the population of black Africans such that they can't compete with whites for resources, to distract them from mining their own resources (leaving them to be mined by Western multinationals) and to make huge profits for the drug companies.


well that's right ,they would always be the trend setter for other nations to copy & no one can beat them in arms race

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## aimarraul

we have an indian fanboy here who seem to know everything about china's future weapons,while U.S keep criticizing the chinese military for lack of transparency

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## DrSomnath999

Aryan_B said:


> Hey as China and Pakistan are close in military shouldnt future chunese weapons be pakistani future weapons as well lol


compare it with ur top 10 future weapons that i had posted ,looks almost similar ,just a change of country's flag

---------- Post added at 01:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:20 PM ----------




aimarraul said:


> we have an indian fanboy here who seem to know everything about china's future weapons,while U.S keep criticizing the chinese military for lack of transparency


well they should recruit me for CIA

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DrSomnath999

*CHINA' CYBER WARFARE*

*China's Blue Hacker Army *




China has admitted for the first time that it had poured tens of millions into the formation of a 30-strong commando unit of cyberwarriors called The Blue Army. The team is reportedly trained to improve the security of the country&#8217;s military forces and to protect the People&#8217;s Liberation Army from outside assault on its networks.

The Blue Army, believed to have already been in existence for two years, is currently under the Guangdong Military Command. Although supposedly established for defensive purposes, most governments across the globe fear that revelation is likely to confirm suspicions that cyber attacks on their systems do indeed originate from China.

Xu Guangyu, a senior researcher of the government-backed China Arms Control and Disarmament Association, said:

&#8220;The internet has no boundaries, so we can&#8217;t say which country or organisation will be our enemy and who will attack us. The Blue Army&#8217;s main target is self-defence. We won&#8217;t initiate an attack on anyone.&#8221;

The PLA daily reports that the cyber-warfare team emerged victorious in a simulated cyberbattle to defend China&#8217;s military networks against a series of virus attacks, junk mail barrages and stealth cyber intrusions from an attacking force four times its size.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DrSomnath999

*KJ-2000 AWACS*




KJ-2000 (NATO reporting name: Mainring) is a Chinese Airborne Early Warning and Control system comprising domestically designed electronics and radars installed on a modified Ilyushin IL-76 airframe


The current KJ-2000 AWACS in Chinese service is equipped with a domestic AESA (active electronically scanned array), also known as active phased array, radar. The radar was designed by the Research Institute of Electronic Technology (also more commonly known as the 14th Institute) at Nanjing, and it utilizes the experience gained from the 14th Institute's earlier indigenously developed Type H/LJG-346 SAPARS (Shipborne Active Phased Array Radar System) that was completed in 1998. The same Type H/LJG-346 SAPARS was also the predecessor of the active phased array radar system equipping the PLAN Lanzhou class destroyers. The radar is arranged in the same way as that of the Beriev A-50I.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mujraparty

looks like it's goin very fast....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

*CH-3 ucavs*




The CH-3 is a medium-altitude long endurance (MALE) unmanned platform developed by the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corp (CASC). It comes equipped with a belly-mounted turret housing optronic sensors, and twin wing-mounted hardpoints for carrying two 75kg FT-5s. The CASC claims that the CH-3 is capable of battlefield reconnaissance, fire adjustment, data relay, intelligence collection, ground-strike missions and electronic warfare missions. The MALE-UCAV has a cruising speed of 220kph, 12-hour maximum endurance, and a 200km communications radius. The FT-5 small-diameter bomb contains a 35kg (77lb) warhead, and has a circular error probability of 15 metres, or less than 50 feet. Its effective glide range is up to 5km (3.1 miles) when launched from the CH-3 UAV

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

eowyn said:


> looks like it's goin very fast....
> but then ...there's Photoshop..


IF U CALL THIS PHOTOSHOP THEN WHAT WOULD U CALL THIS
*Chinas h-10 stealth bomber*





China's H-10 stealth bomber secret flight - can carry nuclear bomb

Japan's "Sankei Shimbun" recently published an article mentioned that China developed the strategic nuclear missiles capable of carrying the H-10 stealth bomber has successful test flight. The article said that the research and development base in Qinghai, a secret military base in the Gobi, H-10 stealth bombers from the 1998 R & D, code-named "Project No. 10."

End, the article also said that China got stealth technology from the F117 and B2 "Spirit" stealth technology and the introduction of Russia's bomber technology, the technical development of independent R & D success. H-10's success broke the monopoly of the U.S. stealth, seriously threatening the security of Japan.

On the same day, U.S. military experts khaki Rolla personal Web site commented that the U.S. military as early as two years ago, discovered the existence of H-10 type, and through various channels to be a "natural enemy" of the technical design parameters and operational performance, The United States has fully prepared to meet the "natural enemy" of challenges, including the deployment of the East Pacific Infrared Stealth radars to increase the number of interceptor missiles and so forth.

China H-10 Stealth Bomber

H-10 stealth strategic bombers, which is a B2 stealth bombers with the United States similar to the large aircraft, is secretly developing China's aviation who in recent years, so in the past few of its sources, is now turned out to, of course, national leaders people are happy, but also allow the Chinese people feel proud! Because it broke the American monopoly in this field, but also the Russian people walking in front of the offensive strategy of the Chinese Air Force has played a decisive role. The possibility of this argument was basically 100%.

H-10 stealth bombers basic information 

Empty weight :47880-52,912 kilograms, 
Length: 24.03 meters,,,
Height: 4.51 meters,
Wingspan: 65.27 meters,
Maximum load of bombs: 25,254 kilograms cruising speed,
Degree: 1.1
Mach Range: 13,328 kilometers,
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 205.74 thousand kilograms.
Weapon systems: nuclear bombs, conventional bombs, cluster bombs, cruise missiles, air to air missile.
Radar reflection cross-section: less than 0.2 square meters.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## freelife

DrSomnath999 said:


> IF U CALL THIS PHOTOSHOP THEN WHAT WOULD U CALL THIS
> *Chinas h-10 stealth bomber*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China's H-10 stealth bomber secret flight - can carry nuclear bomb
> 
> Japan's "Sankei Shimbun" recently published an article mentioned that China developed the strategic nuclear missiles capable of carrying the H-10 stealth bomber has successful test flight. The article said that the research and development base in Qinghai, a secret military base in the Gobi, H-10 stealth bombers from the 1998 R & D, code-named "Project No. 10."
> 
> End, the article also said that China got stealth technology from the F117 and B2 "Spirit" stealth technology and the introduction of Russia's bomber technology, the technical development of independent R & D success. H-10's success broke the monopoly of the U.S. stealth, seriously threatening the security of Japan.
> 
> On the same day, U.S. military experts khaki Rolla personal Web site commented that the U.S. military as early as two years ago, discovered the existence of H-10 type, and through various channels to be a "natural enemy" of the technical design parameters and operational performance, The United States has fully prepared to meet the "natural enemy" of challenges, including the deployment of the East Pacific Infrared Stealth radars to increase the number of interceptor missiles and so forth.
> 
> China H-10 Stealth Bomber
> 
> H-10 stealth strategic bombers, which is a B2 stealth bombers with the United States similar to the large aircraft, is secretly developing China's aviation who in recent years, so in the past few of its sources, is now turned out to, of course, national leaders people are happy, but also allow the Chinese people feel proud! Because it broke the American monopoly in this field, but also the Russian people walking in front of the offensive strategy of the Chinese Air Force has played a decisive role. The possibility of this argument was basically 100%.
> 
> H-10 stealth bombers basic information
> 
> Empty weight :47880-52,912 kilograms,
> Length: 24.03 meters,,,
> Height: 4.51 meters,
> Wingspan: 65.27 meters,
> Maximum load of bombs: 25,254 kilograms cruising speed,
> Degree: 1.1
> Mach Range: 13,328 kilometers,
> Maximum Takeoff Weight: 205.74 thousand kilograms.
> Weapon systems: nuclear bombs, conventional bombs, cluster bombs, cruise missiles, air to air missile.
> Radar reflection cross-section: less than 0.2 square meters.




If it is real, absolutely a Monster.


----------



## DrSomnath999

*J-16 Red Eagle*





The J-16, built by the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation (SAC), is reportedly a stealthy dedicated attack version of the J-11B (Su-27) multirole fighter featuring active electronically scanned array [AESA] radar and an internal weapons bay. Chinese authorities have not formally released informtion on these developments. It was rumored in November 2010 that SAC was developing a 4.5th generation heavy multi-role fighter with a conventional layout based on J-11B. First flight of this reportedly "Silent Flanker" was rumored at that time to be within 2011.

According to Hui Tong, the J-16 is a version of the J-11BS comparable to American F-15E. Sort of a 'strike flanker'. "The aircraft can be viewed as an upgraded version of Su-30MKK based on its mission and capability, which is comparable to American F-15E. First flight was rumored to be between 2011-2012. J-16 has tandem seats with a WSO sitting in the backseat. It features an enhanced fire-control system with additional AG modes. Besides PL-8 and PL-12 AAMs, it could also carry the same precision guided weapons being carried by JH-7A, such as KD-88 ASM and LS-500J LGB. Compared to JH-7A, J-16 is expected to have a more powerful radar, a greater weapon load (8t) and a longer range (4,000km). "

In May 2011 China Military Report stated that "China's new 4.5 generation heavy fighter (Chinese name "Red Eagle"). August 2008 has been officially off the assembly line in Shenyang Aircraft Factory, in October 2008 in Beijing, an Air Force base in the outskirts of the first flight, October 12, 2009 conducted a second test, a complete success. J-18 is the 4.5 generation fighter aircraft are air superiority fighter heavy. Forward-swept wing fighter design using ultra-stealth characteristics, and install a laser active phased array radar, built-in weapons bay and two large thrust-vectoring engines. Service time is expected around 2015. So far there is no any official information about the machine, nor any information to prove the real existence of the aircraft. Only some information from some people speculate, and speculation of official news."

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## April.lyrics

DrSomnath999 said:


> what the f*** is this?do u think this forum is a miltary organisation & u are military officer here.This is a miltary forum & this kind of things should be posted in military forum ,Do u want me to post it in a **** website forum



u can talk them one by one.but never mix them up and rank them.

still remember my sentence,huh?seems that it leaves u with Psychological barriers~


----------



## DrSomnath999

April.lyrics said:


> still remember my sentence,huh?seems that it leaves u with Psychological barriers~


well i was comparing that as humour man ,i think u took it seriously but never mind forget it & u also take it as humour but not as offence
REGARDS

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## drunken-monke

aimarraul said:


> we have an indian fanboy here who seem to know everything about china's future weapons,while U.S keep criticizing the chinese military for lack of transparency



Well China may not be as superior as USA is, but still the war toys they have, its sure that they can cause lot of damage irrespective of any nation. USA may have a perception that nobody can design and develop such toys (like which we have seen in this thread). I call this as neglegance and underestimating the opponent.

regards

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChinaToday

DrSomnath999 said:


> compare it with ur top 10 future weapons that i had posted ,looks almost similar ,just a change of country's flag
> 
> ---------- Post added at 01:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:20 PM ----------
> 
> 
> well they should recruit me for CIA



You definitely have the credential working for the intelligent agency.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

ChinaToday said:


> You definitely have the credential working for the intelligent agency.


thanks man 
This is what i called real appreciation of someone hard work


----------



## ChineseLuver

H-10 stealth Bomber




H-8 Stealth Bomber

Dr.Somnath,i'm sure this would be nice for your collection and you're one of the very few sane/funny ones here unlike darko and co.LOL

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## drunken-monke

DrSomnath999 said:


> *J-16 Red Eagle*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The J-16, built by the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation (SAC), is reportedly a stealthy dedicated attack version of the J-11B (Su-27) multirole fighter featuring active electronically scanned array [AESA] radar and an internal weapons bay. Chinese authorities have not formally released informtion on these developments. It was rumored in November 2010 that SAC was developing a 4.5th generation heavy multi-role fighter with a conventional layout based on J-11B. First flight of this reportedly "Silent Flanker" was rumored at that time to be within 2011.
> 
> According to Hui Tong, the J-16 is a version of the J-11BS comparable to American F-15E. Sort of a 'strike flanker'. "The aircraft can be viewed as an upgraded version of Su-30MKK based on its mission and capability, which is comparable to American F-15E. First flight was rumored to be between 2011-2012. J-16 has tandem seats with a WSO sitting in the backseat. It features an enhanced fire-control system with additional AG modes. Besides PL-8 and PL-12 AAMs, it could also carry the same precision guided weapons being carried by JH-7A, such as KD-88 ASM and LS-500J LGB. Compared to JH-7A, J-16 is expected to have a more powerful radar, a greater weapon load (8t) and a longer range (4,000km). "
> 
> In May 2011 China Military Report stated that "China's new 4.5 generation heavy fighter (Chinese name "Red Eagle"). August 2008 has been officially off the assembly line in Shenyang Aircraft Factory, in October 2008 in Beijing, an Air Force base in the outskirts of the first flight, October 12, 2009 conducted a second test, a complete success. J-18 is the 4.5 generation fighter aircraft are air superiority fighter heavy. Forward-swept wing fighter design using ultra-stealth characteristics, and install a laser active phased array radar, built-in weapons bay and two large thrust-vectoring engines. Service time is expected around 2015. So far there is no any official information about the machine, nor any information to prove the real existence of the aircraft. Only some information from some people speculate, and speculation of official news."



The conceptional figure looks even better than J20


----------



## DrSomnath999

ChineseLuver said:


> Dr.Somnath, you're one of the very few sane/funny ones here unlike darko and co.LOL


I assure u i am the most wittiest man on this planet as i believe to make people smile as i am a dentist by profession

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Martian2

drunken-monke said:


> The conceptional figure looks even better than J20



When it comes to stealth, you can't use "looks" as a standard. The fighter-concept drawing is flawed. The nose is round. That is not stealthy. It needs a "shaped nose" like a duck-bill with a chine/ridge line.

The air ducts are not canted. That's also not stealthy. The upper-fuselage does not appear to follow the continuous-curvature principle. It tapers to a point toward the rear.

The J-20 Mighty Dragon is a marvelous piece of stealth design and engineering. If you haven't seen it yet, watch my video. It has 79,534 views.


----------



## Martian2

J-20 continuous-curvature design is readily apparent in the single "smooth broad curve" on the upper-body fuselage.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gubbi

Martian2 said:


> When it comes to stealth, you can't use "looks" as a standard. The fighter-concept drawing is flawed. The nose is round. That is not stealthy. It needs a "shaped nose" like a duck-bill with a chine/ridge line.
> 
> The air ducts are not canted. That's also not stealthy. The upper-fuselage does not appear to follow the continuous-curvature principle. It tapers to a point toward the rear.



On one hand you say that looks cannot be used as standards, and yet you claim 'looks' of J-20 to be stealthy? Shaped nose? Smooth broad curve? Are you nuts? Did you design that aircraft or are you an engineer who knows what stealth design entails?

Oh, btw, your video on youtube - is LAME!! One of the stupidest vids ever.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

Martian2 said:


> When it comes to stealth, you can't use "looks" as a standard. The fighter-concept drawing is flawed. The nose is round. That is not stealthy. It needs a "shaped nose" like a duck-bill with a chine/ridge line.
> 
> The air ducts are not canted. That's also not stealthy. The upper-fuselage does not appear to follow the continuous-curvature principle. It tapers to a point toward the rear.
> 
> The J-20 Mighty Dragon is a marvelous piece of stealth design and engineering. If you haven't seen it yet, watch my video. It has 79,534 views.


u literrally have no idea about stealth ,it doesnt depend only on design ,it also depends on stealth coating (plasma),& composite framework & lesser infra red signatures.The stealthiest design was F117 night hawk but still it was shot down inn kosovo war .


----------



## Martian2

gubbi said:


> On one hand you say that looks cannot be used as standards, and yet you claim 'looks' of J-20 to be stealthy? Shaped nose? Smooth broad curve? Are you nuts? Did you design that aircraft or are you an engineer who knows what stealth design entails?
> 
> Oh, btw, your video on youtube - is LAME!! One of the stupidest vids ever.



Watch my video. It has numerous citations to well-known industry publications like AviationWeek. Also, at the end of my video, I credit F-16.net for all uncredited quotations, which is based on the stealth standards established by the F-22.

Anyway, this is my last response to idiotic Indian China-haters, who have no idea what they're talking about regarding stealth principles.

----------

My post from December 28, 2010:

*Time to grade J-20 Firefang against F-22 benchmarks*





China's J-20 Firefang stealth fighter

Full glass cockpit? Check.

High-tech glass digital display? Check.

Diamond-shaped nose to deflect radar away from transmitter? Check.

Diamond-shaped wings to ameliorate radar detection? Check.

Angled fuselage to deflect radar away from transmitter? Check.

Internal weapons bay? Check (almost indubitably; otherwise just stay with J-10).

RAM (i.e. radar absorption material/coating)? Check (looks like it's coated already).

J-20 prototype manufactured ahead of schedule? Check. Most of us thought it was at least a few years away.

Flat nozzles for engines? Not yet. Chinese engine technology needs a few more years to catch up.

Saw-toothed edges? Can't tell. Forthcoming high-resolution pictures will answer this question.

Sleek and beautiful? Check.

Final assessment: A+++ (F-22 technology at a China price!)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

In a comparison for instructional purposes only, the Russian T-50 is a sleek-looking fighter that is not very stealthy.

From my August 21, 2011 post:

*Russian T-50 easy, medium, and hard fixes (topside)*




China's J-20 Mighty Dragon stealth fighter




J-20 Mighty Dragon has no gaps between rear part of engines and fuselage. Notice the frameless one-piece bubble canopy. The continuous-curvature upper-body design of the J-20 is obvious to an untrained eye.




Russian T-50 or Pak-Fa "stealth" fighter

*Easy fixes*

The first of many non-stealthy features, which are immediately noticeable about the Russian T-50, is the metal-framed cockpit canopy. Also, the protruding IRST probe in front of the cockpit needs to be recessed.

*Medium fixes*

Thirdly, the gaps between the engines need to be filled to eliminate a stronger radar echo. Fourthly, unlike the J-20, there is no RAM coating over the gleaming Russian T-50 engines on the entire exposed upper-body surface. The T-50 designers may have to resolve cooling issues with its engines if they are covered with RAM material.

*Hard fix*

The fifth problem with the top-side design of the T-50 is the lack of continuous-curvature. On the Chinese J-20, there is a nice round curve to the entire upper-body fuselage. On the Russian T-50, there are sharp and oblique angles, especially behind the cockpit. The Russians need to obtain a supercomputer and fix the design problem.

[Note: Thank you to "MwRYum" for the J-20 pictures and Aimarraul for the Russian T-50 pictures.]

----------

This is a clinical and objective post to contrast and compare stealth design features. This is not a "versus" comparison. If Sukhoi doesn't like what I'm pointing out, they should fix the problems.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

From my January 30, 2011 post:

*J-20 matches F-22 in front-profile and may exceed F-22 in side-profile stealth*






Left-half of picture is China's J-20. Right half is U.S. F-22.
(Note the J-20 air-inlet has been better integrated into the fuselage than the F-22's gap between the air-inlet and fuselage.)

I have two observations. Firstly, as shown in the spliced-photo above, I believe that I have been proven correct that the J-20 matches the F-22's frontal profile in stealth design.





Above: Picture of sleek J-20 with small tailfins.
Below: Picture of sleek F-22 with large tailfins.

Secondly, the F-22 may have tailfins that are significantly larger than the J-20. Given the increased surface area to reflect radar, this raises the possibility that the F-22 may have a higher side-profile stealth signature than the J-20 and is more vulnerable to bi-static or multistatic radar systems.

[Note: Thank you to HouShanghai for the photographs.]

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

From my February 5, 2011 post:





Russian T-50 underside is a messy design. Vents, gaps, stuff jutting out, etc. This is not stealthy.





J-20 has a very clean and smooth underside. Once the wheels are retracted, this is a very smooth, RAM-coated, and stealthy design.

----------

From my July 8, 2011 post with citation to Australia Air Power publication:





First flight of Chengdu J-20 prototype, 11th January, 2011. Note the planform alignment and lower fuselage shaping, optimised for all aspect Very Low Observable performance. The nozzles include serrated joins and nozzle rim (Chinese Internet).

[Source: Air Power Australia at Chengdu J-XX [J-20] Stealth Fighter Prototype / A Preliminary Assessment]

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

Let's use our brains. If the Su-30 underside is not stealthy and the T-50 underside looks just like the Su-30 underside then the only conclusion is the T-50 underside is also not stealthy.

From my August 4, 2011 post:





This T-50 photograph clearly shows no horizontal serpentine air-inlet.





Su-30 MKI underside. Very similar to T-50 underside, no?





Your eyes tell you that the air enters the T-50 air-inlets and travels straight out through the exhaust nozzles. There are no horizontal or vertical serpentine air ducts because your eyes confirm this fact.

T-50 and Su-30 MKI undersides are very similar. Same vents and straight engine nacelles.

[Note: I flipped the original Su-30 MKI picture horizontally for an easier comparison.]

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

The Russian T-50 engine layout is very similar to other Sukhoi aircraft, such as Su-30 or Su-27. It is a straight air-inlet. The Russian T-50 air intake, with fully-exposed engine fan blades, pushes its RCS above the French Rafale.

----------

Engine fan blockers still result in a non-stealthy aircraft

An engine fan blocker is not very useful. It can reduce a portion of the exposed fan blades. However, a slapped-together solution still results in a non-stealthy aircraft.





American F-18E fan blocker. Good try, but you're still not stealthy.

----------





Roughly 90% of the French Rafale's engine compressor blades are hidden from view. This is the reason that the French Rafale receives a 1 m2 RCS when it's "clean" and not carrying any external weapons. This assessment is determined by the reputable GlobalSecurity.

----------





China's J-20 is the new gold standard in front-profile stealth. The J-20 has both a serpentine air-duct and DSI bump to hide the engine compressor blades. Due to its older design, the F-22 lacks DSI bumps.


----------



## DrSomnath999

Martian2 said:


> In a comparison for instructional purposes only, the Russian T-50 is a sleek-looking fighter that is not very stealthy.
> 
> .


 hey man we were comparing J16 picture with j20 ,why the hell r u comparing it with T50 & F22 Raptor.This is not the thread to compare these planes ,I know more than u that J20 radar cross section is less than T50 & comparable to F22 .


----------



## DrSomnath999

*compare j16 & J20 pics ,which one looks futuristic
*

*J16*









*J-20*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## conworldus

The title of the thread is misleading. Except J-20 and darksword, all the weapons mentioned in the list are already in service, some for years already, such as 054A stealthy frigate.


----------



## DrSomnath999

conworldus said:


> The title of the thread is misleading. Except J-20 and darksword, all the weapons mentioned in the list are already in service, some for years already, such as 054A stealthy frigate.


so what !!!,the weapons which have a key role in future warfare for china are selected out of all weapons china have ,ok


----------



## Whazzup

DrSomnath999 said:


> I assure u i am the most wittiest man on this planet as i believe to make people smile as i am a dentist by profession



Is thats the reason you laugh so much  COLGATE HAR DENTIST KI PASAND.

Anyways whats your obsession with future weapons??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

DrSomnath999 said:


> hey man we were comparing J16 picture with j20 ,why the hell r u comparing it with T50 & F22 Raptor.This is not the thread to compare these planes ,I know more than u that J20 radar cross section is less than T50 & comparable to F22 .



Are you blind? Did you not see the posts by the other members commenting on the "look" of the J-16 being more stealthy than the J-20? I responded to their posts, which is the reason for this forum's existence.

For someone that just joined the forum during this month, watch your attitude newbie.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DrSomnath999

jackhammer2 said:


> Is thats the reason you laugh so much  COLGATE HAR DENTIST KI PASAND.


may be ,



jackhammer2 said:


> nyways whats your obsession with future weapons??


i have also 2 other obsession apart from this ,plz check my profile ,bikes & B***** babes

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

Martian2 said:


> Are you blind? Did you not see the posts by the other members commenting on the "look" of the J-16 being more stealthy than the J-20? I responded to their posts, which is the reason for this forum's existence.
> 
> For someone that just joined the forum during this month, watch your attitude newbie.


hey u mr senior plz dont rag me as i a new bie in this forum ,I am also a senoir member of my INDIAN DEFENCE FORUM , I dont like to take a piece of crab from no one ok ,be careful ,

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Whazzup

Martian2 said:


> Are you blind? Did you not see the posts by the other members commenting on the "look" of the J-16 being more stealthy than the J-20? I responded to their posts, which is the reason for this forum's existence.
> 
> For someone that just joined the forum during this month, watch your attitude newbie.



Relax he was just trying to save his thread from being ac flame bait .
And theirs a difference b/w Beingh a Senior member and smarter one.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

DrSomnath999 said:


> hey u mr senior plz dont rag me as i a new bie in this forum ,I am also a senoir member of my INDIAN DEFENCE FORUM , I dont like to take a piece of crab from no one ok ,be careful ,



Give me a break. I was a member of Indian Defence Forum before you got there. I was there in the beginning (member #72) in April of last year.

Check the Chinese sub-forum. See those stickies by "Martian." Hmmm...who could that be?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zabaniyah

Martian2 said:


> From my February 5, 2011 post:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russian T-50 underside is a messy design. Vents, gaps, stuff jutting out, etc. This is not stealthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J-20 has a very clean and smooth underside. Once the wheels are retracted, this is a very smooth, RAM-coated, and stealthy design.
> 
> ----------
> 
> From my July 8, 2011 post with citation to Australia Air Power publication:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First flight of Chengdu J-20 prototype, 11th January, 2011. Note the planform alignment and lower fuselage shaping, optimised for all aspect Very Low Observable performance. The nozzles include serrated joins and nozzle rim (Chinese Internet).
> 
> [Source: Air Power Australia at Chengdu J-XX [J-20] Stealth Fighter Prototype / A Preliminary Assessment]



If that is the case, then why are you buying T-50s?


----------



## cloneman

Zabanya said:


> If that is the case, then why are you buying T-50s?


Who tells you we are interested in T-50,care to provide the source?


----------



## Martian2

Zabanya said:


> If that is the case, then why are you buying T-50s?



Which world do you live in? The J-20 Mighty Dragon is superior to the T-50 in almost every respect (except for engines currently). The Indians are the ones who can't build a tank or a fighter without foreign help. That is the reason they always attack me when I post an objective observation of the Russian T-50.

China's aviation heritage: J-10A Vigorous Dragon --> J-10B Vigorous Dragon with advanced Diverterless Supersonic Intake --> J-20 Mighty Dragon stealth fighter

From GlobalSecurity:

PAK FA / T-50 / Project 701

"The maiden flight of the T-50 / Project 701 / PAK FA, the first Russian ... that *China declined to participate in this project* given a belief that Russia stood to gain ..."

----------

From my January 23, 2011 posts:

*Russian T-50 is clearly inferior to China's J-20*

It's obvious to everyone that the Russian T-50 is very crude and far behind China's J-20.

This is what a polished J-20 stealth fighter prototype looks like:






China's J-20 stealth fighter











And this other Russian T-50 is a crude (e.g. exposed rivets, exposed engine fan blades, metal-framed cockpit canopy, no RAM coating, no Serpentine air inlets, no DSI, etc.) attempt at a stealth fighter:





Russian T-50. Is it even stealthy? Look at those giant engine fan blades.

-----

*General Brady on T-50: &#8220;I don&#8217;t know if it&#8217;s really a fifth-generation aircraft&#8221;*

The Russian T-50 prototype falls far short of expectations (e.g. does not meet most of the ten criteria that I have formerly listed for a stealth fighter design). The biggest failing is in the design of the air inlets. The Russians didn't bother at all to shield the engine fan blades from enemy radar. Also, the metal frame on the cockpit canopy is another clear lack of effort.

If you believe my opinion is unfair in saying that the Russian T-50 falls far short of a modern fifth-generation stealth fighter, would you accept the opinion of an expert instead? *Four-star general Roger Brady does not believe that the Russian T-50 qualifies as a fifth generation stealth fighter: &#8220;I don&#8217;t know if it&#8217;s really a fifth-generation aircraft&#8221;* (see article below).

In conclusion, I am willing to revise my assessment of the Russian T-50, as judged by my list of ten objective stealth design features, if there is a serious re-design. I stand by my claim that the current Russian T-50 design (if allowed to stay mostly intact) is not a worthy competitor to China's J-20 or U.S. F-22 and F-35.

Leaders not impressed by new Russian fighter - Air Force News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Air Force Times

"Leaders not impressed by new Russian fighter
By Bruce Rolfsen - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Mar 22, 2010 19:53:27 EDT

The flying debut of Russia&#8217;s answer to the F-22 Raptor isn&#8217;t wowing Air Force leaders.

Dubbed the T-50 or PAK-FA, the fifth-generation stealth fighter jet made its maiden flight Jan. 29 &#8212; 47 minutes over eastern Russia &#8212; and has flown at least twice since then. The twin-engine jet will replace the MiG-29 Fulcrum and Su-27 Flanker, both fourth-generation front-line fighters.

The first operational T-50s should be delivered in 2015, the same year the Air Force expects its first F-35 Lightning II. Also a fifth-generation fighter, the F-35 has a single supersonic engine and stealth capabilities.

&#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.

&#8220;Russia has a robust [aircraft industry],&#8221; Donley added. &#8220;This is not a surprise in that context.&#8221;

The PAK-FA resembles the F-22 &#8212; distinctive tilted rear tail fins and all &#8212; and has many of the same high-tech features, including digital avionics, a phased-array radar and communications equipment to link the fighter to command and control centers, according to the Russian news agency Tass.

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;

*Still, the four-stars wonder whether the T-50 will live up to its fifth-generation billing.

&#8220;I don&#8217;t know if it&#8217;s really a fifth-generation aircraft,&#8221; Brady said.* &#8220;What I do know is that it&#8217;s very clear that they&#8217;re working on a fifth-generation technology.&#8221;

For Brady, Russia&#8217;s push on the development front signals that the U.S. cannot settle for the status quo.

&#8220;The key is, we must continue to do fifth-generation and sixth-generation research and put money against it because other people clearly are,&#8221; Brady said.

North added that the Pentagon must ensure fourth-generation jets such as the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 are continually upgraded.

&#8220;If we&#8217;re not going to buy more, what we&#8217;ve got to have is the very best that our sons and daughters go out to fight with,&#8221; he said.

In tandem with the T-50 project, Russia is developing a long-range bomber.

&#8220;We won&#8217;t limit ourselves to just one new model,&#8221; Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said March 1. 'We must start work on a prospective long-range aircraft, our new strategic bomber.'&#8221;

[Note: Thank you to Sudhir007 for the newslink.]





Look closely, do you see those gigantic fan blades in the engine? Enemy radar can see them too. So, just exactly how is the Russian T-50 stealthy?

-----

*Russian T-50 wheel-bay doors are not serrated/saw-toothed*

I'm disappointed at the lack of serrated wheel-bay doors on the Russian T-50. Let's compare the wheel-bay doors for China's J-20 and Russian T-50.





J-20's serrated wheel-bay door





Once again, we will use the eyeball-test. Do you see serrated edges on the Russian T-50 wheel bay door?


----------



## aimarraul

cloneman said:


> Who tells you we are interested in T-50,care to provide the source?



russian............

"china will buy 50 su-33","china will buy 60 su-35","china will buy 100 T-50",etc.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

And i don't think the current Russian engine is good enough to power J-20.


----------



## cloneman

aimarraul said:


> russian............
> 
> "china will buy 50 su-33","china will buy 60 su-35","china will buy 100 T-50",etc.


Opps,I don't think the Russians can make the decision for us.I don't think the PLA will have any interest to the three aircrafts above.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> *When it comes to stealth, you can't use "looks" as a standard.* The fighter-concept drawing is flawed. The nose is round. That is not stealthy. It needs a "shaped nose" like a duck-bill with a chine/ridge line.
> 
> The air ducts are not canted. That's also not stealthy. The upper-fuselage does not appear to follow the continuous-curvature principle. It tapers to a point toward the rear.
> 
> The J-20 Mighty Dragon is a marvelous piece of stealth design and engineering. If you haven't seen it yet, watch my video. It has 79,534 views.


You are so blinded by your own ego that you cannot see how you contradicted yourself as highlighted. You demand that others not use 'looks' but you make declarations about the J-20 based purely upon looks and your interpretations of what you see.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> From my January 30, 2011 post:
> 
> *J-20 matches F-22 in front-profile and may exceed F-22 in side-profile stealth*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Left-half of picture is China's J-20. Right half is U.S. F-22.


Remember your own words that in 'stealth' we cannot go by 'looks' alone.



Martian2 said:


> (Note the J-20 air-inlet has been better integrated into the fuselage than the F-22's gap between the air-inlet and fuselage.)


Better? Bunk. As long as that 'gap' is not a significant contributor to overall RCS, it is not 'inferior' in anyway.



Martian2 said:


> I have two observations. Firstly, as shown in the spliced-photo above, I believe that I have been proven correct that the J-20 matches the F-22's frontal profile in stealth design.


You have 'proven' nothing. You guessed and even if eventually credible radar data is available and confirm your guesses, that still does not make you anymore credible today.



Martian2 said:


> Above: Picture of sleek J-20 with small tailfins.
> Below: Picture of sleek F-22 with large tailfins.
> 
> Secondly, the F-22 may have tailfins that are significantly larger than the J-20. Given the increased surface area to reflect radar, this raises the possibility that the F-22 may have a higher side-profile stealth signature than the J-20 and is more vulnerable to bi-static or multistatic radar systems.


Please see this => http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/20908-rcs-different-fighters-6.html#post2006035

Heck, am willing to bet you have never heard of bi-static radar until I came along.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> China's J-20 is the new gold standard in front-profile stealth. The J-20 has both a serpentine air-duct and DSI bump to hide the engine compressor blades. Due to its older design, the F-22 lacks DSI bumps.


You mean gold paint. It is proven that DSI 'bumps' are not for 'stealth' but for inlet air control. As far as 'stealth' goes, all contributors must be designed, measured, and rated according to their relationships to each other. That mean as long as the diverter plates are not significant contributors, they are not considered detrimental to overall RCS. You obviously have a difficult time understanding the concept of 'balanced stealth'.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ao333

gambit said:


> You mean gold paint. It is proven that DSI 'bumps' are not for 'stealth' but for inlet air control. As far as 'stealth' goes, all contributors must be designed, measured, and rated according to their relationships to each other. That mean as long as the diverter plates are not significant contributors, they are not considered detrimental to overall RCS. You obviously have a difficult time understanding the concept of 'balanced stealth'.



No no no, American military hardware remains unparalleled globally. The only problem is, you're Vietnamese.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> You are so blinded by your own ego that you cannot see how you contradicted yourself as highlighted. You demand that others not use 'looks' but you make declarations about the J-20 based purely upon looks and your interpretations of what you see.



There is a huge difference between "looks" and SHAPING. I am discussing SHAPING and you can't tell the difference.

From my July 12, 2011 post:

*J-20 can supercruise and is more stealthy than F-35*

1. In a much earlier post, I quoted a J-20 Chinese test pilot who confirmed the J-20 can supercruise. F-35 cannot.

2. J-20 has a clean design like the F-22. I have already mentioned the two flaws in the J-20 design that makes it currently inferior to the F-22 (e.g. "some curvature of the sides" that need to be re-worked and glaring round engine nozzles). However, the F-35 is far more flawed with its compromised design of "&#8216;hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts&#8217; [that] have appeared on the JSF to disrupt the shaping imperative."

3. Australia Air Power "Physical Optics simulation across nine radio-frequency bands" has shown the J-20 is optimized for stealth. In contrast, the F-35 design is mostly meant to defeat radars in two bands: "to best defeat radars operating in the X and upper S band."

In conclusion, aside from avionics, the J-20 Mighty Dragon is superior to the F-35 in both supercruise ability and stealth across all "nine radio-frequency bands."

----------

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

"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.[126] The F-22 was designed to be difficult to detect by all types of radars and from all directions.[127] *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.*[127] 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.[128] 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.[129][130]"





F-35 with "&#8216;hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts&#8217; [that] have appeared on the JSF to disrupt the shaping imperative."

----------





J-20 Mighty Dragon has a smooth and flat underside.

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 for the J-20 underside picture and Stereospace for the F-35 underside picture.]

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> There is a huge difference between "looks" and SHAPING. I am discussing SHAPING and you can't tell the difference.


And how can you tell anything about shaping just by looking? Now you are feebly playing with words in trying weasel out of your own trap.



Martian2 said:


> From my July 12, 2011 post:
> 
> *J-20 can supercruise and is more stealthy than F-35*
> 
> 1. In a much earlier post, I quoted a J-20 Chinese test pilot who confirmed the J-20 can supercruise. F-35 cannot.


How does this make the J-20 superior? And sorry, we are under no obligations to take your words for it.



Martian2 said:


> 2. J-20 has a clean design like the F-22. I have already mentioned the two flaws in the J-20 design that makes it currently inferior to the F-22 (e.g. "some curvature of the sides" that need to be re-worked and glaring round engine nozzles). However, the F-35 is far more flawed with its compromised design of "&#8216;hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts&#8217; [that] have appeared on the JSF to disrupt the shaping imperative."


Your continuing focus on those 'bumps' tell me you still have not learn anything and quoting from Kopp will not help. As long as those 'lumps and bumps' are not significant contributors, they work.



Martian2 said:


> 3. Australia Air Power "Physical Optics simulation across nine radio-frequency bands" has shown the J-20 is optimized for stealth. In contrast, the F-35 design is mostly meant to defeat radars in two bands: "to best defeat radars operating in the X and upper S band."


And I have pointed out the reasons why PO alone is inappropriate. Heck, I even used Chinese sources to prove it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> And how can you tell anything about shaping just by looking? Now you are feebly playing with words in trying weasel out of your own trap.
> 
> How does this make the J-20 superior? And sorry, we are under no obligations to take your words for it.
> 
> Your continuing focus on those 'bumps' tell me you still have not learn anything and quoting from Kopp will not help. As long as those 'lumps and bumps' are not significant contributors, they work.
> 
> And I have pointed out the reasons why PO alone is inappropriate. Heck, I even used Chinese sources to prove it.



I'm tired of your stupidity. If you can't understand the difference between a "shaped nose" and a "round nose," a "canted airduct" and a "flat airduct," or a serrated J-20 and non-serrated T-50 wheel-bay doors then you're wasting my time.

Your extreme anti-Chinese views have blinded you to obvious Russian T-50 defects like the metal-framed canopy, exposed rivets, protruding IRST probe, exposed engine blades, non-RAM covered engine nacelles, non-continuous curvature upper fuselage, and completely unstealthy Su-30-like underside. You're blind as a bat. Give me a break.

This is a stealth superfighter:

*J-20 Mighty Dragon sheer intimidation*





J-20 Mighty Dragon sheer intimidation

----------

This is not a stealth fighter and it is a mere pretender:





Russian T-50. Is it even stealthy? Look at those giant engine fan blades.





Russian T-50 underside is a messy design. Vents, gaps, stuff jutting out, etc. This is not stealthy.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## below_freezing

physical optics theory may be an inaccurate approximation for certain wavelengths, but that does not make its final answer necessarily wrong. and if the physical optics theory answer is indeed, wrong and indeed wrong by orders of magnitude, if the "correct" value of reflected power is still low, the end result might not even matter as the reflected beams could still be lower than the detection threshhold.

I'm not saying youre wrong, i'm just saying that we need some hardcore computational EM data down to say for sure whether the J-20 is good, or not. as for now, the thing that has results is the physical optics model. if you could make a Mathematica program for that, i'd more than appreciate it =)


----------



## Zabaniyah

Martian2 said:


> Which world do you live in? The J-20 Mighty Dragon is superior to the T-50 in almost every respect (except for engines currently). The Indians are the ones who can't build a tank or a fighter without foreign help. That is the reason they always attack me when I post an objective observation of the Russian T-50.
> 
> China's aviation heritage: J-10A Vigorous Dragon --> J-10B Vigorous Dragon with advanced Diverterless Supersonic Intake --> J-20 Mighty Dragon stealth fighter



What world do I live in? I prefer to live in the real world  

According to one Russian website, China will be one of the recipients on the FGFA under 'certain circumstances'.
At least 1000 PAK FA fighters will be manufactured until 2050 - News - Russian Aviation - RUAVIATION.COM

Here also:
Russians develop fifth-generation PAK FA stealth multi-role fighter « Wintery Knight

These are just speculations, and will remain that way until the Chinese Government is clear on the matter. It is a simple yes or no. 

The Russians have decades of experience in the aviation sector compared to China. The latter still has much to learn from the former. 

And if you are so self-sufficient, why go for Russian engines for the FC-20s and JF-17s? 

The current prototype of the PAK FA is not the final version. It is speculated that the final product would look something like this:
















The PAK FA's general air-frame is fine, the only thing that does need work are the engines, which is by far the most difficult aspect of the aircraft. 

Is the J-20 better? Hard to say at this point.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DrSomnath999

Martian2 said:


> Give me a break. I was a member of Indian Defence Forum before you got there. I was there in the beginning (member #72) in April of last year.
> 
> Check the Chinese sub-forum. See those stickies by "Martian." Hmmm...who could that be?


so what man ,it means u can say anything to anyone & get away ,tell me when u r logged on IDF i would reply ur queries nicely & stop this farce of comparision of T50 & j20 jet here, this is a thread of future weapons of china not a comparision of T50 & j20 ,do it in some other thread or create ur own thread comparing T50 & j-20.ok

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

DrSomnath999 said:


> so what man ,it means u can say anything to anyone & get away ,tell me when u r logged on IDF i would reply ur queries nicely & stop this farce of comparision of T50 & j20 jet here, this is a thread of future weapons of china not a comparision of T50 & j20 ,do it in some other thread or create ur own thread comparing T50 & j-20.ok



You're an idiot. Starting a thread does not mean only you are allowed to post in it. If you want to do that, start a blog.

You've wasted enough of my time.



Zabanya said:


> What world do I live in? I prefer to live in the real world
> 
> According to one Russian website, China will be one of the recipients on the FGFA under 'certain circumstances'.
> At least 1000 PAK FA fighters will be manufactured until 2050 - News - Russian Aviation - RUAVIATION.COM



You're an idiot too. It's been nine full months and you're still unaware that the J-20 Mighty Dragon is a distinctively Chinese design, which is vastly superior to the Russian T-50 in almost all respects.

By the way, keep up the good job of posting cartoons. I post real pictures for my analysis and you reply with cartoons. Idiot.

Both of you clowns have being wasting my time. You can believe whatever you want.

----------

This is what a real stealth superfighter looks like:






J-20 Mighty Dragon in spectacular inverted dive

Notice the smooth, faceted, and RAM-coated lower-body fuselage of the J-20 Mighty Dragon.

[Note: Thank you to Aimarraul for the picture.]

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

useless post


----------



## Martian2

DrSomnath999 said:


> ok mr Newton ,i had not invited u here to come & post ur pathetic posts here,So just
> PISS OFF



Boo hoo. I'll keep posting about the J-20 and T-50 if other members have more questions. What are you going to do about it? Whine some more?

You're incredibly stupid. You brought up the subject of the J-20 as one of China's top ten next generation weapons. Other members disputed the stealthiness of the J-20. I provided comparisons to illuminate the topic.

Now, you're becoming emotionally distraught. Go back to IDF where you're safe from objective analyses.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

useless post


----------



## Martian2

DrSomnath999 said:


> oh ya ,i had posted this thread as a goodwill gesture to CHINA & i dont want to sully this thread ,by posting craps .So create ur own thread about comparision of T50 & j20 ,i bet u i would answer ur queries ,ur so called myth of J20 real superfighter would be busted like ur Ba***
> 
> i love wine on the rocks & love to make others whine



In the almost-two-years that I've been here, you're the biggest crybaby I've seen. If you don't like my posts, use the "report" button in the bottom-left corner. The moderators will just laugh at you for being a crybaby. Go ahead, use the "report" button and see what happens.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

useless post


----------



## DrSomnath999

Martian2 said:


> You're incredibly stupid. You brought up the subject of the J-20 as one of China's top ten next generation weapons. Other members disputed the stealthiness of the J-20. I provided comparisons to illuminate the topic.


they compared j20 with j16 ,they never compared it with T 50 & f22 like u r doing morron ,that's what i m trying to explain ,but ur posting ur needless comparision on j20 & t 50 .


----------



## Chinese Century

CSU-152 NEXT-GEN MBT 

thought u might want to add that to the list.


btw, Martian2, u did a great job of explaining the J-20.
thanks for clearing up alot of things.
really appreciate all ur work man.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

DrSomnath999 said:


> they compared j20 with j16 ,they never compared it with T 50 & f22 like u r doing morron ,that's what i m trying to explain ,but ur posting ur needless comparision on j20 & t 50 .



I compared the J-20 to the F-22, F-35, and T-50. I do not only compare the J-20 to the T-50. The T-50 is convenient, because it has more flaws to demonstrate the principles of stealth design. The T-50's flaws are perfectly rectifiable. I've always said that if Sukhoi doesn't like my posts, they should buy a supercomputer and redesign the T-50.

I won't compare the J-20 to the J-16, because the J-16 is only hypothetical at this point. Without real photographs, I will not speculate on vaporware.

Finally, my comparisons of the J-20 to other stealth fighters are for the majority of the forum members to decide whether it's "needless" or useful. Not you. You're a biased newbie with a thin skin.


----------



## Chinese Century

DrSomnath999 said:


> i dont need to push report button ,to shut the mouth of POKER like U ,I should add fuel to fire . common baby POST as u like .lets see how much u can post




u keep this up and it wont be long before the mods ban u.
so if i was u, i would just stick to posting more about modern/future chinese weapons(which u have done a great job) and drop all the insults towards chinese members.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

Chinese Century said:


> btw, Martian2, u did a great job of explaining the J-20.
> thanks for clearing up alot of things.
> really appreciate all ur work man.


i am not denying that he didnt did a good job ,but he should compare J20 with j16 that i wanted to dicuss ,as other member posted that J16 design looks better than J20 ,so he should have compared j20 with j16 ,but instead he is comparing T50 which is not required here .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

Chinese Century said:


> u keep this up and it wont be long before the mods ban u.
> so if i was u, i would just stick to posting more about modern/future chinese weapons(which u have done a great job) and drop all the insults towards chinese members.


hey man he insulted me as a newbie ,i never insulted him at 1st ,u can see from all my posts above but still then i m going to edit all my posts
REGARDS

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chinese Century

DrSomnath999 said:


> i am not denying that he didnt did a good job ,but he should compare J20 with j16 that i wanted to dicuss ,as other member posted that J16 design looks better than J20 ,so he should have compared j20 with j16 ,but instead he is comparing T50 which is not required here .



He can compare to whatever he wants to, its called freedom of speech.

ur not a mod, so lets leave it at that.

just post more chinese weapons, im sick of this he started this or that.

u were doing a superb job until this.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## houshanghai

DrSomnath999 said:


> *J-16 Red Eagle*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The J-16, built by the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation (SAC), is reportedly a stealthy dedicated attack version of the J-11B (Su-27) multirole fighter featuring active electronically scanned array [AESA] radar and an internal weapons bay. Chinese authorities have not formally released informtion on these developments. It was rumored in November 2010 that SAC was developing a 4.5th generation heavy multi-role fighter with a conventional layout based on J-11B. First flight of this reportedly "Silent Flanker" was rumored at that time to be within 2011.
> 
> According to Hui Tong, the J-16 is a version of the J-11BS comparable to American F-15E. Sort of a 'strike flanker'. "The aircraft can be viewed as an upgraded version of Su-30MKK based on its mission and capability, which is comparable to American F-15E. First flight was rumored to be between 2011-2012. J-16 has tandem seats with a WSO sitting in the backseat. It features an enhanced fire-control system with additional AG modes. Besides PL-8 and PL-12 AAMs, it could also carry the same precision guided weapons being carried by JH-7A, such as KD-88 ASM and LS-500J LGB. Compared to JH-7A, J-16 is expected to have a more powerful radar, a greater weapon load (8t) and a longer range (4,000km). "
> 
> In May 2011 China Military Report stated that "China's new 4.5 generation heavy fighter (Chinese name "Red Eagle"). August 2008 has been officially off the assembly line in Shenyang Aircraft Factory, in October 2008 in Beijing, an Air Force base in the outskirts of the first flight, October 12, 2009 conducted a second test, a complete success. J-18 is the 4.5 generation fighter aircraft are air superiority fighter heavy. Forward-swept wing fighter design using ultra-stealth characteristics, and install a laser active phased array radar, built-in weapons bay and two large thrust-vectoring engines. Service time is expected around 2015. So far there is no any official information about the machine, nor any information to prove the real existence of the aircraft. Only some information from some people speculate, and speculation of official news."




Your pic isnot the concept of sac j16,
these pics are just real conept about SACj16.which is more like an F22 than a PAK-FA or any flanker.













SACJ16 have 2 side weapon bay and 1 belly weapon bay as same as J20 or F22.not like pakfa.SACJ16 is a low 5 gen fighter of PLAAF in future .cac J20 will be superior to sac j16 in any major respects.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## DrSomnath999

Martian2 said:


> You're a biased newbie with a thin skin.


now see everyone who is insulting to whom ,& mr chinese centuryu r telling i am insulting chinese member ,u can also see at the end of the thread 
*FROM THE AUTHOR*
this article is dedicated to great peoples of china 

now u tell me why would i write this if my intention is to insult chinese member

Listen mr Martian if i am biased then i would never had posted such a thread on china & dont think i cant reply on j20 ,but if i myself sully j20 image then what the use of posting such a thread by me .TELL mE

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

houshanghai said:


> Your pic isnot the concept of chinese 5 gen fighter SACj16,
> these pics are just real conept about SACj16.which is more like an F22 than a PAK-FA or any flanker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SACJ16 have 2 side weapon bay and 1 belly weapon bay as same as J20 or F22.not like pakfa.


thanks this kind of posts i want from chinese member


----------



## Whazzup

Look martian no one is insulting you buddy but what we are really trying to say is that by dragging t50 out here will just turn this nice thread into flame bait (since you are a senior member I guess you are more familiar with this) I don't think you really want that And theirs all ready a thread on this topic (god I am fed up with such comparisons )

Somnath bhai control your anger dude and what happen to that wittyest character


----------



## Zabaniyah

Martian2 said:


> You're an idiot too.



So according to you, anyone with whom you don't agree with happens to be an 'idiot'  I can say you certainly are a part-time Internet warrior, albeit a serious one. Man, that's just depressing...



Martian2 said:


> It's been nine full months and you're still unaware that the J-20 Mighty Dragon is a distinctively Chinese design, which is vastly superior to the Russian T-50 in almost all respects.



Since when did I mention that the J-20 _isn't_ a Chinese design? Did I say anything bad about the J-20? 



Martian2 said:


> By the way, keep up the good job of posting cartoons. I post real pictures for my analysis and you reply with cartoons. Idiot.



Those are concept pictures showing what the T-50 might look like. I am sure many of you lot post 'cartoons' as well. 

You are just one of those folks who don't understand the simple difference between a prototype and the final product. Even the j-20 can be considered a prototype. 

Cosmetic looks of a bird says very little about its actual capabilities. 



Martian2 said:


> *Both of you clowns have being wasting my time. You can believe whatever you want.
> *
> ----------



That part shows how smart you really _aren't._

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

jackhammer2 said:


> Somnath bhai control your anger dude and what happen to that wittyest character


bro i never expected a situation like this would happen ,but look this guy unnecessarily insulting me as biased ,newbie repeatedly 
so i replied him nicely in my own witty style ,but chinese century member is telling i am insulting chinese member .& i deleted all my posts,but still then that guy insulted me as biased ,newbie .Is this fair bro U tell me?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

jackhammer2 said:


> Look martian no one is insulting you buddy but what we are really trying to say is that by dragging t50 out here will just turn this nice thread into flame bait (since you are a senior member I guess you are more familiar with this) I don't think you really want that And theirs all ready a thread on this topic (god I am fed up with such comparisons )
> 
> Somnath bhai control your anger dude and what happen to that wittyest character



If there had not been a challenge to the stealthiness of the J-20 due to "looks" and Gambit's "piling on" then I would not have contrasted the stealth fighters. To be fair, I also pitted the stealthiness of the J-20 against the F-22 and F-35. Unfortunately, the American stealth fighters have less weaknesses and I had to move on to the T-50 for comparison purposes.

There seems to be a general lack of knowledge of stealth principles and I think I will release a new video in the next few weeks to explain the differences among the J-20, F-22, F-35, and T-50. I suggest that people, who are overly nationalistic, should not watch it. It will be an objective and clinical discussion of the proper and improper application of stealth design principles for all four fighters.

Unfortunately, I had to start calling people idiots and stupid when they were giving me non-sensical replies. Take Gambit for example, he stubbornly claimed that he couldn't tell the difference between SHAPING and "looks." Total garbage claim or else he's blind.

I am only human. I do not have unlimited patience with ridiculous replies. I expect a professional discussion with solid reasoning and/or citations. The only other choice is to let the China-haters run loose with crazy rhetoric and absurd claims.

----------

If I did not try to set the facts straight, a forum reader will reach the following *ERRONEOUS* conclusions:

1. From Gambit: There is no difference between "looks" and SHAPING. We can conclude nothing about the stealthiness of the J-20 by examining its stealth SHAPING from photographs.

2. From Zabanya: China is buying the T-50 from Russia.

3. From Dr. Somnath999: Stop posting facts in this thread!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

Martian2 said:


> 1. From Gambit: There are no differences between "looks" and SHAPING. We can conclude nothing about the stealthiness of the J-20 by examining its stealth SHAPING from photographs.
> 
> 2. From Zabanya: China is buying the T-50 from Russia.
> 
> 3. From Dr. Somnath999: Stop posting facts in this thread!



1st of all u dont have any god damn right to abuse anyone as fools or idiots & especially calling me Newbie .

U should apologise to all those for abusing them


----------



## Martian2

DrSomnath999 said:


> 1st of all u dont have any god damn right to abuse anyone as fools or idiots & especially calling me Newbie .
> 
> U should apologise to all those for abusing them



You really are an idiot. I have been here for two years. You have been here for two days. You are a Newbie.


----------



## DrSomnath999

Martian2 said:


> You really are an idiot. I have been here for two years. You have been here for two days. You are a Newbie.


u again abused me ,instead of apolisgising , calling me idiot,DONT know what to say? just get the>>>>
plz someone request mod to intervene or else i would lose my temper.


----------



## Zabaniyah

Martian2 said:


> 1. From Gambit: There is no difference between "looks" and SHAPING. We can conclude nothing about the stealthiness of the J-20 by examining its stealth SHAPING from photographs.



He is right about that. You know it 



Martian2 said:


> 2. From Zabanya: China is buying the T-50 from Russia.



At least I came up with a source. Again, that was just a speculation. In fact, the matter was discussed in this very forum.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-...-fighters-will-manufactured-until-2050-a.html

I sure you'd have fun discussing there and proving the source wrong.

The PLAAF do operate many SU-30s after all.



Martian2 said:


> 3. From Dr. Somnath999: Stop posting facts in this thread!



*sigh*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

Zabanya said:


> *sigh*



brother this guy is real useless now post him thislink how stealthy j20 is ?
read it martian fool
China&#8217;s J-20 Fighter: Stealthy or Just Stealthy-Looking? - Washington Wire - WSJ
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;It&#8217;s certainly stealthy-looking,&#8221; Mr. Aboulafia said. It looks like it&#8217;s got some of the faceting and some of the shaping that characterizes the front of the F-22, for example.

&#8220;But then you look the details and you realize this thing is just sort of cobbled together,&#8221; he added.

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.

The same goes for the engine nozzles, which Mr. Aboulafia said were clearly not designed to be stealthy, as well the large overall size of the aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chinese Century

DrSomnath999 said:


> u again abused me ,instead of apolisgising ,u stinky chinese **** calling me idiot,DONT know what to say? just get the>>>>
> plz someone request mod to intervene or else i would lose my temper.



lol good to see ur true colours getting exposed.

u are as anti-chinese as every other indian on these forums.

u try to give fake praise to china then bash china.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Zabanya said:


> He is right about that. You know it
> 
> 
> 
> At least I came up with a source. Again, that was just a speculation. In fact, the matter was discussed in this very forum.
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-...-fighters-will-manufactured-until-2050-a.html
> 
> I sure you'd have fun discussing there and proving the source wrong.
> 
> The PLAAF do operate many SU-30s after all.
> 
> 
> 
> *sigh*



This is all Russian wishes, even the most pessimistic Chinese insiders would call this nothing more, but pure fantasy.

PLAAF still operates Su-30MKK because they are still usable, and once these aircrafts reach its lifespan, then you won't see PLAAF operates Russian aircrafts anymore.

---------- Post added at 03:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:31 PM ----------

I don't know what to say, but J-16 is not designed to be more superior than J-20.

Saying J-16 is better than J-20 is like saying Mig-29 is better than Su-27.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

Zabanya said:


> He is right about that. You know it
> 
> At least I came up with a source. Again, that was just a speculation. In fact, the matter was discussed in this very forum.
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-...-fighters-will-manufactured-until-2050-a.html
> 
> I sure you'd have fun discussing there and proving the source wrong.
> 
> The PLAAF do operate many SU-30s after all.
> 
> *sigh*



Your sources are garbage and not from mainstream reputable publications, such as GlobalSecurity, AviationWeek, or Australia Air Power. You know their garbage, because the information is dead wrong.

*If you keep posting crap like "China is buying T-50 from Russia" after nine months of J-20 tests, I'll keep exposing your stupidity.

You're an idiot, because the information (that China declined to join Russia's stealth fighter project) is at least two years old. If you're clueless, shut the hell up and stop spreading misinformation.*

http://books.google.com/books?id=dc...&resnum=7&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false

"Richard D. Fisher - *2008* - History - 309 pages
While *China has declined Russian offers to co-develop a fifth-generation fighter* ... aircraft.79 There may also be a &#8220;lightweight&#8221; fifth-generation program. ..."

-----

Secondly, it is ludicrous to post cartoons to refute real photographs and analyses of the J-20 Mighty Dragon. If you want to make a point, post real photographs and meaningful insights (see below).

From my August 25, 2011 post:

*Tailless J-20 Mighty Dragon is superior to F-22 Raptor canardless design*





J-20 Mighty Dragon has canard winglets, but no tailplanes.





F-22 Raptor has no canards, but it has tailplane winglets.

From a stealth design perspective, there is no effective difference between placing two little winglets (i.e. canards) in front of the main wings or behind them (i.e. tailplanes).

However, from a maneuverability standpoint, the J-20 Mighty Dragon canards provide it with super maneuverability. The F-22 Raptor tailplanes merely provide stability. This is understandable because the F-22 is a much older design. Aerospace engineers have a better understanding of stealth design today than twenty years ago.

In conclusion, the J-20 Mighty Dragon is a superior evolutionary design of its chronological F-22 predecessor.

[Note: Thank you to HouShanghai and Feiyang for the J-20 picture.]

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> Your sources are garbage and not from mainstream reputable publications, such as GlobalSecurity, AviationWeek, *or Australia Air Power. You know their garbage, because the information is dead wrong.
> *



garbage ?? really? I don't remember you having a problem using their analysis on the J-20 when it suited you .. strange huh ?

should I remind you post 350 on the j-20 thread ????

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

amalakas said:


> garbage ?? really? I don't remember you having a problem using their analysis on the J-20 when it suited you .. strange huh ?
> 
> should I remind you post 350 on the j-20 thread ????



Here is another anti-China troll. You guys are idiots, not because you disagree with me, but because your claims are outrageous and false. You do not reference mainstream and widely-accepted reputable publications. You cite crap. That includes you Amalakas.

What do the trolls have in common? It's easy to tell. A troll's "thanked" to "post" ratio is 1 to 3.

For example, Amalakas has made 694 posts, but received only a woeful 224 "thanks" (from fellow trolls).

Similarly, Zabanya has 2,742 posts, but only a paltry 934 "thanks."

When you see anti-China trolls with low "thanks" and high "post" numbers, please ignore their crap posts with misinformation and citations from lunatics.

----------

On the other hand, reputable posters like myself have far more "thanks" than "posts." I have a ratio of 2,309 "thanks" to 1,572 "posts."

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Transgress

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> This is all Russian wishes, even the most pessimistic Chinese insiders would call this nothing more, but pure fantasy.
> 
> PLAAF still operates Su-30MKK because they are still usable, and once these aircrafts reach its lifespan, then you won't see PLAAF operates Russian aircrafts anymore.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 03:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:31 PM ----------
> 
> I don't know what to say, but J-16 is not designed to be more superior than J-20.
> 
> Saying J-16 is better than J-20 is like saying Mig-29 is better than Su-27.



Don't speak so quickly, whether you like it or not, you cannot deny the fact that china's military industry spawned from bought Russian tech. I would not be surprised if China decided to buy some T-50's, as it is one of Russia's most advanced weapons and a great opportunity for our engineers to learn. Yes, the T-50 prototype is not looking polished at the moment, and we cannot compare it with the J-20 at the time with no pictures of the final product, but we can almost know for sure that the final product of the T-50 will be different.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Transgress said:


> Don't speak so quickly, whether you like it or not, you cannot deny the fact that china's military industry spawned from bought Russian tech. I would not be surprised if China decided to buy some T-50's, as it is one of Russia's most advanced weapons and a great opportunity for our engineers to learn. Yes, the T-50 prototype is not looking polished at the moment, and we cannot compare it with the J-20 at the time with no pictures of the final product, but we can almost know for sure that the final product of the T-50 will be different.



Then China should have joint the T-50 project back in 2002.

Over 90% of China's technology was contributed by the hard work of the Chinese scientists. And you said China's technology was mostly from Russia which is a great disrespect to those scientists who have dedicated their entire lifetime to serve their country.

And Russia is not your daddy or mommy, and it will not unconditionally give you everything like your daddy and mommy give to you.

Even back in 1950s, where China and USSR's relationship was at its greatest time, they even refuse to help China to produce its atomic bomb.

Then you expect them to give you their top notch technology?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

Transgress said:


> Don't speak so quickly, whether you like it or not, you cannot deny the fact that china's military industry spawned from bought Russian tech. I would not be surprised if China decided to buy some T-50's, as it is one of Russia's most advanced weapons and a great opportunity for our engineers to learn. Yes, the T-50 prototype is not looking polished at the moment, and we cannot compare it with the J-20 at the time with no pictures of the final product, but we can almost know for sure that the final product of the T-50 will be different.



Another troll with 1 "thank" for every 3 "posts" (e.g. 16 thanks in 48 posts).

*For the last time, the J-20 Mighty Dragon is superior to the T-50 in almost every way. China will not buy a spruced-up fourth-generation T-50 piece of junk.*

----------

*Look closely at the "fit and finish" of the J-20 Mighty Dragon:*







[Note: Thank you to "Sczepan" for the pictures.]

*When you possess superior technology like this:*

*Beautiful pictures of China's J-20 Stealth Fighter in the air*











[Note: Thank you to "Maozedong" and "Dingyibvs" for the pictures.]

----------
*
Would you buy this over-riveted piece of junk?*





The Russian T-50 engine layout is very similar to other Sukhoi aircraft, such as Su-30 or Su-27. It is a straight air-inlet. The Russian T-50 air intake, with fully-exposed engine fan blades, pushes its RCS above the French Rafale.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Transgress

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Then China should have joint the T-50 project back in 2002.
> 
> Over 90% of China's technology was contributed by the hard work of the Chinese scientists. And you said China's technology was mostly from Russia which is a great disrespect to those scientists who have dedicated their entire lifetime to serve their country.
> 
> And Russia is not your daddy or mommy, and it will not unconditionally give you everything like your daddy and mommy give to you.
> 
> Even back in 1950s, where China and USSR's relationship was at its greatest time, they even refuse to help China to produce its atomic bomb.
> 
> Then you expect them to give you their top notch technology?



I am not disrespecting our scientists. China had literally no modern technology in WW2, even as far as the Korean war. Without foreign weapons, mostly from Russia, our scientists cannot catch up magically when we were behind several decades from the rest of the world. However, it still takes immense skill and ambition for our scientists to study and eventually master the art of manufacturing weapons, again, mainly from studying Russian designs. By doing this, our scientists have made their own designs, almost through "rediscovering" Russian weapons. This is how our defense industry was built, and look at far we have caught up, all from almost 0 indigenous modern tech.

Regarding the purchase of T-50's, if a genuine Russian article (saw it, don't know about its legitimacy) stated that China was buying T-50's, it means they are interested in selling. I'm just saying that in that scenario, China should consider, and not simply dismiss due to nationalism, as it is an opportunity.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

The Chinese weapons are usually divided into two categories, pure Chinese vs Chinese/Russian mix like for examples;

J-20 vs J-16

Type 052C vs Type 051C

Type 089 vs Type 085

Meanwhile China is usually favoring the weapons with pure Chinese bloodline like J-20/052C/089 to play the main roles and letting the ones with Russian bloodline to play the supporting roles.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Transgress said:


> I am not disrespecting our scientists. China had literally no modern technology in WW2, even as far as the Korean war. Without foreign weapons, mostly from Russia, our scientists cannot catch up magically when we were behind several decades from the rest of the world. However, it still takes immense skill and ambition for our scientists to study and eventually master the art of manufacturing weapons, again, mainly from studying Russian designs. By doing this, our scientists have made their own designs, almost through "rediscovering" Russian weapons. This is how our defense industry was built, and look at far we have caught up, all from almost 0 indigenous modern tech.
> 
> Regarding the purchase of T-50's, if a genuine Russian article (saw it, don't know about its legitimacy) stated that China was buying T-50's, it means they are interested in selling. I'm just saying that in that scenario, China should consider, and not simply dismiss due to nationalism, as it is an opportunity.



J-16 is going to be similar to T-50, and i see there is no reason for China to waste its money on T-50 unnecessarily.


----------



## Transgress

Martian2 said:


> Another troll with 1 "thank" for every 3 "posts" (e.g. 16 thanks in 48 posts).
> 
> *For the last time, the J-20 Mighty Dragon is superior to the T-50 in almost every way. China will not buy a spruced-up fourth-generation T-50 piece of junk.*
> ----------
> 
> Would you buy this over-riveted piece of junk?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Russian T-50 engine layout is very similar to other Sukhoi aircraft, such as Su-30 or Su-27. It is a straight air-inlet. The Russian T-50 air intake, with fully-exposed engine fan blades, pushes its RCS above the French Rafale.



With the dismissal of your unnecessary personal attacks, i know that the J-20 is looking better than the T-50's prototype right now. And yes, again, i know that there are no pictures of the latest T-50, so we do not know what the final product looks like. I am simply stating that the final product could indeed be different and improved. I do not know for sure. However, in that scenario, China should consider buying. This is sukhoi we are talking about, they have experience. Neither you nor I can predict the future, and so we should not underestimate.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gayorgy

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Then China should have joint the T-50 project back in 2002.
> 
> Over 90% of China's technology was contributed by the hard work of the Chinese scientists. And you said China's technology was mostly from Russia which is a great disrespect to those scientists who have dedicated their entire lifetime to serve their country.
> 
> And Russia is not your daddy or mommy, and it will not unconditionally give you everything like your daddy and mommy give to you.
> 
> Even back in 1950s, where China and USSR's relationship was at its greatest time, they even refuse to help China to produce its atomic bomb.
> 
> Then you expect them to give you their top notch technology?



You over nationalistic hermits, need to give credit where credit is due, Russian procurement has allowed the Chinese to close the technological gap with the West by at least 2 decades if not more. Now that the Chinese have all the knowledge ween from reverse engineering predominantly Russian tech, and also higher literacy rate they may be able to finally be independent of foreign arms, but the stop gap over the past 30 years were filled with Russian tech, you sound like a total ingrate, have you forgotten that after the collapse of the soviet union, hundreds of the top russian scientist that were suddenly out of a job were recruited by the Chinese Government that helped sped up Chinese technological progress even more? Speaking like a total ingrate with a pea size brain typical of a Hokkien wierdo. Even if Russia is a threat or competitor or you just plain hate the country because a Russian man did bad things to you, does not allow you to twist the truth, you are only making a fool of yourself asshole.


----------



## Martian2

Transgress said:


> With the dismissal of your unnecessary personal attacks, i know that the J-20 is looking better right now. And yes, again, i know that there are no pictures of the latest T-50. I am simply stating that the final product could indeed be different, and improved. I do not know for sure. However, in that scenario, China should consider buying. This is sukhoi we are talking about, they have experience. Neither you nor I can predict the future, and so we should not underestimate.



Another Indian troll in Canada. There are way too many of you anti-China Indians everywhere.

You're an idiot, because Richard Fisher had already informed you in 2008 that China was not interested at all in the Russian T-50 project. However, just like that other troll Zabanya, you keep spreading the rumor and insist that China may buy the Russian T-50. Give it up, you stupid troll. Stop trying to mislead forum readers.

I've already quoted GlobalSecurity and well-known defense analyst Richard Fisher. And yet, you keep raising the specter of China potentially buying the inferior Russian T-50. What's the problem with you Indians? And no, your false flag won't fool me.

Go to the Indian sub-forum to spread your crap.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## no_name

I don't think China would buy T-50. Russia would probably insist on buying a sizeable batch in one go which China may not be prepared to commit. The Su-33 deal already fell through.

About the J20 T50 debate I think we should all stop beating dead horses.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

Gayorgy said:


> You over nationalistic hermits, need to give credit where credit is due, Russian procurement has allowed the Chinese to close the technological gap with the West by at least 2 decades if not more. Now that the Chinese have all the knowledge ween from reverse engineering predominantly Russian tech, and also higher literacy rate they may be able to finally be independent of foreign arms, but the stop gap over the past 30 years were filled with Russian tech, you sound like a total ingrate, have you forgotten that after the collapse of the soviet union, hundreds of the top russian scientist that were suddenly out of a job were recruited by the Chinese Government that helped sped up Chinese technological progress even more? Speaking like a total ingrate with a pea size brain typical of a Hokkien wierdo. Even if Russia is a threat or competitor or you just plain hate the country because a Russian man did bad things to you, does not allow you to twist the truth, *you are only making a fool of yourself asshole*.



In the two years that I've been here, you have the privilege of being the seventh person that I have reported for violating forum rules. Your stay will be short Newbie.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

no_name said:


> I don't think China would by T-50. Russia would probably insist on buying a sizeable batch in one go which China may not be prepared to commit. The Su-33 deal already fell through.
> 
> About the J20 T50 debate I think we should all stop beating dead horses.



Who knows. The SAC may express interest. Maybe they'll decide to merge with Sukhoi later down the road.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Transgress

Martian2 said:


> Another Indian troll in Canada. There are way too many of you anti-China Indians everywhere.
> 
> You're an idiot, because Richard Fisher had already informed you in 2008 that China was not interested at all in the Russian T-50 project. However, just like that other troll Zabanya, you keep spreading the rumor and insist that China may buy the Russian T-50. Give it up, you stupid troll. Stop trying to mislead forum readers.
> 
> I've already quoted GlobalSecurity and well-known defense analyst Richard Fisher. And yet, you keep raising the specter of China potentially buying the inferior Russian T-50. What's the problem with you Indians. And no, your false flag won't fool me.
> 
> Go to the Indian sub-forum to spread your crap.



I can assure you i am Chinese, i do not know how you think i am Indian, as my posts were neutral. In fact, in my past, i have actually posted some anti-indian posts to members who frustrated me, but you seem to resort to personal attacks whenever someone disagrees with you. My apologies if my outrageous ideas offended you in some way.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gayorgy

Martian2 said:


> In the two years that I've been here, you have the privilege of being the seventh person that I have reported for violating forum rules. Your stay will be short Newbie.



Are you denying history that after the fall of the soviet union China recruited thousands of Soviet scientist to sped up their military advances, many of those scientist are still given honorary positions in China today? So you are basically going to deny all those facts as well, because it hurts your nationalistic pride that China receives plenty of outside help in their tech drive? What is so shameful is that you can't even admit the truth!


----------



## Martian2

Transgress said:


> I can assure you i am Chinese, i do not know how you think i am Indian, as my posts were neutral. In fact, in my past, i have actually posted some anti-indian posts to members who frustrated me, but you seem to resort to personal attacks whenever someone disagrees with you. My apologies if my outrageous ideas offended you in some way.



A post with no reasonable logic or supported by a mainstream citation is garbage. You are spreading rumors and falsehoods. Seems very similar to the posts by anti-Chinese Indians to me.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Gayorgy said:


> You over nationalistic hermits, need to give credit where credit is due, Russian procurement has allowed the Chinese to close the technological gap with the West by at least 2 decades if not more. Now that the Chinese have all the knowledge ween from reverse engineering predominantly Russian tech, and also higher literacy rate they may be able to finally be independent of foreign arms, but the stop gap over the past 30 years were filled with Russian tech, you sound like a total ingrate, have you forgotten that after the collapse of the soviet union, hundreds of the top russian scientist that were suddenly out of a job were recruited by the Chinese Government that helped sped up Chinese technological progress even more? Speaking like a total ingrate with a pea size brain typical of a Hokkien wierdo. Even if Russia is a threat or competitor or you just plain hate the country because a Russian man did bad things to you, does not allow you to twist the truth, you are only making a fool of yourself asshole.



China's space program was purely Chinese, same for China's nuclear program.

I just fail to see what connection it has to do with Russia.

Yeah, there are few Soviet scientists came to China after the collapse of USSR, but they were voluntary to come, and China never forced them to come. Meanwhile their outputs are still insignificant compared to that of China's own scientists. Nevertheless, i am still grateful to those Soviet scientists have contributed their effort to China's scientific development in the last two decades.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Martian2

Gayorgy said:


> Are you denying history that after the fall of the soviet union China recruited thousands of Soviet scientist to sped up their military advances, many of those scientist are still given honorary positions in China today? So you are basically going to deny all those facts as well, because it hurts your nationalistic pride that China receives plenty of outside help in their tech drive? What is so shameful is that you can't even admit the truth!



That is not the topic being discussed. We are discussing whether China with its own indigenous J-20 Mighty Dragon program will buy the foreign Russian T-50 fighter.

I don't want to discuss unrelated ancient history.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

Gayorgy said:


> Are you denying history that after the fall of the soviet union China recruited thousands of Soviet scientist to sped up their military advances, many of those scientist are still given honorary positions in China today? So you are basically going to deny all those facts as well, because it hurts your nationalistic pride that China receives plenty of outside help in their tech drive? What is so shameful is that you can't even admit the truth!



The actual number is probably in the hundreds rather than the thousands but yes, Russian engineers working in China did speed up the modernization process significantly. There was a photo of a Russian looking guy working with Yang Wei in one of the older photos (taken in 2009-2010?).


----------



## Gayorgy

Martian2 said:


> That is not the topic being discussed. We are discussing whether China with its own indigenous J-20 Mighty Dragon program will buy the foreign Russian T-50 fighter. I don't want to discuss unrelated ancient history.



It's related because China is able to cut back on alot of the time needed to produce their own jet fighter independently, by at least a decade or so, since she was under complete embargo by other countries, and we all know just how crucial those decade or so is to national security.


----------



## Martian2

Gayorgy said:


> It's related because China is able to cut back on alot of the time needed to produce their own jet fighter independently, by at least a decade or so, since she was under complete embargo by other countries, and we all know just how crucial those decade or so is to national security.



That's a different topic. Go start a new thread.

Upon reflection, I probably won't release a new video comparing the J-20, F-22, F-35, and T-50. Given past Russian assistance, perhaps it would be unfair to them.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Gayorgy said:


> Are you denying history that after the fall of the soviet union China recruited thousands of Soviet scientist to sped up their military advances, many of those scientist are still given honorary positions in China today? So you are basically going to deny all those facts as well, because it hurts your nationalistic pride that China receives plenty of outside help in their tech drive? What is so shameful is that you can't even admit the truth!



The project of J-20 was started in early 1980s, way before the collapse of USSR.

The outcome you seen today is what China had planted the seed way back in 30 years ago, now it is just the harvest time.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Transgress

Martian2 said:


> A post with no reasonable logic or supported by a mainstream citation is garbage. You are spreading rumors and falsehoods. Seems very similar to the posts by anti-Chinese Indians to me.



Well, i guess you can call me naive, as i am probably quite young compared to members on this forum. 

Just saying, T-50 is a prototype, it will definitely change, but it might improve significantly. I am not producing any theories and rumors, i know that China will probably not buy T-50s. I am just simply stating dismissing the possibility of the T-50 being a great fighter is too early at this point. China buying it in the future could be an opportunity for our scientists to learn and improve new tech, which might branch off into many new discoveries, as China has done so many times before.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Gayorgy said:


> It's related because China is able to cut back on alot of the time needed to produce their own jet fighter independently, by at least a decade or so, since she was under complete embargo by other countries, and we all know just how crucial those decade or so is to national security.



I am not sure what you are upset at.

Yeah, some Chinese weapons have significantly Russian inputs, like Type 051C/J-16/Type 085, and we are not denying it, but others not so much.

Not all Chinese weapons have Russian inputs, and if you insist that China should thank Russia for everything she got, then you are deadly wrong. China did not depend everything on Russia.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Transgress said:


> Well, i guess you can call me naive, as i am probably quite young compared to members on this forum.
> 
> Just saying, T-50 is a prototype, it will definitely change, but it might improve significantly. I am not producing any theories and rumors, i know that China will probably not buy T-50s. I am just simply stating dismissing the possibility of the T-50 being a great fighter is too early at this point. China buying it in the future could be an opportunity for our scientists to learn and improve new tech, which might branch off into many new discoveries, as China has done so many times before.



The possibility of China purchasing T-50 is probably no greater than Russia purchasing F-35 from USA.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## below_freezing

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The possibility of China purchasing T-50 is probably no greater than Russia purchasing F-35 from USA.



Don't give them any ideas. There might be rumors that China will drop J-20 to buy American F-35s in the future

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Martian2 said:


> That's a different topic. Go start a new thread.
> 
> Upon reflection, I probably won't release a new video comparing the J-20, F-22, F-35, and T-50. Given past Russian assistance, perhaps it would be unfair to them.



Russia deserves the credit for J-11 and J-16, but not J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

below_freezing said:


> Don't give them any ideas. There might be rumors that China will drop J-20 to buy American F-35s in the future



Yeah, the Internet fanboyism never ceases to amaze me.

First, China got the technology from Mig 1.44 to build J-20.

Then, J-20 was based on the stealth technology of F-117.

And what next? China builds the spacecraft by plagiarizing the technology from the Death Star.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## no_name

There is a nice section on a J-20 article in chinese about how the J-10 is not a copy of the Lavi. Israel's fighter requirements are different to China's. Due to the size of their country they don't place much emphasis on high speed capability. It's being worked on currently and should be translated in due time.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

no_name said:


> There is a nice article in chinese about how the J-10 is not a copy of the Lavi. Israel fighter requirement are different to China. Due to the size of their country they don't place much emphasis on high speed capability.



It is just some similarity, which can be coincidentally happened.

Nevertheless, the shared similarity between J-10 and Lavi is no more than the similarity between F-15 and Su-27.

For anyone who has a decent knowledge about the Chinese aviation history, he/she can see that both J-10 and J-20 were derived from the J-9 project.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Martian2

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Russia deserves the credit for J-11 and J-16, but not J-20.



I agree with you completely. I'm just thinking of leaving the Russians out of my next video on stealth fighter comparisons.

I had made another video comparing a clean French Rafale to the Russian T-50. I looked at the result and I was worried that it may look too anti-Russian. I never posted it. I try to be fair.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## VKVM

Gayorgy said:


> Are you denying history that after the fall of the soviet union China recruited thousands of Soviet scientist to sped up their military advances, many of those scientist are still given honorary positions in China today? So you are basically going to deny all those facts as well, because it hurts your nationalistic pride that China receives plenty of outside help in their tech drive? What is so shameful is that you can't even admit the truth!


 
Well to be fair, the US also recruited, or more accurately, kidnapped most of the German Nazi scientist. Is is because of these Nazi scientist that the US is so technically advanced today in terms of military.

But you are clearly exaggerating things here. You seem to be very upset and maybe that has clouded your thinking?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## no_name

The US also recruited many post-soviet scientists, they can pay these people to just sit in US rather than having them going over to China.


----------



## siegecrossbow

no_name said:


> The US also recruited many post-soviet scientists, they can pay these people to just sit in US rather than having them going over to China.



I was under the impression that the U.S. was interested in the physicists and mathematicians.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> *There seems to be a general lack of knowledge of stealth principles* and I think I will release a new video in the next few weeks to explain the differences among the J-20, F-22, F-35, and T-50. I suggest that people, who are overly nationalistic, should not watch it. It will be an objective and clinical discussion of the proper and improper application of stealth design principles for all four fighters.


And *YOU* are a member of that group. That is funny that you could say that considering what you learned of the basics of radar detection and rudimentary 'stealth' techniques came from me. And yes, I dare say that. But we will examine a couple of points of your arguments.

From my time in front of many groups, I know that the more colorful the charts, the less clarity the subject. Your kaleidoscope of the J-20 wrapped in many colors serves only to confuse the genuinely interested laymen and to awe the gullible. I will give the readers something more simple but much more clarifying to the basic principles that you do not know but lies about knowing.

We know that structurally speaking, the diverter inlet plate assembly is more complex than a DSI 'bump', however, your argument is clearly deceptive for those of us who know better...



> Martian2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (Note the J-20 air-inlet has been better integrated into the fuselage than the F-22's gap between the air-inlet and fuselage.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martian2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> China's J-20 is the new gold standard in front-profile stealth. The J-20 has both a serpentine air-duct and DSI bump to hide the engine compressor blades. *Due to its older design, the F-22 lacks DSI bumps.*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The simplistic implication here is that because the DSI system is allegedly 'newer' therefore the older diverter plates must be detrimental to the F-22's radar cross section (RCS).

Utter garbage...!!!







In as complex and spatially dynamic body as an aircraft where RCS control is paramount, the greatest contributors must receive the greatest attention and contributorship reduction treatments. That mean the fuselage, flight controls elements, external stores, and engines. Obviously we cannot eliminate the fuselage and today we still need flight control surfaces of varying sizes. When we can no longer treat them, either through shaping or other methods, we can then work our attention to lesser contributors gradually like the cockpit area, comm antennas, and so on.

From the airliner's RCS graph above, would it be worth it to turn out attention to the cockpit or the fuselage or anywhere else? No. That single vertical stab will overwhelm even the crudest video display of any other aircraft characteristics that may cluster with it. If its RCS contributorship cannot be reduced, not to zero, but to some reasonable degree, then it would be worthless to treat everything else on the aircraft to lower them below a certain threshold. That is like seeing a shark's dorsal fin moving above the surface but nothing else of the shark because of the water. Even in a frontal RCS view, the vertical stab's edge length can still be among the dominant contributors, if not the greatest.

So why does the J-20 has a DSI inlet system?

We know that diverterless supersonic inlet (DSI) system is not new. The F-111 has it and its DSI 'bumps' were moveable at that. We call them 'translating spikes'...






So if we know that the DSI system pre-dated 'stealth' we can rule out the absurd argument floating around that DSI was created as an RCS control method. Any RCS reduction for the engines due to the DSI inlets are purely incidental, meaning as a by-product, not because DSI was originally intended for 'stealth' and it can be reasonably argued that since there is a side benefit we should use it anyway.

We will now examine another bit of stupidity that ties in with the previous one...



Martian2 said:


> I have two observations. Firstly, as shown in the spliced-photo above, I believe that I have been proven correct that the J-20 matches the F-22's frontal profile in stealth design.



You have proven nothing more than your argument is for the gullible and the stupid. But we are willing to humor you so assume -- *JUST ASSUME FOR NOW* -- that what you say is true despite the lack of credible data.

If the J-20 need the DSI system in order to match the F-22 in terms of frontal RCS then two possibilities are of note:

- That the J-20's frontal RCS must have been higher than the F-22 and that the DSI system was needed. This does not bodes well for China because it heavily imply that China does not have the technical expertise to match US.

- That despite the diverter plates structural complexity, the F-22's entire inlet system turned out to be far less significant RCS contributors than thought. It is not that difficult to reason out: That Lockheed shaped all the major contributors so well that lesser contributors do not need as much attention or even none at all.

Remember, this is based upon the very generous assumption that frontal RCS for both aircrafts are statistically insignificant in difference.

But what if we remove this assumption? For all we know, Lockheed could have found out that enlarging the F-22's inlet volume, or make the fuselage 'thicker' to accomodate more fuel, or make the fuselage wider to carry more weapons, actually increased frontal RCS than having those 'conventional' diverter plates. Removal of this generous assumption will make the F-22 the greater standard than it already is when compared to the J-20. We do not know. So for you to demand that we cannot judge 'stealth' based upon looks but *YOURSELF* do exactly just that is the delicious irony that we all enjoy at your expense. I do not care if both are shaped similar. What matter is credible technical data. For all we know, the J-20 may be 'out of shape' just enough to make more detectable than you want to admit. Do not tell me that I do not know the semantical and contextual differences between 'looks' and 'shapes'. I used to be in the industry, buddy.



Martian2 said:


> From a stealth design perspective, there is no effective difference between placing two little winglets (i.e. canards) in front of the main wings or behind them (i.e. tailplanes).


That is technically false. This is real physics, not Chinese physics. All flight control elements are EM radiators (generators) and because real physics demands these signals interact with each other their positions on a complex body matter. The canards' diffracted signals will interact with the wings and fuselage creating higher odds of detection.

And finally, the J-20's DSI 'bumps' are not detrimental to RCS but the F-35's various 'bumps' are. Must be Chinese physics. 

---------- Post added at 08:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:22 PM ----------




ptldM3 said:


> Put a quark in it, many of the thanks you receive are nothing more than a mutual suck-up fest. Post a picture receive 10 tanks. Post something like long live China Pakistan friendship receive 10 more thanks.


It really is sad that the man must resort to this low level of narcissism where he has to reinforce his ego by boasting about those mostly worthless 'Thanks' for mostly useless posts.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## below_freezing

Gambit:

Can you comment on the limitations of physical optics theory applied to RCS measurement for the J-20?

Would changing to hardcore computational EM approaches significantly change the "answer"?

If not, then why can't we use the much simpler physical optics theory?


----------



## gambit

below_freezing said:


> Gambit:
> 
> Can you comment on the limitations of physical optics theory applied to RCS measurement for the J-20?
> 
> Would changing to hardcore computational EM approaches significantly change the "answer"?
> 
> If not, then why can't we use the much simpler physical optics theory?


Your fellow Chinese countrymen commented about the limitations of PO back on post 76 page 6.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> When it comes to stealth, you can't use "looks" as a standard. The fighter-concept drawing is flawed. The nose is round. That is not stealthy. It needs a "shaped nose" like a duck-bill with a chine/ridge line.


You are correct and am willing to give you that. However, you are correct in that you guessed based upon how older designs 'looks'. There is a difference between being correct from guesses and being correct based upon knowledge. Am willing to bet you do not know why a 'round nose' is less desirable than a 'non-round nose'. By the way, good luck on trying to find the answer on the Internet. You will need it. The answer is based upon an understanding of behaviors.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## below_freezing

gambit said:


> Your fellow Chinese countrymen commented about the limitations of PO back on post 76 page 6.



Yes I saw that, but that does not mean that PO itself is completely wrong. It has limitations but may be a useful approximation; and if the approximation is within the same order of magnitude as the true value, then its still "acceptable".


----------



## gambit

below_freezing said:


> Yes I saw that, but that does not mean that PO itself is completely wrong. It has limitations but may be a useful approximation; and if the approximation is within the same order of magnitude as the true value, then its still "acceptable".


And I challenge you to find where I said Physical Optics is a 'wrong' tool.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> This T-50 photograph clearly shows no horizontal serpentine air-inlet.


What about vertical? I would like to see the Chinese physics where a serpentine inlet tunnel can only occur in the horizontal plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## fakein

gambit said:


> What about vertical? I would like to see the Chinese physics where a serpentine inlet tunnel can only occur in the horizontal plane.



You could have better rebutted with proof of T50 having vertical serpentine inlets.


----------



## Martian2

The picture of the T-50 clearly shows there is little height difference between the air inlet and exhaust.

From my January 23, 2011 post:

This is what happens when an aircraft is poorly designed for stealth; no Serpentine air inlets or DSI bumps to hide the engine compressor blades. I'm only going to give you one guess as to which aircraft is clearly the least-stealthy among the Russian T-50, China's J-20, and U.S. F-35.





Russian T-50 with giant exposed engine fan blades staring at you. By the way, the bright yellow metal frame for the cockpit canopy is also not stealthy.

This is a picture of the J-20 from my video:





J-20 stealth fighter with DSI bumps and properly-designed S-air inlets.

Here is a F-35 with DSI bumps and S-air inlets to the single engine.





U.S. F-35 with DSI bumps and S-air inlets.


----------



## Martian2

From my February 5, 2011 post:





Russian T-50 engine compressor is staring you in the face. It is not hidden by a non-existent serpentine and/or DSI air-inlet. By the way, that metal-framed cockpit canopy is clearly visible to radar.





This T-50 photograph clearly shows no horizontal serpentine air-inlet.





Side-profile of a Su-30 looks extremely similar to the side-profile of a T-50. If you're going to claim that the T-50 has vertical serpentine air-inlets then you might as well make the same ridiculous claim for the fourth-generation Su-30.





Russian T-50 side-profile looks very similar to fourth-generation Su-30. An extreme height difference between the air-inlet and exhaust does not exist. All photographs show the air duct design and air-inlet-exhaust-nozzle height difference between the Su-30 and T-50 are very similar.





Stop looking at cartoons and look at real photographs with your eyes. Your eyes tell you that the air enters the T-50 air-inlets and travels straight out through the exhaust nozzles. There are no horizontal or vertical serpentine air ducts because your eyes confirm this fact.


----------



## Martian2

The straight (e.g. in both the horizontal and vertical sense) engine pod for the Russian T-50 looks almost exactly like the engine pod for the Su-30. If you want to make the ridiculous claim that the T-50 has vertical serpentine air ducts then you would have to make the absurd claim that the Su-30 engine pod was stealthy from a long time ago.

From my August 4, 2011 post:





This T-50 photograph clearly shows no horizontal serpentine air-inlet.





Su-30 MKI underside. Very similar to T-50 underside, no?





Your eyes tell you that the air enters the T-50 air-inlets and travels straight out through the exhaust nozzles. There are no horizontal or vertical serpentine air ducts because your eyes confirm this fact.

*T-50 and Su-30 MKI undersides are very similar. Same vents and straight engine nacelles.*

[Note: I flipped the original Su-30 MKI picture horizontally for an easier comparison.]


----------



## Martian2

This photograph is from Sukhoi. If you look closely, you can see the engine blades. How can there possibly be a vertical serpentine air duct when the engine blades are visible.?

*Here is my question. I have been posting these pictures and my analyses for nine months. Why doesn't Gambit know that the Russian T-50 has no vertical serpentine air ducts? He's either an idiot or blind. Those are the only two choices and both cast disrepute on his anti-Chinese views.*

*Forum members that disagree with me are not "idiots." They become idiots when they continue to stubbornly hold on to ridiculous positions after being presented with incontrovertible photographic evidence, ironclad logic, or confronted with a mainstream citation.*





Look closely, do you see those gigantic fan blades in the engine? Enemy radar can see them too. So, just exactly how is the Russian T-50 stealthy?

----------

The picture of the exposed fan blades in the Russian T-50 starboard engine pod (see above) is corroborated by another picture (see below) showing exposed fan blades in the port-side engine pod.





Russian T-50. Is it even stealthy? Look at those giant engine fan blades.


----------



## Martian2

Russian T-50 aircraft aerobatic flight at Moscow air show (MAKS-2011) on August 19, 2011

I have a few more complaints about the T-50 underside that I want Sukhoi to fix.

1. I've already mentioned the non-stealthy gaps, vents, and stuff jutting out. Notice the engine pods and fuselage are at different heights.

2. It has been over a year since the T-50 debut, there is no excuse to not cover the exposed engine nacelle with RAM material. Do you see the non-stealthy gleaming metal? If Sukhoi has a cooling problem, hire more engineers to fix the problem.

3. The air ducts are canted only for the forward-portion. The photograph clearly shows that Sukhoi did not bother to encase the engine pod in a fully canted air duct. The rear-part of the air ducts are the round engine pods, which is not stealthy.

----------

The underside of a stealth superfighter should look like China's J-20 Mighty Dragon:





J-20 Mighty Dragon enters into a dive.

1. No vents, gaps, or stuff jutting out.

2. Engine pods are completely enclosed in RAM material.

3. Entire air duct is canted.

[Note: Thank you to Marchpole for the J-20 picture.]

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## below_freezing

gambit said:


> And I challenge you to find where I said Physical Optics is a 'wrong' tool.



What I mean is, despite it being only an approximation and perhaps not entirely appropriate to the situation, if its within an order of magnitude correct its still acceptable and the "relative effectiveness assessment" is still good.


----------



## Martian2

DrSomnath999 said:


> oh really!! actually good to see u in ur true colour ,it was for u only i deleted all my hate speech against that martian fellow
> & instead that guy repeatedly abused me & u r accussing me of showing ur true colour .Shame on u man.Just becoz he is chinese ur supporting him,well u r same as anti indians as every other chinese in these forum .Great keep it up!



Though you've only been on Defense.pk for a few days, you definitely hold the record for the longest whine with approximately 15 to 20 posts in one day.

If you don't like the Chinese sub-forum, feel free to move over to the Indian sub-forum or go back to IDF. Just stop whining. Thank you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Luftwaffe

Transgress said:


> Don't speak so quickly, whether you like it or not, you cannot deny the fact that china's military industry spawned from bought Russian tech. I would not be surprised if China decided to buy some T-50's, as it is one of Russia's most advanced weapons and a great opportunity for our engineers to learn. Yes, the T-50 prototype is not looking polished at the moment, and we cannot compare it with the J-20 at the time with no pictures of the final product, but we can almost know for sure that the final product of the T-50 will be different.



Why would China opt a proven flawed non stealthy design T-50 to over throw multiple stealth projects.

China has the manpower, knowledge and funds, currently many projects are underway that barely russians can undertake, like J-11B, J-11BS, J-15, J-20, JH-7A/B, FC-1...

China is in no hurry they can stretch the time to come up with another successful stealth product design.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> This photograph is from Sukhoi. If you look closely, you can see the engine blades. How can there possibly be a vertical serpentine air duct when the engine blades are visible.?
> 
> *Here is my question. I have been posting these pictures and my analyses for nine months. Why doesn't Gambit know that the Russian T-50 has no vertical serpentine air ducts? He's either an idiot or blind. Those are the only two choices and both cast disrepute on his anti-Chinese views.*
> 
> *Forum members that disagree with me are not "idiots." They become idiots when they continue to stubbornly hold on to ridiculous positions after being presented with incontrovertible photographic evidence, ironclad logic, or confronted with a mainstream citation.*


Would those 'idiots' include Chinese engineers as well who certainly does have far more knowledge and experience than you who persist on hanging on to specious data created by inappropriate tool based upon estimations of physical dimensions derived from photographs?


----------



## houshanghai

Russian T50 is just a trick to get indian money, The real russian 5 gen fighter is the other one.I suspect.Russian did not produce their best high tech in T50 ,Which isnot stealthy design . And i believe that SAC J16's stealth ability is also better than T50.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PERSIAN GOD KING

The j-20 looks soo cool.


----------



## Speeder 2

Venkata Venmuri said:


> *My friend*, in this world, *money talks*. ... Essentially, India will *become * Russia's *sugar daddy*.
> 
> *The future* is not Russia. It *is India*.




Now newbie, I am aware that it might be a bit hard for you but pedaling homosexuality, pedophilia, and general wet **** dreams for future or past, are *NOT* allowed on this board, unlike Indian forums! 

Be warned.

/


----------



## Transgress

Luftwaffe said:


> Why would China opt a proven flawed non stealthy design T-50 to over throw multiple stealth projects.
> 
> China has the manpower, knowledge and funds, currently many projects are underway that barely russians can undertake, like J-11B, J-11BS, J-15, J-20, JH-7A/B, FC-1...
> 
> China is in no hurry they can stretch the time to come up with another successful stealth product design.



Again with this... i did not say that China WILL buy T-50's. I am simply telling certain members to exercise caution towards their "comparing" posts, albeit in a bashing manner towards the T-50. I am also saying that there is a POTENTIAL for the T-50 to be extremely polished, with new features added on. If that is the case, why wouldn't China attempt to buy them? I KNOW that the possibility is very low with all the factors included, but I would like to remind that the J-20 and T-50 are both prototypes, and I like all of you, cannot predict the future.

I felt the need to post because of various "comparing" posts between the J-20 and the T-50, with the majority containing a deep hatred towards the T-50, are one-sided and sometimes contain comments degrading Sukhoi or even Russia as a whole. I feel that these side-comments are unnecessary.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Speeder 2 said:


> Now newbie, I am aware that it might be a bit hard for you but pedaling homosexuality, pedophilia, and general wet **** dreams for future or past, are *NOT* allowed on this board, unlike Indian forums!
> 
> Be warned.
> 
> /



Please, avoid making the personal attack.

I think he had some points, as if India gets richer and Russia gets poorer, then there is no reason why Russia won't sell its first hand technology to India.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Akasa

Martian2 said:


> Watch my video. It has numerous citations to well-known industry publications like AviationWeek. Also, at the end of my video, I credit F-16.net for all uncredited quotations, which is based on the stealth standards established by the F-22.
> 
> Anyway, this is my last response to idiotic Indian China-haters, who have no idea what they're talking about regarding stealth principles.
> 
> ----------
> 
> My post from December 28, 2010:
> 
> *Time to grade J-20 Firefang against F-22 benchmarks*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China's J-20 Firefang stealth fighter
> 
> Full glass cockpit? Check.
> 
> High-tech glass digital display? Check.
> 
> Diamond-shaped nose to deflect radar away from transmitter? Check.
> 
> Diamond-shaped wings to ameliorate radar detection? Check.
> 
> Angled fuselage to deflect radar away from transmitter? Check.
> 
> Internal weapons bay? Check (almost indubitably; otherwise just stay with J-10).
> 
> RAM (i.e. radar absorption material/coating)? Check (looks like it's coated already).
> 
> J-20 prototype manufactured ahead of schedule? Check. Most of us thought it was at least a few years away.
> 
> Flat nozzles for engines? Not yet. Chinese engine technology needs a few more years to catch up.
> 
> Saw-toothed edges? Can't tell. Forthcoming high-resolution pictures will answer this question.
> 
> Sleek and beautiful? Check.
> 
> Final assessment: A+++ (F-22 technology at a China price!)



According to Huzhigeng the J-20 has the largest AESA radar of all 5th generation fighters and will be more powerful than the F-22's AESA.


----------



## ptldM3

SinoSoldier said:


> According to Huzhigeng the J-20 has the largest AESA radar of all 5th generation fighters and will be more powerful than the F-22's AESA.



And define 'powerful'. Does Huzhigeng mind telling everyone where he got his information? For starters the NIIP's performance is classified.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VKVM

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Please, avoid making the personal attack.
> 
> I think he had some points, as if India gets richer and Russia gets poorer, then there is no reason why Russia won't sell its first hand technology to India.



That trend is already happening.. I don't mind if India recruits all their skilled engineers and scientists once their economy become fulled eclipsed by India's economy, and they want to further their future; India will be where it will be at.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Venkata Venmuri said:


> That trend is already happening.. I don't mind if India recruits all their skilled engineers and scientists once their economy become fulled eclipsed by India's economy, and they want to further their future; India will be where it will be at.



Definitely, i personally don't believe some conspiracy theories that suggest T-50 is a fake 5th gen just to milk India.

I think T-50 is what the best Russia can offer on the table, and they just need more funds from India to keep their ongoing projects alive.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VKVM

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Definitely, i personally don't believe some conspiracy theories that suggest T-50 is a fake 5th gen just to milk India.
> 
> I think T-50 is what the best Russia can offer on the table, and they just need more fund from India to keep their ongoing projects alive.



They really have no other choice. We are where the money is at and the Russians know it.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Venkata Venmuri said:


> They really have no other choice. We are where the money is at and the Russians know it.



China also has a good years of experience dealing with Russia.

From our past experience, they wouldn't sell any of its strategic weapons to you even they are starving, but you can definitely get a good share of its conventional weapons.

That's why China got a good number of assistances on the conventional weapons from Russia back in 1990s, but they never helped us about the technology of the strategic weapons.


----------



## faithfulguy

Venkata Venmuri said:


> Not true. Russia is India's very close ally and they are in fact cooperating with us to develop the latest technology. Russia does not dare play us for a fool; the Russians know who they are messing with if they try anything funny.



So are you saying that Russia does not dare to play India for a fool? They already did with the carrier deal. They make India shell out more money after signed the contract. If that is not playing India as a fool, I do not know what would be in an arms deal.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

below_freezing said:


> What I mean is, despite it being only an approximation and perhaps not entirely appropriate to the situation, *if its within an order of magnitude correct its still acceptable and the "relative effectiveness assessment" is still good.*


No, it would not be good.

An order of magnitude is a factor of ten, just like 'db', and in radar detection, a loss of 10db or a reduction of RCS of 10db will allow the aircraft to cut the effective distance in half before it is marked as a valid target.

Here are APA's own words...

A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype


> The PO computational algorithm performs most accurately at broadside or near normal angles of incidence, with *decreasing accuracy at increasingly shallow angles of incidence*, reflecting the limitions of PO modelling.


Remember, in radar detection *EVERYTHING* works off *REFLECTED* signals and their intensity. So if you want to know as much as possible the power intensity of a reflected signal, you want to see it at its fullest and what better than perpendicular?

What that sentence mean is that Physical Optics algorithms works best when the return is straight on as in 'normal angle of incidence'. The moment the viewer depart from perpendicular, the less accurate the algorithms can give us regarding the power intensity of the reflected signal. The more the viewing angle approaches horizontal the higher the percentage of that power intensity is away from the viewer. So oddly enough, the only time when PO can give us an accurate RCS value of a complex body is the frontal view where there are few surfaces that can give us 'normal angles of incidence'. In other words, in the frontal view, most deflected signals will be so far 'downstream' of the radar view those signals will become irrelevant. This is why the frontal RCS of every aircraft is the lowest.

But when we (the radar) are looking at the sides, which includes 'top' and 'bottom', we *KNOW* that there would be times when we would not be capturing all or a significant percentage of a reflected signal because we would not be in such a favorable 'normal' incidence angle all the time and that mean any RCS estimation would be suspicious. This uncertainty is compounded by the presence of as complex a body as an aircraft with its many reflecting surfaces forcing uncaptured percentages of reflected signals to interact with each other. This uncertainty was partially cleared up by Ufimtsev with his edge diffraction equations, with surface wave behavior algorithms, with null fields method, and many other.

Go back to what I said: That a 10db loss of reflected power intensity equals to half the effective detected distance, meaning the aircraft can come closer by half before it is qualified as a valid target.

I did not specified if that loss is through legitimate means such as shaping or absorber. That loss could be through sloppy math from a flawed analysis using an inadequate tool. In other words, if you know that PO is inappropriate *BY ITSELF* but you proceed anyway and if you record a 10db difference as you measure the aircraft from various viewing angles, you would be fooling yourself that you have just cut in half the effective detection distance of the J-20.

The problem here is that instead of a complex body like an aircraft, we have recorded as great as 30db differences between viewing angles *FROM THE SIMPLER AUTOMOBILE USING MORE ADVANCED TOOLS THAN PHYSICAL OPTICS*. So what make you think that we should accept PO alone?

Garbage in. Garbage out. Why do you think we have other tools to compensate for PO's known shortcomings?

What APA did was no different than a training exercise for the new junior engineer on how well he knows his software. In my days, instead of software we took the newbie down to the range to see if anyone has a full size model of any aircraft and see how well he set up his measurement regiment. If there are no aircraft then we use a car we got from the junk yard. Sometimes the person like that aspect of the job so much that he transferred out of the design dept. and into the range facility and become a range test designer.

Look at what your man said...



> Martian2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to stealth, you can't use "looks" as a standard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martian2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a huge difference between "looks" and SHAPING. I am discussing SHAPING and you can't tell the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

What is the difference between some aerodynamics values such as drag coefficient or aerodynamic efficiency and radar cross section? Keep in mind that both depends on the interaction of a body and a medium.

In aerodynamics, we measure some things and come up with some values from the target's perspective, meaning we measure the response of the body when aerodynamic forces are present, to put it simply.

But that does not mean if I shoot a 100 km/h air blast at a car I am going to get a return blast of air that also travels at 100 km/h when that blast of air make contact with the car.

But that is how radar detection works: From a viewer's perspective. Not from a target. That mean if I shoot an EM beam at the car, I will get an EM return and both signals will travel at the speed of light. It is from this return signal that I will perform many analysis and come up with a conclusion about that signal.

Your man violated his own rule, did not know it, and worse yet did not know why.

He assumed that just because the F-22 and the J-20 have similar shaping therefore they must have similar frontal RCS value and he made that assumption based upon looks, not from a viewer's analysis of reflected signals, of which no one has access to those data.

Do you remember those 'bow tie' RCS graphs?

The Radar Game


> A Tale of Three Shapes
> 
> Combat aircraft in today's inventory employ a number of different techniques for reducing their Radar Cross Sections, which are of three different shapes. The *Fuzzball, Pacman, and Bowtie shapes* are highly simplified symbols for basic signature patterns. Actual signatures are considerably more complex, of course, and information about them is restricted. The three shapes are used to depict how general patterns of RCS reduction give attackers a revolutionary edge.
> 
> ...the theoretical *Bowtie shape has a 15 dB reduction in RCS in its front and rear aspects.*


The 'bowtie' shape cannot be measured by sitting in the aircraft's cockpit. It must be allowed to form from reflected signals from the viewer's perspective. See that 15db reduction figure? That will cut effective detection distance by slightly more than half. We cannot calculate that by sitting in the aircraft's cockpit.

A Ferrari and a Lamborghini can have very similar aerodynamics and does have similar shaping to achieve those aerodynamic values. But because unlike aerodynamic forces where there are no returns we have feedback with EM signals so that despite similar shaping there can be great enough differences in db that will mean life or death.

Again...Your man violated his own rule, did not know it, and worse yet did not know why.

He based his assumption from looks, totally devoid of any credible data, and in favor of the J-20, just because the shaping of the J-20 is visually similar to the F-22 in shape. Then he pompously crowed about how many 'Thanked' him for his 'useful' (more like borderline useless) posts, how many viewed his silly video, and he called others names just because they challenged his baseless assumptions.

You guys can take this crap back to your two playgrounds where every gullible conscript reject will trip over each other and 'Thank' you for it and where the admin staff will protect you from criticisms. But you will not be so protected here.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## marshall

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The project of J-20 was started in early 1980s, way before the collapse of USSR.
> 
> The outcome you seen today is what China had planted the seed way back in 30 years ago, now it is just the harvest time.


I'm pretty sure this is wrong. It sounds like you are mixing up the timeline with the J-10. Studies for the J-10 fighter began in the early 1980s from the remnants of the stillborn J-9 and possibly, but unlikely contribution of the Israeli Lavi, that has never been definitively proven. The J-20 program began in the late 1990s.


----------



## Whazzup

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Definitely, i personally don't believe some conspiracy theories that suggest T-50 is a fake 5th gen just to milk India.
> 
> I think T-50 is what the best Russia can offer on the table, and they just need more funds from India to keep their ongoing projects alive.



I don't understand the mindstand of certain members outhere no one is saying that J20 is better or Pakfa is better but calling T50 a low stealthy fighter is the worst idea they can come up with I just fail to understand why would India will go with a low stealthy plane like T50 when US is already trying hard to sell us F35???
Pakfa will be the best beast Russians can come up with .


----------



## Whazzup

Martian2 said:


> Of course, you're an anti-Chinese Indian troll. You're a new member with few "thanked" posts (e.g. 36 "thanks" in 146 posts for a very low 1 to 4 ratio). Most of you newbies are just a bunch of Indian trolls, who are looking for trouble in the Chinese sub-forum.
> 
> The Chinese sub-forum is different from the Indian sub-forum in two key ways:
> 
> 1. The Chinese sub-forum engages in open debate. If the Indian whiner doesn't like the debate occurring in this thread, he is free to post in the Military Photos section. However, he chose the Chinese sub-forum and he should understand that Chinese issues are discussed in ALL of the threads.
> 
> 2. The Chinese sub-forum is based on facts. Indians can say whatever they want in the Indian sub-forum without being challenged on the facts. When you come in here, expect to be confronted with pictures, solid analysis, and citations to mainstream publications and acknowledged experts (e.g. Jane's, GlobalSecurity, AviationWeek, Australia Air Power, Richard Fisher, etc.). If you can't defend your unsubstantiated claims with solid arguments and proof then you should stay in the Indian sub-forum.
> 
> 
> While you amateurs in the Indian sub-forum are congratulating yourselves on how sleek the Russian T-50 looks, the rest of us in the Chinese sub-forum are wondering why there is no RAM coating on the engines and the lack of a canted air duct for the rear-part of the engine pods.
> 
> Later today, I'll put up a post to show minor violations of planform alignment in the Russian T-50 design. Like I said, the Chinese sub-forum is about professional analysis. If you're not ready for this kind of debate, you should return to the Indian sub-forum for amateurs; where no one will challenge you with facts.



You are the most dumdest character I have seen on this Earth till now who has just insulted other members till now and sang some nice songs to praise China whenever found yourself cornerd and you dare not talk about technical view till now what you have really did is to post some pics of J20 and T50 and tried to compare their stealthy design 
If you really want a technical view I guess Ptldm3 is the best person fot that but I am sure you will call him a troll or stupid too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Whazzup

Zabanya said:


> ^^^You must have a lot of time on your hands



Nahh it seems to me that whether he is a very short temper buddy who just start insulting other people if they don't agree with him or the biggest retard in this world , don't know what mods are doing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

"Rolls eyes" at the drama in this thread.

Don't you guys have anything better to do? Go read my post on "China's Regional Strike ASBM vs. US R&D into Prompt Global Strike."

Link (see post #21): http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...eapons-will-blow-your-mind-2.html#post2097974


----------



## SQ8

Gentlemen.. please remain within the decorum of the Forum.. and its rules.
And agree to disagree when you cannot convince the other person.. instead of trying to shove your argument up like an enema.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gubbi

Martian2 said:


> "Rolls eyes" at the drama in this thread.
> 
> Don't you guys have anything better to do? *Go read my post on China's Regional Strike ASBM vs. US R&D for Prompt Global Strike*.


What are you? Some kind of authority on defense systems? Those posts you "quote" are simply jokes! Throwing around big words doesnt make YOU a defense analyst!! 

Sorry mate. Your posts are absurd, stupid and delusional. You are and will remain a thickskull jester.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SQ8

Coming back to the top ten future weapons of China.. 
I believe what has been disregarded as the one of top future weapons of China.. is cyber warfare.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

Santro said:


> Coming back to the top ten future weapons of China..
> I believe what has been disregarded as the one of top future weapons of China.. is cyber warfare.


i had posted it look page no 2

---------- Post added at 08:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:51 PM ----------




gubbi said:


> What are you? Some kind of authority on defense systems? Those posts you "quote" are simply jokes! Throwing around big words doesnt make YOU a defense analyst!!
> 
> Sorry mate. Your posts are absurd, stupid and delusional. You are and will remain a thickskull jester.


i fully agree with u ,he has spoiled my thread

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

gubbi said:


> What are you? Some kind of authority on defense systems? Those posts you "quote" are simply jokes! Throwing around big words doesnt make YOU a defense analyst!!
> 
> Sorry mate. Your posts are absurd, stupid and delusional. You are and will remain a thickskull jester.



I am a self-proclaimed China expert. On the front page of the other Pakistani forum, I count 264,000 page views for some of my threads. If you add in my threads on pages 2 and 3, I think I have over 400,000 page views.

On YouTube, my three videos have 90,000 views.

To answer your question, many people would agree that I am "some kind of authority on defense systems." Otherwise, why would they keep reading my posts. Can you make a similar claim to having approximately 500,000 page views from one forum and three YouTube videos?






From the other PDF or Pakistani Defence forum. If you tally up the page views for my eight threads on the front page alone, it is an astounding 264,000 views.


----------



## DrSomnath999

Martian2 said:


> I am a self-proclaimed China expert. On the front page of the other Pakistani forum, I count 264,000 page views for some of my threads. If you add in my threads on pages 2 and 3, I think I have over 400,000 page views.
> 
> On YouTube, my three videos have 90,000 views.
> 
> To answer your question, many people would agree that I am "some kind of authority on defense systems." Otherwise, why would they keep reading my posts. Can you make a similar claim to having approximately 500,000 page views from one forum and three YouTube videos?
> 
> Wait a few minutes, I will provide photographic proof of 264,000 views.


oh ya i am going to post a thread on critical analysis on J20 ,lets see how much u can debate

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-defence/128812-best-critical-analysis-j20-fighter.html
is the thread i had posted common have a look

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

DrSomnath999 said:


> oh ya i am going to post a thread on critical analysis on J20 ,lets see how much u can debate



That's not the way it works. You are a nobody. I am not interested in your rants. I ignore little bugs like you. My time is valuable.

I am an armchair general and self-proclaimed internet China-expert with over 500,000 page views. People read my posts for its thoughtful analysis.


----------



## Mech

Martian2 said:


> That's not the way it works. You are a nobody. I am an armchair general and self-proclaimed internet China expert with over 500,000 page views.
> 
> I ignore little bugs like you. My time is valuable.


 
castles in the air.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> That's not the way it works. You are a nobody. I am an armchair general and self-proclaimed internet China-expert with over 500,000 page views.
> 
> I ignore little bugs like you. My time is valuable.



you tell (some) people what they like to hear, that is why. most -if not all- of what you say is meaningless.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zabaniyah

Martian2 said:


> That's not the way it works. You are a nobody. *I am an armchair general and self-proclaimed internet China-expert with over 500,000 page views.
> *
> I ignore little bugs like you. My time is valuable.



Dude, that is just depressing.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mech

Zabanya said:


> Dude, that is just depressing.


 
 I know right! I've heard of self -immolation but this is overkill.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> That's not the way it works. You are a nobody. I am not interested in your rants. I ignore little bugs like you. My time is valuable.
> 
> I am an armchair general and self-proclaimed internet China-expert with over 500,000 page views.* People read my posts for its thoughtful analysis.*


Then you should have no problems at all...



Martian2 said:


> When it comes to stealth, you can't use "looks" as a standard. The fighter-concept drawing is flawed. *The nose is round. That is not stealthy.* It needs a "shaped nose" like a duck-bill with a chine/ridge line.



...In explaining why and how as highlighted. I have already granted you the latitude that you are correct but only because you *GUESSED* correctly. No different than casting dice. The readers, especially me, would like to see your...eeerrr...'thoughtful analysis' and credible technical explanation as to why a 'round nose' is less effective at RCS control than a 'non-round nose'.

Care to give it a shot? Or are you going to run away like you usually do?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> So you do run away from a challenge.



I told you before. No one knows who you are.

I'm on YouTube every day and garnering new viewers. I'm also rolling out some new videos on China, such as "China's Nuclear Strike Force," "China's Top Ten Cities," and "China's Superlatives." My audience is growing. In contrast, you have no audience to listen to your views.

You simply mire in your own frustration. The general public does not know that you exist.

I'm out there. You're not.

I'm busy. You're not. I don't have time to play your little games.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> I told you before. No one knows who you are. I'm on YouTube every day garnering new viewers. I'm also rolling out some new videos on China, such as "China's Nuclear Strike Force," "China's Top Ten Cities," and "China's Superlatives." My audience is growing. You simply mire in your own frustration. The general public does not know that you exist. I'm out there. You're not.


It does not matter the 'who' but the contents and it does not matter what happens outside this forum. Going by your criteria, we should dismiss you completely because *YOU* have not produced anything while the likes of Lockheed, Boeing, Sukhoi, and Airbus produced much more. Inside this forum, you boasted and boasting will result in a challenge. I used your own words in your own claim. Now back up your claim.



Martian2 said:


> When it comes to stealth, you can't use "looks" as a standard. The fighter-concept drawing is flawed. The nose is round. That is not stealthy. It needs a "shaped nose" like a duck-bill with a chine/ridge line.


Why is a 'round nose' less effective at RCS control than a 'non-round nose'? You are correct but that is from guessing in comparing 'looks'. You violated your own rule. To redeem yourself, you need to explain your guess.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> I'm busy. You're not. I don't have time to play your little games.


You mean you are busy scrambling to find an explanation to support your claim but so far have failed miserably.


----------



## Zabaniyah

Martian2 said:


> I told you before. No one knows who you are.
> 
> I'm on YouTube every day and garnering new viewers. I'm also rolling out some new videos on China, such as "China's Nuclear Strike Force," "China's Top Ten Cities," and "China's Superlatives." My audience is growing. In contrast, you have no audience to listen to your views.
> 
> You simply mire in your own frustration. The general public does not know that you exist.
> 
> I'm out there. You're not.
> 
> I'm busy. You're not. I don't have time to play your little games.



What a pathetic statement.

Actually, people here do know who gambit is. He is former USAF and a veteran of Desert Storm. His intelligence is far beyond your comprehension. 

And what are you? An actor? 

The sad truth is, nobody knows who you are here. In fact, no one gives a damn about your 'thoughtful analysis' other than pretty pictures.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> It does not matter the 'who' but the contents and it does not matter what happens outside this forum. Going by your criteria, we should dismiss you completely because *YOU* have not produced anything while the likes of Lockheed, Boeing, Sukhoi, and Airbus produced much more. Inside this forum, you boasted and boasting will result in a challenge. I used your own words in your own claim. Now back up your claim.
> 
> Why is a 'round nose' less effective at RCS control than a 'non-round nose'? You are correct but that is from guessing in comparing 'looks'. You violated your own rule. To redeem yourself, you need to explain your guess.


 
I will play your game this one time.

I believe a round nose reflects radar in all directions at a relatively constant intensity. This means the radar reflection is detectable depending on the sensitivity and distance of the enemy radar.

However, the shaped nose is superior for stealth because if you examine the shape carefully, it redirects the incoming radar energy below the chine line into only a few directions.

An examination of the shaped nose above the chine line shows that it relies on the "continuous curvature" principle for stealth.

An examination of the shaped nose below the chine line shows that it mostly relies on the facet principle for stealth. Below the chine line, the nose is not completely faceted due to aerodynamic considerations. However, it is mostly faceted.






J-20 Mighty Dragon nose follows the "continuous curvature" principle above the chine/ridge line. Below the chine/ridge line, the nose follows the facet principle.



gambit said:


> You mean you are busy scrambling to find an explanation to support your claim but so far have failed miserably.



No. If I play your little game then DrSomanth999 will demand that I reply to his thread. After that, every troll on this forum will keep challenging me. I do not want to go down this slippery slope.

If I agree to your bait, it sets a dangerous precedent. I'll have to keep replying to trolls indefinitely.

I still think replying to your little game is a bad idea, but I'm willing to try most things once.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Martian2

Zabanya said:


> What a pathetic statement.
> 
> Actually, people here do know who gambit is. He is former USAF and a veteran of Desert Storm. His intelligence is far beyond your comprehension.
> 
> And what are you? An actor?
> 
> The sad truth is, nobody knows who you are here. In fact, no one gives a damn about your 'thoughtful analysis' other than pretty pictures.



*In my own defense, I am the first person on the internet to say:

1. There is no RAM coating on T-50 engines after almost two years from its debut.

2. T-50 upper-body fuselage behind the pilot does not appear to follow "continuous curvature" principle. It's too steep.

3. Latter half of T-50 engine pod is not canted. Only the front half of the air duct is canted.

4. J-20 Mighty Dragon canards are a superb design choice, because the placement of winglets forward of the main wings creates the benefit of supermaneuverability; while the placement of horizontal tailplanes on the F-22 merely engenders stability without supermaneuverability.*

These are just some of my recent pioneering observations on stealth design. During the last nine months, I'm pretty sure I made other important observations regarding the J-20, F-22, F-35, and T-50. Time passes and I forget. And no, I will not spend the time to review my mountain of old posts to itemize my work.

I don't recall Gambit making a single important unique observation. Of course, you (Zabanya) didn't contribute either. However, you're a troll and the expectation bar for you is nonexistent.

I only recall Gambit saying, "we don't really know anything unless we can physically examine a J-20 Mighty Dragon ourselves." I've been saying that he's nuts and I've kept analyzing and comparing the J-20, F-22, F-35, and T-50.

Wait a second, I remember Gambit making a b.s. claim that the J-20 probably had a software problem and couldn't fly based on a single picture of asymmetric vertical stabilizers. I said he was full of it and cited China's experience with fly-by-wire from the J-10 program. He insisted the J-20 couldn't fly and I remember it flew within a few days. Gambit's observation/prediction was dead wrong.

Off-topic:

Despite my differences with Gambit, I still like him. He says something interesting and intelligent once in a while. I can't say the same thing for the rest of you trolls.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> I will play your game this one time.
> 
> I believe the round nose reflects radar in all directions at a relatively constant intensity. This means the radar reflection is detectable depending on the sensitivity and distance of the enemy radar.
> 
> However, the shaped nose is superior for stealth because if you examine the shape carefully, it redirects the incoming radar energy below the chine line into only a few directions.
> 
> An examination of the shaped nose above the chine line shows that it relies on the "continuous curvature principle" for stealth.
> 
> An examination of the shaped nose below the chine line shows that it mostly relies on the facet principle for stealth. Below the chine line, the nose is not completely faceted due to aerodynaic considerations. However, it is mostly faceted.


Wrong...All wrong. You are straining with words and concepts you have not a clue.


----------



## lamlap

Support Martian2

You are professional

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> Wrong...All wrong. You are straining with words and concepts you have not a clue.



We disagree.

I will now claim to be the first person on the internet to explicitly state that the J-20's shaped nose above the chine/ridge line follows the "continuous curvature" principle of stealth design. Also, I am stating the shaped nose below the chine/ridge line follows the facet principle.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lamlap

My english is not good, We chinese will do our best, some Indian who envys us

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

As I have previously posted, the top part of the J-20 Mighty Dragon nose above the chine/ridge line follows the principle of "continuous curvature" (as seen on the B-2). The bottom part of the J-20 nose below the chine/ridge line follows the facet principle (as implemented on the F-117).

I explained that the slight curvature of the facets on the bottom part of the nose is due to aerodynamic considerations. To expand on the subject, I believe the facets are rounded to enable supersonic flight. The F-117 was a fully-faceted plane, but it was subsonic. Ideally, for fully optimized stealth, the bottom part of the J-20 nose should also be fully faceted; instead it is partially rounded.

An astute reader may raise the issue that the F-35 is not designed for supercruise and it has a shaped-nose similar to the J-20. However, the F-35 can use its afterburners to fly supersonically and its nose must be designed to accommodate the same requirements of stealth and supersonic-travel.






J-20 Mighty Dragon shaped-nose enables it to supercruise and hunt for pesky F-35s.

----------

If anyone is keeping track, I have recently provided six original insights into the application of stealth design to stealth fighters.

I am the first person on the internet to say:

1. There is no RAM coating on T-50 engines after almost two years from its debut.

2. T-50 upper-body fuselage behind the pilot does not appear to follow "continuous curvature" principle. It's too steep.

3. Latter half of T-50 engine pod is not canted. Only the front half of the air duct is canted.

4. J-20 Mighty Dragon canards are a superb design choice, because the placement of winglets forward of the main wings creates the benefit of supermaneuverability; while the placement of horizontal tailplanes on the F-22 merely engenders stability without supermaneuverability.

5. J-20 Mighty Dragon shaped-nose follows the "continuous curvature" principle above the chine/ridge line. Below the chine/ridge line, the shaped-nose follows the facet principle.

6. J-20 Mighty Dragon shaped-nose is optimized for stealth AND supercruise.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> We disagree.
> 
> I will now claim to be the first person on the internet to explicitly state that the J-20's shaped nose above the chine/ridge line follows the "continuous curvature" principle of stealth design. Also, I am stating the shaped nose below the chine/ridge line follows the facet principle.


Of course you would disagree. Who in their right (or in your case 'wrong') mind would agree when he is being told he is wrong? You use the phrase 'continuous curvature' without a clue of what it mean and how it works. Heck, you learned that phrase and just about everything else about this subject from me. I will explain how you are wrong and will post my explanation in the appropriate sub-forum and will reference it here. When people read my explanation, you will be finally the laughing stock of the Internet.

By the way, I reconsidered and instead of an 'F' I will give you an 'E' for effort so far.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> Of course you would disagree. Who in their right (or in your case 'wrong') mind would agree when he is being told he is wrong? You use the phrase 'continuous curvature' without a clue of what it mean and how it works. Heck, you learned that phrase and just about everything else about this subject from me. I will explain how you are wrong and will post my explanation in the appropriate sub-forum and will reference it here. When people read my explanation, you will be finally the laughing stock of the Internet.
> 
> By the way, I reconsidered and instead of an 'F' I will give you an 'E' for effort so far.



We disagree again. I believe "E" is for excellent analysis.

I hope you know I won't read your convoluted and silly explanation. I like to spend my time productively. For the same reason, I am ignoring a silly person's thread about me.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> I only recall Gambit saying, "we don't really know anything unless we can physically examine a J-20 Mighty Dragon ourselves." I've been saying that he's nuts and I've kept analyzing and comparing the J-20, F-22, F-35, and T-50.
> 
> Wait a second, I remember Gambit making a b.s. claim that the J-20 probably had a software problem and couldn't fly based on a single picture of asymmetric vertical stabilizers. I said he was full of it and cited China's experience with fly-by-wire from the J-10 program. He insisted the J-20 couldn't fly and I remember it flew within a few days. Gambit's observation/prediction was dead wrong.


I challenge you to show everyone where I said that the J-20 could not fly based upon my suspicion. If anything, this post showed very clear to me that what I said about 'Byzantine failures' went whoooooossssshhhh over your head.

---------- Post added at 08:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:35 PM ----------




Martian2 said:


> We disagree again. I believe "E" is for excellent analysis.
> 
> *I hope you know I won't read your convoluted and silly explanation.* I like to spend my time productively. For the same reason, I am ignoring a silly person's thread about me.


Does not matter if you read it or not. Others will and in their objective minds, you will be that laughing stock. They will see my explanation as logical and technically valid based upon certain principles I posted here before.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> I challenge you to show everyone where I said that the J-20 could not fly based upon my suspicion. If anything, this post showed very clear to me that what I said about 'Byzantine failures' went whoooooossssshhhh over your head.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 08:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:35 PM ----------
> 
> 
> Does not matter if you read it or not. Others will and in their objective minds, you will be that laughing stock. They will see my explanation as logical and technically valid based upon certain principles I posted here before.



You know the old J-20 thread with over 300,000 views was deleted. Even if I was willing to spend an hour (which you know I'm not willing to do) looking for your erroneous post, it is no longer available. You know that.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> You know the old J-20 thread with over 300,000 views was deleted. Even if I was willing to spend an hour looking for your erroneous post, it is no longer available. You know that.


Nowhere did I ever said the J-20 could not fly based upon 'Byzantine failures'. Am willing to bet that it is here and from me that you have learned there is such an obscure and esoteric thing. But it is something very important for process engineering. So for me to say that the J-20 could not fly because of 'Byzantine failures' would be technically incorrect. You took the word 'failures' out of its proper context in this subject.


----------



## j20blackdragon

Gaps, seams, protrusions, surface discontinuities, sudden changes in shape everywhere.

How is the PAK FA even stealthy?






Here's a real stealth fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Martian2 said:


> You know the old J-20 thread with over 300,000 views was deleted. Even if I was willing to spend an hour (which you know I'm not willing to do) looking for your erroneous post, it is no longer available. You know that.



Gambit has a usual habit of denial.

Dealing with the deleted thread, he has done the same in case where i caught him making the outrageous claim such as the US will wipe out China's air force in a blink of eye.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## houshanghai

j20blackdragon said:


> Gaps, seams, protrusions, surface discontinuities, sudden changes in shape everywhere.
> 
> How is the PAK FA even stealthy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a real stealth fighter.



more clear pic of pakfa,





if F22 is still the present standard of 5 gen fighter in the world .then PAKFA is not a real stealth fighter

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> I don't recall Gambit making a single important unique observation.


That is because I am not you. I have relevant experience in the subject. I know the pitfalls of making assumptions without caveats. And when I do make an assertion, I back it up with credible third party sources and/or sources that demonstrate basic principles that are universal. In other words, unlike you, I provide the readers with information that they can use to apply against everyone. In that, I am more fair than you can ever be.

---------- Post added at 08:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 PM ----------




ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Gambit has a usual habit of denial.
> 
> Dealing with the deleted thread, he has done the same in case where i caught him making the outrageous claim such as *the US will wipe out China's air force in a blink of eye.*


We pretty much did it with Iraq. Fine...How about two blinks?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Gambit has a usual habit of denial.
> 
> Dealing with the deleted thread, he has done the same in case where i caught him making the outrageous claim such as the US will wipe out China's air force in a blink of eye.



I proved him wrong in his assertion that a ballistic missile warhead only falls vertically onto its target. He mumbled something about "vertical" not being "vertical" and that I misunderstood him. I've given up hope that he will muster the courage to ever admit a mistake. I've made my share of mistakes, but I admit to them.

Anyway, Gambit is Gambit. <shrug>


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> We disagree again. I believe "E" is for excellent analysis.
> 
> I hope you know I won't read your convoluted and silly explanation. *I like to spend my time productively.* For the same reason,* I am ignoring a silly person's thread about me*.



Yet you have time to make silly youtube videos. And i would ignore a thread about me too if someone dug up posts where i contradicted myself into a hole that i could not dig myself out of.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> *I proved him wrong in his assertion that a ballistic missile warhead only falls vertically onto its target.* He mumbled something about "vertical" not being "vertical" and that I misunderstood him. I've given up hope that he will muster the courage to ever admit a mistake. I've made my share of mistakes, but I admit to them.
> 
> Anyway, Gambit is Gambit. <shrug>


You will be seriously spanked about that. And I will use a Popular Science article from forty years ago and the Space Shuttle of today to do it.


----------



## IndianArmy

j20blackdragon said:


> Gaps, seams, protrusions, surface discontinuities, sudden changes in shape everywhere.
> 
> How is the PAK FA even stealthy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a real stealth fighter.



According to the real stealth fighter in your picture, Canards have poor stealth characteristics, in fact there is no better way to compromise stealth than adding canards to a fighter If only you knew, then the engine nozzles and its sheer size. Truly a stealth. 

I have no hesitation to also say that this aircraft would be a complete one, only when it becomes operational, now in a testing phase its the same aircraft like any other .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

ptldM3 said:


> Yet you have time to make silly youtube videos. And i would ignore a thread about me too if someone dug up posts where i contradicted myself.



I hope there are no hard feelings. I have nothing against the Russian T-50/Pak-Fa. I just need another stealth fighter for comparison. I wish there were more stealth fighters. That way I wouldn't have to keep bringing up the T-50 for discussion/comparison.

If I made posts that discussed "stealth" only in abstract principles, no one would read it.

Also, I believe that I have been fair. Sukhoi has had almost two years to rectify the obvious problems with the T-50 design. It doesn't look like Sukhoi fixed a thing at all.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> No. If I play your little game then DrSomanth999 will demand that I reply to his thread. After that, every troll on this forum will keep challenging me. I do not want to go down this slippery slope.


This is a sign of intellectual cowardice and fraud. Regarding the subject of 'stealth', do you see me backing away from any challenges/questions?


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> I hope there are no hard feelings.* I have nothing against the Russian T-50/Pak-Fa*. I just need another stealth fighter for comparison. I wish there were more stealth fighters. That way I wouldn't have to keep bringing up the T-50 for discussion/comparison.
> 
> If I made posts that discussed "stealth" only in abstract principles, no one would read it.



Yes you do. If you wanted to make a fair comparison you would compared the J-20 to operational aircraft and do it in a fair way which you do not, making assumptions about 'gaps' and calling other aircraft 'junk' does not help your cause.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> This is a sign of intellectual cowardice and fraud. Regarding the subject of 'stealth', do you see me backing away from any challenges/questions?



Didn't I tell you that accepting your challenge was a bad idea? Right away, someone made a thread about me. These challenges will never stop. I won't be able to produce new posts with new insights into stealth fighter design.

You should take a look at the comment section for my YouTube J-20 video. If I started arguing with that horde of China-haters, it will never end. New China-haters arrive daily. There is only one me.



ptldM3 said:


> Yes you do. If you wanted to make a fair comparison you would compared the J-20 to operational aircraft and do it in a fair way which you do not, making assumptions about 'gaps' and calling other aircraft 'junk' does not help your cause.



I'm sorry for calling it "junk." That was over the top. I was engaged in a heated battle with anti-China trolls and I got carried away.


----------



## CardSharp

ptldM3 said:


> Yes you do. If you wanted to make a fair comparison you would compared the J-20 to operational aircraft and do it in a fair way which you do not, making assumptions about 'gaps' and calling other aircraft 'junk' does not help your cause.



Right on! You should make a thread and whine about it.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> If I made posts that discussed "stealth" only in abstract principles, no one would read it.


But I have. In fact, just about all of my posts about this subject have been in the abstract which you learned from. Regarding the 'round nose' being ineffective for RCS control, I judge you to be lacking in knowledge of those abstract principles. You can try that tactic with the gullible conscript rejects but not with me. The reason why you have not posted any such abstract principles is because you are terrified of being challenged by me. Post your supposedly 'abstract' explanations in those two playgrounds. Those guys are gullible enough.


----------



## ptldM3

CardSharp said:


> Right on! You should make a thread and whine about it.



I would rather be considered a whiner than a liar that made accusation about credible sources being written by high school kids.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Didn't I tell you that accepting your challenge was a bad idea? Right away, someone made a thread about me. These challenges will never stop. I won't be able to produce new posts with new insights into stealth fighter design.


You mean you will not be able to post any more misconceptions and misinterpretations in favor of the J-20. When you make public a claim, you have a moral burden of supporting that claim when challenged, especially when your claim can be proven to be technically incorrect, as I will prove about you later. Refusal to support your claim mean you are an intellectual coward and a fraud.


----------



## Martian2

I've given both of you the last word and I hope we can all "move on." Thank you.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> I've given both of you the last word and I hope we can all "move on." Thank you.


Have no doubt we will 'move on'. And when I am done with that 'round nose' bit and spanked you about how ballistic warheads descend, we will all 'move on' laughing ourselves silly about you.

By the way, here are a couple explanations from me of this subject that are quite in the abstract...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/20908-rcs-different-fighters-6.html#post2006035
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/20908-rcs-different-fighters-7.html#post2077884

We have yet to see anything equivalent from you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

These two planes look about the same to me. 

Weak.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

ptldM3 said:


> I would rather be considered a whiner than a liar that made accusation about credible sources being written by *high school kids*.



lol, Martian is a middle-aged man, and his archnemesis in this forum is Gambit.

Better stay away from him in a challenging debate.

Otherwise, you will get bullied again.


----------



## ptldM3

j20blackdragon said:


> These two planes look about the same to me.
> 
> Weak.



Ironic that the Sukhoi looks weak considering China not only purchased Sukhois from Russia but also made Chinese versions called J-11's and J-15's.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> lol, *Martian is a middle-aged man*, and his archnemesis in this forum is Gambit.
> 
> Better stay away from him in a challenging debate.
> 
> Otherwise, you will get bullied again.


When I am done with two coming particular posts, we will all see that he is that high school kid.


----------



## ptldM3

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> lol, Martian is a middle-aged man, and his archnemesis in this forum is Gambit.
> 
> Better stay away from him in a challenging debate.
> 
> Otherwise, you will get bullied again.



I wasn't talking about Martian  incoherent much?




speaking of Martian i challenged him and as a result of that he never attempted to 'bully' me, in fact he apologized to me. You best know the content of our debate before you make accusations of people getting bullied.


----------



## lamlap

*Martian is the best, I am his fans*

thank you

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lamlap

Indians talk big about foreign weapons they have.

China actually has its own defense industry.
China can build its own weapons.


india cannot keep up.
that is hurting the huge indian ego.

J20

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IndianArmy

lamlap said:


> Indians talk big about foreign weapons they have.
> 
> China actually has its own defense industry.
> China can build its own weapons.
> 
> 
> india cannot keep up.
> that is hurting the huge indian ego.
> 
> J20



As far as Chinese industry is concerned we know it manufactures foreign metals... We do the same... the only difference is we do it with an Agreement, and you do it without one...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DrSomnath999

* I.STEALTH*

*1. Canards *




canards are 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.canards are generally indicative of a less-than-harmonious design requiring &#8216;bolt-on&#8217; fixes. And as they add radar-reflecting edges, they&#8217;re usually not stealthy. 





Now compare it all other 5th gwn fighters they dont have canards or may be the chinese are the 1 step ahead to US & russia in stealth designing





*2.engine nozzles*




The same goes for the engine nozzles, which were clearly not designed to be stealthy, as well the large overall size of the aircraft.But in a close air combat, thought it has a higher manoeuvrability, it is still vulnerable to heat seeking missiles as the aircraft lacks a stealth design in the nozzle section.

Though, the aft section stealth design doesn&#8217;t look satisfactory, the tail boom, fins and the engine with a conventional nozzle compromises further the overall stealth characteristics of the aircraft.




The F-22, B-2 stealth bomber and now-retired F-117 stealth fighter-bomber all have carefully shaped, angular nozzles meant to scatter radar waves. In the F-22, these nozzles can move, &#8216;vectoring&#8217; the engine thrust to boost manoeuvrability. The apparent absence of stealthy nozzles and thrust-vectoring places a hard limit on the J-20&#8217;s ability to evade radar detection from behind. 

The design has only two apparent weaknesses, which are the curvature in the slab side shaping, which provides broader reflection lobes than necessary, and the circular exhaust nozzle, a weakness common to the F-35 and T-50.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Whazzup

IndianArmy said:


> As far as Chinese industry is concerned we know it manufactures foreign metals... We do the same... the only difference is we do it with an Agreement, and you do it without one...



Don't reply back to this retard sirjee I think he's a person behind wrong flag whose just trying to bring India in this thread so that ones again both Indo and Sino soldiers can fight with each other for no reason.


----------



## Whazzup

j20blackdragon said:


> These two planes look about the same to me.
> 
> Weak.



Stupid is what stupid does and you have clearly shown us this.

Tell me are you guys so arrogant that you can't even see that your own air force is using these weak planes????

Get rid of your state of deniyal.


----------



## Zabaniyah

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> lol,* Martian is a middle-aged man*, and his archnemesis in this forum is Gambit.
> 
> Better stay away from him in a challenging debate.
> 
> Otherwise, you will get bullied again.



I really doubt that.

---------- Post added at 04:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:29 PM ----------

I do generally support China's path to its own stealth fighter. But some guys here are seriously way over their heads

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mech

The J-20 is an inferior rip-off of the MiG 1.44 technology demonstrator. Inferior because, the J-20 isn't stealthy at all. This is the reason why the Chinese refuse to show their prototype to the world; unlike the Russians, who have no qualms in letting prospective clients examine the PAK-FA, T-50 even at its development stage.


----------



## Martian2

DrSomnath999 said:


> * I.STEALTH*
> 
> *1. Canards *
> canards are 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.canards are generally indicative of a less-than-harmonious design requiring &#8216;bolt-on&#8217; fixes. And as they add radar-reflecting edges, they&#8217;re usually not stealthy.
> 
> Now compare it all other 5th gwn fighters they dont have canards or may be the chinese are the 1 step ahead to US & russia in stealth designing
> 
> *2.engine nozzles*
> The same goes for the engine nozzles, which were clearly not designed to be stealthy, as well the large overall size of the aircraft.But in a close air combat, thought it has a higher manoeuvrability, it is still vulnerable to heat seeking missiles as the aircraft lacks a stealth design in the nozzle section.
> 
> Though, the aft section stealth design doesn&#8217;t look satisfactory, the tail boom, fins and the engine with a conventional nozzle compromises further the overall stealth characteristics of the aircraft.
> 
> The F-22, B-2 stealth bomber and now-retired F-117 stealth fighter-bomber all have carefully shaped, angular nozzles meant to scatter radar waves. In the F-22, these nozzles can move, &#8216;vectoring&#8217; the engine thrust to boost manoeuvrability. The apparent absence of stealthy nozzles and thrust-vectoring places a hard limit on the J-20&#8217;s ability to evade radar detection from behind.
> 
> The design has only two apparent weaknesses, which are the curvature in the slab side shaping, which provides broader reflection lobes than necessary, and the circular exhaust nozzle, a weakness common to the F-35 and T-50.



I've already discussed the stealthiness of the J-20 Mighty Dragon canards on this forum on July 6, 2011. My post (link to post #154 - http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...neration-aircraft-updates-discussions-11.html):

"*I said the J-20 canards were irrelevant for four reasons:

1. Composite material composition

2. RAM coating

3. Curved surface to deflect radar waves

4. Small incremental increase in surface area
*
You and PtldM3 are ridiculous. Your claim will always be: "Well, we can't know with absolute certainty until we put a J-20 in an anechoic chamber." We don't even know the results of a F-22 in an anechoic chamber. Under your ridiculous standard, you will always make whatever ludicrous claims that the two of you like."

----------

Secondly, I recently made a post comparing the J-20 canard winglets to the F-22 horizontal tailplanes. I said the J-20 Mighty Dragon is a superior design, because the placement of winglets in front of the main wings permit both supermaneuverability and stability.

From my post #108 in this thread (link: http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-defence/128212-top-10-future-weapons-china-8.html):

From my August 25, 2011 post:

*Tailless J-20 Mighty Dragon is superior to F-22 Raptor canardless design*





J-20 Mighty Dragon has canard winglets, but no tailplanes.





F-22 Raptor has no canards, but it has tailplane winglets.

From a stealth design perspective, there is no effective difference between placing two little winglets (i.e. canards) in front of the main wings or behind them (i.e. tailplanes).

However, from a maneuverability standpoint, the J-20 Mighty Dragon canards provide it with super maneuverability. The F-22 Raptor tailplanes merely provide stability. This is understandable because the F-22 is a much older design. Aerospace engineers have a better understanding of stealth design today than twenty years ago.

In conclusion, the J-20 Mighty Dragon is a superior evolutionary design of its chronological F-22 predecessor.

[Note: Thank you to HouShanghai and Feiyang for the J-20 picture.]

----------

Regarding the J-20 LOAN (i.e. Low Observable Asymmetric Nozzle) engine nozzles, I have already discussed its comparable stealthiness to the F-35 and inferiority to the F-22.

In my subsequent posts, I freely acknowledged the J-20 round engine nozzles are inferior to the F-22 flat nozzles. The technical reason is that the F-22 flat nozzles are a wide-band stealth design. The current J-20 and F-35 LOAN (Low-Observable Asymmetric Nozzle) technology is only narrow-band stealth (in two bands, X and Ku). 

From my January 14, 2011 post:

*J-20's Low Observable Axisymmetrical Nozzle (i.e. LOAN) technology*





China's J-20 stealth fighter engine nozzles





China's J-20 stealth fighter engine nozzles (another view)





F-35 Lightning II engine nozzle

Those are refined Low Observable Axisymmetrical Nozzles and first tested on a F-16 for the JSF programme. The LOAN was developed after the F-22 and that's why the Raptor doesn't have them.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article20.html

Stealth Aircraft - Infra-Red Signature Reduction



> One type of two dimensional nozzle is a single expansion ramp nozzle referred to as a SERN nozzle. SERN was developed as a variable area non-axisymmetric nozzle with a unique installed performance characteristic of low weight and frictional drag because there is no or a smaller lower cowl. Low observable (LO) exhaust nozzle technology is being developed for current and future fighter/attack aircraft. LO nozzles should be integrated cleanly with the aircraft airframe and not degrade the aircraft's performance due to weight and drag penalties. Exhaust systems for combat aircraft should possess characteristics to enhance aircraft survivability, including high internal performance, reduced radar cross section (RCS), low infrared (IR) signatures, low installed weight, low installation drag and, in some cases, thrust-vectoring capabilities.



[Note: Thank you to Shabi1 for the post.]

----------

There is a reasonable expectation that China will ultimately install F-22 type 2D flat nozzles on the J-20 Mighty Dragon. Chinese research into 2D flat engine nozzles has been ongoing since the 1990s.





Since the 1990s, China has been researching its own version of F-22 type 2D flat engine nozzles.

[Note: Thank you to Aimarraul for the picture.]

(Continued in the following post. I have reached my maximum image limit.)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

In your picture, you claim the "tail fins and booms" are an inferior design. I disagree. The tiny ventral fins follow planform alignment with the large vertical stabilizers and add virtually nothing to RCS. To the contrary, the "tail fins and booms" dramatically increase the J-20 Mighty Dragon's side infrared-stealth.

From my August 23, 2011 post:

*J-20 Mighty Dragon ventral fin blends cleanly into the fuselage side-profile*





J-20 Mighty Dragon ventral fin blends cleanly into the fuselage side-profile and there is no increase in surface area for radar reflection.

[Note: Thank you to HouShanghai for the picture.]

----------

From my August 12, 2011 post:

*J-20 ventral fins contribute to lateral radar and infrared stealth*





The J-20 DSI intake is prominent from a rear port-side view of the stealth fighter.

I just noticed the J-20 ventral fins shield the jet engines' radar and infrared signatures from a lateral scan.

[Note: Thank you to HouShanghai and "HK299792458" for the picture.]

----------

The RAM-coated ventral fins will either absorb or reflect the incoming radar wave. Looking at the picture, an incoming radar wave will be reflected into the sky. The hottest part of a plane is the jet engine. The jet exhaust is noticeably cooler. Hence, the ventral fins shield the jet engines from lateral view and contribute to lateral infrared stealth.





Infrared signature of aircraft showing jet exhaust fumes
(Credit: BAE Systems. Link: Infrared Signature Modelling and Measurement - BAE Systems)

----------



Bltizo said:


> I understand that the ventral fins, if applied with RAM, aligned and shaped correctly will have a lower RCS than one having ventral fins that is not.
> But clearly a J-20 with ventral wings will have a larger or at least equal RCS than J-20 without, from all aspects. Again, an aircraft with more exposed surfaces (like wings, for example) will have a larger RCS than an aircraft with fewer exposed surfaces.
> 
> As for IR... here's an excellent video of last years faranborough air show, taken by both a normal and IR camera. You can see that almost all aircraft have pretty large exhausts trailing behind them (including F-22, typhoon, A400m, and a variety of other commercial airliners). The F-22 minimizes its own a little likely due to its special nozzles, but even that can be quite detectable.
> Of course I'm not sure how applicable that would be for a 5th gen SRAAM (AIM-9X, ASRAAM, IRIS-T, PL-10 etc) but I think we can safely say the ventral fins are there primarily for aerodynamics and the slight benefit for IR hiding is more incidental.



Two points:

1. Your picture of a commercial airliner is not a good analogy. I provided a picture of a jet fighter from BAE Systems. Commercial jets have gigantic engines and are not comparable to small fighter high-performance jets.

For example, a fighter jet carries one (or two) occupant. A commercial jet carries hundreds of passengers. You should not use a commercial jet engine to make a point about a fighter jet. Look at the BAE Systems picture of a fighter jet. If you can shield the hot engines themselves, the infrared detectability of the fighter plane drops dramatically. If this thread were about civilian passenger jets, I would agree with you. With regard to the J-20 stealth fighter, I am pretty sure that you're incorrect.

I have never heard of a commercial jet liner being designed to minimize its jet engine infrared signature. However, it is well-known among fighter-jet designers that IR-seeking missiles pose a serious threat and fighter-jet engines are designed to minimize their IR signatures.

Also, it is inappropriate to use a picture taken at sea level. Fighter jets fly at 60,000 feet and the air is considerably colder. Furthermore, as the jet flies at hundreds of miles per hour, the exhaust is quickly left behind and disperses. Your picture of the commercial jet liner is not analogous for three reasons: gigantic engine to carry hundreds of passengers, not at altitude for the exhaust to blend with really cold air, and not moving to disperse the exhaust.

2. The general rule is "more surfaces tend to reflect more radar waves." However, there is an exception to the general rule. If a fighter jet is designed to follow planform alignment, the increased RCS is minimal. Hence, the extensive use of planform alignment design on the J-20 and F-22.

-----





jet engine plume profile (Source: Thermal Infrared Imaging and Night Vision Cameras)

I'm going to guess this is a commercial jet plane sitting on a tarmac. Anyway, the infrared photo shows that the hottest part is the jet engine itself at approximately 150 degrees F or more. If ventral fins were in place, it would shield the hottest part of the airplane from lateral infrared detection. 

Remember, I am only claiming the J-20 ventral fins contribute to its lateral infrared stealth. Everything that I have said is common sense. Basically, the oven/jet engine is the hottest part of the plane. If ventral fins block your view of the oven then the oven's infrared signature has been reduced. While the air surrounding the oven is warmer than ambient air, it is much lower in temperature compared to the oven. Voila, we have reduced IR. It is only straightforward physics.

[Note: My exchange on another forum.]

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

Am I looking at two PAK FAs or two Su-27s? 

I can't tell.

Neither of them looks very stealthy. Look at those completely conventional nozzles. So sad.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

j20blackdragon said:


> Am I looking at two PAK FAs or two Su-27s?
> 
> I can't tell.
> 
> Neither of them looks very stealthy. Look at those completely conventional nozzles. So sad.


so it looks like that the design of t 50 is based on flankers


----------



## houshanghai

IMO
The design of indian AMCA have more better stealth ability than russian T50.indian should place enough confidence in your ability .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

Martian2 said:


> I've already discussed the stealthiness of the J-20 Mighty Dragon canards on this forum on July 6, 2011. My post (link to post #154 - http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...neration-aircraft-updates-discussions-11.html):
> 
> "*I said the J-20 canards were irrelevant for four reasons:
> 
> 1. Composite material composition
> 
> 2. RAM coating
> 
> 3. Curved surface to deflect radar waves
> 
> 4. Small incremental increase in surface area
> *
> You and PtldM3 are ridiculous. Your claim will always be: "Well, we can't know with absolute certainty until we put a J-20 in an anechoic chamber." We don't even know the results of a F-22 in an anechoic chamber. Under your ridiculous standard, you will always make whatever ludicrous claims that the two of you like."


First...Composite materials does not guarantee absorbance. So the composite materials can be tossed.

Second...Absorbers are not %100 effective. There are always trace EM reflections from the surface. And it is their behaviors that are unpredictable.

Third...but these prototype is showing large canards .Curvature on the canards is a given but altering them for RCS reduction purposes would affect their airfoil shapes, reducing aerodynamic effectiveness.but these prototype is showing large canards

And the fourth is totally absurd 
. 
no 5th gen fighter has canards as it is needless because thrust vectoring nozzles can compensate the manuverability for it .Thats why even Russia also which dont want canards in pakfa.It would be surely detected by anti stealth very low frequency radar most probably ground based radars (X band	8 to 12 GHz)

so plz stop posting craps .
A big lol for u





----------



Martian2 said:


> Secondly, I recently made a post comparing the J-20 canard winglets to the F-22 horizontal tailplanes. I said the J-20 Mighty Dragon is a superior design, because the placement of winglets in front of the main wings permit both supermaneuverability and stability.
> 
> 
> 
> From my August 25, 2011 post:
> 
> *Tailless J-20 Mighty Dragon is superior to F-22 Raptor canardless design*
> 
> 
> J-20 Mighty Dragon has canard winglets, but no tailplanes.
> 
> 
> F-22 Raptor has no canards, but it has tailplane winglets.
> 
> 
> 
> In conclusion, the J-20 Mighty Dragon is a superior evolutionary design of its chronological F-22 predecessor.:


what!! J20 superior to f22




i think thats why robert gates cancelled it's production







----------



Martian2 said:


> Regarding the J-20 LOAN (i.e. Low Observable Asymmetric Nozzle) engine nozzles, I have already discussed its comparable stealthiness to the F-35 and inferiority to the F-22.
> 
> In my subsequent posts, I freely acknowledged the J-20 round engine nozzles are inferior to the F-22 flat nozzles. The technical reason is that the F-22 flat nozzles are a wide-band stealth design. The current J-20 and F-35 LOAN (Low-Observable Asymmetric Nozzle) technology is only narrow-band stealth (in two bands, X and Ku).
> 
> From my January 14, 2011 post:
> 
> *J-20's Low Observable Axisymmetrical Nozzle (i.e. LOAN) technology*
> 
> 
> Those are refined Low Observable Axisymmetrical Nozzles and first tested on a F-16 for the JSF programme. The LOAN was developed after the F-22 and that's why the Raptor doesn't have them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> ----------
> 
> There is a reasonable expectation that China will ultimately install F-22 type 2D flat nozzles on the J-20 Mighty Dragon. Chinese research into 2D flat engine nozzles has been ongoing since the 1990s.
> 
> 
> Since the 1990s, China has been researching its own version of F-22 type 2D flat engine nozzles.


ok lets see that in future ,whether they would develop it or not F-22 type 2D flat engine nozzles.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ptldM3

j20blackdragon said:


> Am I looking at two PAK FAs or two Su-27s?
> 
> I can't tell.
> 
> Neither of them looks very stealthy. Look at those completely conventional nozzles. So sad.



Yes, look at those conventional nozzles because the J-20's nozzles are not conventional 

I don't think you need to worry about the nozzles, a flat design is currently in the works. You bring nothing to the table.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

Martian2 said:


> In your picture, you claim the "tail fins and booms" are an inferior design. I disagree. The tiny ventral fins follow planform alignment with the large vertical stabilizers and add virtually nothing to RCS. To the contrary, the "tail fins and booms" dramatically increase the J-20 Mighty Dragon's side infrared-stealth.
> 
> From my August 23, 2011 post:
> 
> *J-20 Mighty Dragon ventral fin blends cleanly into the fuselage side-profile*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J-20 Mighty Dragon ventral fin blends cleanly into the fuselage side-profile and there is no increase in surface area for radar reflection.
> 
> [Note: Thank you to HouShanghai for the picture.]
> 
> ----------
> 
> From my August 12, 2011 post:
> 
> *J-20 ventral fins contribute to lateral radar and infrared stealth*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The J-20 DSI intake is prominent from a rear port-side view of the stealth fighter.
> 
> I just noticed the J-20 ventral fins shield the jet engines' radar and infrared signatures from a lateral scan.
> 
> 
> 
> ----------
> 
> The RAM-coated ventral fins will either absorb or reflect the incoming radar wave. Looking at the picture, an incoming radar wave will be reflected into the sky. The hottest part of a plane is the jet engine. The jet exhaust is noticeably cooler. Hence, the ventral fins shield the jet engines from lateral view and contribute to lateral infrared stealth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Infrared signature of aircraft showing jet exhaust fumes
> (Credit: BAE Systems. Link: Infrared Signature Modelling and Measurement - BAE Systems)
> 
> ----------



another B.S dont tell such absurd analysis man,Tell it to some illiterate villager they would beleive u,if u tell this to any aeroexpert they would slap u



. On one ground u are saying j20 engine are based on LOAN technology & another hand u r saying the ventral fins shield the jet engines from lateral view and contribute to lateral infrared stealth then what's the use ventral fins then tell me . Do u think it can protect the plane from 5th gen HEAT seeking missiles like python 5 absolutely no

you told it blends from side profile but what from behind & below ?It would be surely detected by anti stealth very low frequency radar most probably ground based radars (X band	8 to 12 GHz)from below and aesa radar from behind
so again a big LOL for u


----------



## j20blackdragon

DrSomnath999 said:


> no 5th gen fighter has canards as it is needless because thrust vectoring nozzles can compensate the manuverability for it .Thats why even Russia also which dont want canards in pakfa.It would be surely detected by anti stealth very low frequency radar most probably ground based radars (X band 8 to 12 GHz)



All moving control surfaces increase RCS, not just canards.

And the only real difference between canards and stabilators (all moving tailplanes) is the location on the aircraft. 

Take a look at the F-22.


----------



## DrSomnath999

j20blackdragon said:


> All moving control surfaces increase RCS, not just canards.
> 
> And the only real difference between canards and stabilators (all moving tailplanes) is the location on the aircraft.
> 
> Take a look at the F-22.


well 1st of all i like ur avatar ,i like those kind of B**** babes

exactly but canards use is needless as it unnecesarily increases RCS & thrust vectoring nozzles can compensate the manuverability for it ,that 's why no 5th gen fighter has canard


----------



## Whazzup

j20blackdragon said:


> Gaps, seams, protrusions, surface discontinuities, sudden changes in shape everywhere.
> 
> How is the PAK FA even stealthy?


 
Dude thats just depressing I have said this many times and will say it again the current model of T50 is just a prototype not a final product but any ways that gap you showing is for the internal weapon bay.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Whazzup

j20blackdragon said:


> Am I looking at two PAK FAs or two Su-27s?
> 
> I can't tell.
> 
> Neither of them looks very stealthy. Look at those completely conventional nozzles. So sad.



Dude whats the matter with you ???? have you forgot that your plane uses a conventional nozzel design too and regarding the nozzles of T50 dude russian sre designing a flate nozzles what about you guys last I checked your country is dependent on Russians for aircraft engines.


----------



## Whazzup

houshanghai said:


> IMO
> The design of indian AMCA have more better stealth ability than russian T50.indian should place enough confidence in your ability .



AMCA is another 15 years away I don't think its good idea to wait till then. And what ever AMCA's design will be it will definitely going to use a hell lot of tech from T50.


----------



## j20blackdragon

jackhammer2 said:


> last I checked your country is dependent on Russians for aircraft engines.



Yeah, this is a Russian engine...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Whazzup

j20blackdragon said:


> Yeah, this is a Russian engine...



AA don't think its Russian bcoz it looks so crapy 

Jokes aside what is the thrust produced by it????


----------



## Firemaster

ptldM3 said:


> Yes, look at those conventional nozzles because the J-20's nozzles are not conventional
> 
> I don't think you need to worry about the nozzles, a flat design is currently in the works. You bring nothing to the table.



Any Latest News on that??


----------



## Whazzup

Firemaster said:


> Any Latest News on that??



I don't think Russians will be facing any probelms with the designing the nozzles its the massive thrust of 175kn which is going to increase the designing period.


----------



## Martian2

jackhammer2 said:


> Dude whats the matter with you ???? have you forgot that your plane uses a conventional nozzel design too and regarding the nozzles of T50 dude russian sre designing a flate nozzles what about you guys *last I checked your country is dependent on Russians for aircraft engines.*



Your information is out of date. Many things have changed.

From my August 13, 2011 post:

*J-10A and J-10B Vigorous Dragon evolution*





The top photo is a J-10A with AL-31F engine. The second and third photos show a J-10B with advanced DSI intake and AL-31F engine. The fourth photo is a J-10B with China's domestic WS-10A engine.

This sequence of pictures illustrates the evolution of the J-10 family from a J-10A (with AL-31F engine) into a J-10B with advanced DSI technology and WS-10A engine.

In the sequence of photographs, it is easy to distinguish between the AL-31F and WS-10A engines. The "flexible petals" on the WS-10A are a lot shorter than on the AL-31F.





Comparison of Chinese WS-10A and Russian AL-31F jet engines.

[Note: Thank you to HouShanghai for the first picture and Maya for the engine comparison picture.]

----------

From my September 4, 2011 post:

*J-10B Vigorous Dragon carries missiles and extra fuel pods to extend flight range*





J-10B Vigorous Dragon carries missiles and extra fuel pods to extend flight range.











[Note: Thank you to Aimarraul for the pictures.]

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DrSomnath999

j20blackdragon said:


> Yeah, this is a Russian engine...


they are using ws10 engine not only in j10 but in j11 ,but it is marred by problems & it is not as powerful as their russian counterpart.Since the early 1990s Russian sources have disclosed to the author that Shenyang was experiencing great difficulties in meeting planned thrust goals, while there have been reports and rumors of other specific problems. In August 2009 a Chinese AVIC official admitted there were many problems facing the Taihang but declined to elaborate. In 2004 a Russian official speculated that China would still put this engine into production. Other possible issues include incidents of shedding turbine blades, oil leakage issues, and even one unconfirmed rumor of a new J-11BS fighter disintegrating in flight due to a Taihang engine failure




Jet Engine Development in China: Indigenous high-performance turbofans are a final step toward fully independent fighter production | China SignPost


----------



## Whazzup

^^^ Martian The reason why I commented on your engine making capabillity bcoz I wanted to take this thread back on the topic nothing else


----------



## Zabaniyah

If I am not mistaken, the J-10B is using a Russian engine for now. In the future, they'll be powered by Chinese ones.

However, the J-11B is powered by a Chinese engine.


----------



## Zabaniyah

DrSomnath999 said:


> *Other possible issues include incidents of shedding turbine blades, oil leakage issues, and even one unconfirmed rumor of a new J-11BS fighter disintegrating in flight due to a Taihang engine failure*



That is scary.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

Zabanya said:


> That is scary.



Not as scary as this.


----------



## Martian2

In this video, you can see a J-10B Vigorous Dragon with short flexible petals (which indicates an indigenous WS-10 engine). The video for the J-10B with WS-10 engine starts at 4:33 and the takeoff occurs at 10:00.

Starting at 12:24, it is indisputable that the J-10B is equipped with a WS-10 engine. The flexible petals are clearly short.


----------



## gambit

DrSomnath999 said:


> First...Composite materials does not guarantee absorbance. So the composite materials can be tossed.


True. Plywood is a composite. Concrete is a composite.



DrSomnath999 said:


> Second...Absorbers are not %100 effective. There are always trace EM reflections from the surface. And it is their behaviors that are unpredictable.


True. Passive absorbers are generally restricted to certain bandwidths. The wider the bandwidth, the thicker the material, and the more costly the weight. In RCS control, the first law is to be mindful of the threat frequency. Meters length freqs are long range search and usually ground based so they are not considered 'threat' frequencies. It is the centimetric and some milimetric systems with high pulse repetition freq (PRF) characteristics like the missile guidance/homing that are considered 'threat' frequencies.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> All moving control surfaces increase RCS, not just canards.
> 
> And the only real difference between canards and stabilators (all moving tailplanes) is the location on the aircraft.
> 
> Take a look at the F-22.


Yes...But the issue is the reduction of scattered signals interactions with each other. Canards produces those interactions while the conventional and supposedly 'inferior' horizontal rear stabs do not.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> In your picture, you claim the "tail fins and booms" are an inferior design. I disagree. The tiny ventral fins follow planform alignment with the large vertical stabilizers and *add virtually nothing to RCS.* To the contrary, the "tail fins and booms" dramatically increase the J-20 Mighty Dragon's side infrared-stealth.


Excellent example of 'Chinese' physics. Selective RCS contributorship based upon mere 'I say so'. Guess Chinese engineers must have missed that section from Skolnik's and Knott's books. 

By the way, I have not forgotten about those two posts that will show everyone what a fool you are about this issue.


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> Not as scary as this.


Disintegrating engine blades or oil leaks are worse. If we are to take the Russians at their words about what happened in that demo, then that particular engine will be fine. What happened was a case of erroneous air data inputs to the engine control, not of engine manufacturing.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zabaniyah

As far as the canards on the J-20 is concerned, any canard would generally require a junction between the wing and the fuselage. This junction is hard to hide on radar. 

I believe the Americans with their F-22 preferred to hide this behind main wing on an elevator. Ever wonder why the Americans never went down the path of delta/canard configuration? 

Canards also tend to have large, angular surfaces that reflect radar signals. To offset this problem, the Eurofighter Typhoon for example (4th generation) uses software to control its canards. This similarly applies to the Rafale and Gripen. Question is: Is this applicable to a truly stealth aircraft? 

Are the designers of the J-20 choosing to compromise some stealth, or am I missing something?

There are however aerodynamic advantages of the delta/canard configuration. 
-It allows more lift than the traditional arrangement whenever considering total lift.

-During maneuvers, the forces on the canards mirror towards the main wing. Thus, adding more lift when climbing and decreasing the lift to descend. Such characteristics allow the bird to fly faster and tighter compared to the traditional set up.

-Since the canard generates and upward lift, a traditional tail plane produces a downward lift. Hence, we can say that there is a reduction in lift required from the main wings. The overall drag on the aircraft are reduced.

-At times, the canard is designed to stall prior to the main wing. Once the canard stalls, the nose pitches down. And thus, lowering the angle of attack of the main wings. 

Disadvantages:
-The wing root would show that it experiences a down wash from the surface of the canards. This reduces the overall efficiency.The traditional tail-plane set-up doesn't suffer from this.

-The wing tips on the other hand can experience an up wash from the surface of the canards. This increases the angle of attack on the tips. This enables premature separation of the air flow over the wing tip. What does this mean? It means that this premature separation of the air flow on either of the wing tips can enable a wing drop (wing drop: Definition from Answers.com) at the approach of stall. This can potentially lead to a spin. To avoid this, the wing must be carefully designed and may require more weight on the wing structure to support this, coupled with a wing root able to support the structure. That means, the solution is expensive. Some things are better spent on instead.

-Since the canards must be designed to stall before the main wings, the main wing never stalls and hence never achieves the maximum lift coefficient. To overcome this, it requires larger wings to provide extra wing area such that the aircraft can achieve the optimum take-off and landing distance performance. 

-It is difficult to use flaps on a canard/delta configuration. Deploying flaps causes a nose down pitching moment. In the conventional design, this effect is reduced since the down wash on the tail planes increase. This results in the aircraft to result in a nose-up pitching moment. The canard/delta design cannot alleviate this since there are no tail planes. 

-For the aircraft to achieve longitudinal static stability, the small surface of the canards produce a relatively high lift-coefficient. Whereas the main wings - despite having a much larger surface, operates at a smaller lift coefficient and therefore hardly reaches the full potential. A waste of resources and adding up more redundancy. 

-Since maximum lift potential of the main wings are typically unavailable, and flaps are absent (if they are present, they'd be hard to use), typically - take off and landing distances, coupled with speeds are often higher than the conventional design.

Some of the advantages and disadvantages can apply to all situations. As far disadvantages are concerned, they have been taken into account when designing high performance aircraft such as the Rafale and the Typhoon. It could be where potential aerodynamic stability in the designs allows more opportunities to improve the overall maneuverability of the aircraft. Maybe that's why they're so expensive. 

However, I personally think that maneuverability is not the most important thing in today's standards. 

Bearing in mind that the J-20 has TVC, are canards necessary? It is a redundant feature if you ask me. Albeit flawed. Both the Raptor and T-50 has TVC. None of them have canards.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

> Martian2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I proved him wrong in his assertion that a ballistic missile warhead only falls vertically onto its target.* He mumbled something about "vertical" not being "vertical" and that I misunderstood him. I've given up hope that he will muster the courage to ever admit a mistake. I've made my share of mistakes, but I admit to them.
> 
> Anyway, Gambit is Gambit. <shrug>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gambit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You will be seriously spanked about that. And I will use a Popular Science article from forty years ago and the Space Shuttle of today to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

And here we go...

In a March 1958 Popular Science issue, Frank Harvey explained the basics of an ICBM trajectory, from launch to descent.






On the left of the illustration, we have the launch point, but for our purpose, we will focus only from apogee (center) to impact (right).

Long range radars designed to look for ICBM warheads do not look 'up', as in vertically straight up from ground perspective. Rather, they look only mildly angular towards the horizon. Like this...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/PAVE_PAWS_Radar_Clear_AFS_Alaska.jpg

The reason the radar (TARGET) look slightly over the horizon is because of the incoming warhead's orbital altitude, which will appear to be just right over the horizon. A rising or setting moon do not force you to look 'up', does it? No, a rising or setting moon will have you look quite straight ahead *AT THE HORIZON*. It is a matter of perspective. The moon is still about 1/4 million miles away in space. No different than for the warhead when it is just slightly above the atmosphere and just broke horizon and came into view. By the time the warhead enter the 'RE-ENTRY' phase in the Harvey's illustration, its descent mode will be quite vertical.

Now we come to the difficult part, at least for you anyway. To make it easier for you, we will assume the Earth's rotation is right-left. That would make the warhead and the target approaches each other. Try -- *TRY* -- to envision the Earth in that illustration as rotating. Then it will be obvious as to why at the target, from the target's ground perspective, the warhead will descend vertically. Not only is it perception, but it is quite true that the descent angle will be quite steep, as in approaches perpendicular.

If we assume the Earth's rotation as left-right in that same illustration, what will happen is that the warhead travels 'ahead' of the target -- *SPATIALLY SPEAKING* -- then proceed to descend at a calculated point in space. The Earth's rotation will move the target and eventually the two paths will intersect. The same result, the warhead will descend at a quite vertical angle.

Now we come to the 'evidence' that you supposedly used to 'proved' me wrong...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Peacekeeper-missile-testing.jpg

Are you that lacking in critical thinking skills?

These are nuclear warheads. Targets that deserve nuclear warheads are not so near each other.

What are the altitudes of those lines?

What is the visual horizon distance at ground level, which is this photograph? Keyword search for you 'ground visual horizon distance'.

Do you really believe that the actual ground impact points are at the very ends of those straight lines?

What if those actual ground impact points are a few hundred miles further from the horizon?

Let us take the bright line furthest right.

Do you really believe that is the true descent angle?

What if *YOU* -- the observer -- shift your position 90 deg?

Is it possible that you will see a different descent angle than the one you see in this image?

Is it possible that the final targets are actually several hundreds miles apart and therefore in order to effectively capture as many of the demonstration warheads as possible in one image, we have to resort to a wide angle perspective and that resulted in these defined angles?

More keyword search for you 'atlantis iss deorbit' which would give you this NASA source...

Photo Index 24

But to save everyone the hassle...






We can see the 'forward' motion of the views by looking at the Earth's horizon and check the stars' movements. From them we can see Atlantis is deorbiting *AGAINST* the Earth's rotation. The deorbiting trajectory looks quite steep, no? Just like the Space Shuttle, the ICBM warhead will bounce off the atmosphere if the deorbit angle is sufficiently shallow. Unlike the Space Shuttle, the warhead will not exploit aerodynamic forces to maneuver and enter into glide mode when the atmosphere is sufficiently dense.

You are wrong on so many levels about this subject. I tried to give you the benefits of reexamining your own arguments to save you the embarrassment, especially about the MIRV photograph and viewer's perspective but your ego got in the way of your sensibility. The problem now for you is how to reconcile your own flawed interpretation of that MIRV photo versus the Shuttle's deorbiting photo. For the Shuttle, the viewer's perspective is that of the "God's Eye" position where we can see its true deorbiting mode -- very close to vertical so that the craft would not bounce off the atmosphere. If you insist that the Shuttle's deorbiting photo is open to interpretation, then so is the MIRV photo that you used to supposedly 'proved' me wrong.

We now have a time span of sixty years, from Popular Science in 1958 to the Space Shuttle of 2011 that says *YOU* are wrong.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> And here we go...
> 
> In a March 1958 Popular Science issue, Frank Harvey explained the basics of an ICBM trajectory, from launch to descent.
> 
> On the left of the illustration, we have the launch point, but for our purpose, we will focus only from apogee (center) to impact (right).
> 
> Long range radars designed to look for ICBM warheads do not look 'up', as in vertically straight up from ground perspective. Rather, they look only mildly angular towards the horizon. Like this...
> 
> The reason the radar (TARGET) look slightly over the horizon is because of the incoming warhead's orbital altitude, which will appear to be just right over the horizon. A rising or setting moon do not force you to look 'up', does it? No, a rising or setting moon will have you look quite straight ahead *AT THE HORIZON*. It is a matter of perspective. The moon is still about 1/4 million miles away in space. No different than for the warhead when it is just slightly above the atmosphere and just broke horizon and came into view. By the time the warhead enter the 'RE-ENTRY' phase in the Harvey's illustration, its descent mode will be quite vertical.
> 
> Now we come to the difficult part, at least for you anyway. To make it easier for you, we will assume the Earth's rotation is right-left. That would make the warhead and the target approaches each other. Try -- *TRY* -- to envision the Earth in that illustration as rotating. Then it will be obvious as to why at the target, from the target's ground perspective, the warhead will descend vertically. Not only is it perception, but it is quite true that the descent angle will be quite steep, as in approaches perpendicular.
> 
> If we assume the Earth's rotation as left-right in that same illustration, what will happen is that the warhead travels 'ahead' of the target -- *SPATIALLY SPEAKING* -- then proceed to descend at a calculated point in space. The Earth's rotation will move the target and eventually the two paths will intersect. The same result, the warhead will descend at a quite vertical angle.
> 
> Now we come to the 'evidence' that you supposedly used to 'proved' me wrong...
> 
> Are you that lacking in critical thinking skills?
> 
> These are nuclear warheads. Targets that deserve nuclear warheads are not so near each other.
> 
> What are the altitudes of those lines?
> 
> What is the visual horizon distance at ground level, which is this photograph? Keyword search for you 'ground visual horizon distance'.
> 
> Do you really believe that the actual ground impact points are at the very ends of those straight lines?
> 
> What if those actual ground impact points are a few hundred miles further from the horizon?
> 
> Let us take the bright line furthest right.
> 
> Do you really believe that is the true descent angle?
> 
> What if *YOU* -- the observer -- shift your position 90 deg?
> 
> Is it possible that you will see a different descent angle than the one you see in this image?
> 
> Is it possible that the final targets are actually several hundreds miles apart and therefore in order to effectively capture as many of the demonstration warheads as possible in one image, we have to resort to a wide angle perspective and that resulted in these defined angles?
> 
> More keyword search for you 'atlantis iss deorbit' which would give you this NASA source...
> 
> Photo Index 24
> 
> But to save everyone the hassle...
> 
> We can see the 'forward' motion of the views by looking at the Earth's horizon and check the stars' movements. From them we can see Atlantis is deorbiting *AGAINST* the Earth's rotation. The deorbiting trajectory looks quite steep, no? Just like the Space Shuttle, the ICBM warhead will bounce off the atmosphere if the deorbit angle is sufficiently shallow. Unlike the Space Shuttle, the warhead will not exploit aerodynamic forces to maneuver and enter into glide mode when the atmosphere is sufficiently dense.
> 
> You are wrong on so many levels about this subject. I tried to give you the benefits of reexamining your own arguments to save you the embarrassment, especially about the MIRV photograph and viewer's perspective but your ego got in the way of your sensibility. The problem now for you is how to reconcile your own flawed interpretation of that MIRV photo versus the Shuttle's deorbiting photo. For the Shuttle, the viewer's perspective is that of the "God's Eye" position where we can see its true deorbiting mode -- very close to vertical so that the craft would not bounce off the atmosphere. If you insist that the Shuttle's deorbiting photo is open to interpretation, then so is the MIRV photo that you used to supposedly 'proved' me wrong.
> 
> We now have a time span of sixty years, from Popular Science in 1958 to the Space Shuttle of 2011 that says *YOU* are wrong.



It's unbelievable how stupid you can be. Who cares what Frank Harvey what's-his-name wrote in Popular Science. Are you blind? Look at the following photographic and video evidence. Do the warheads look like they're falling vertically? Idiot.





Splash image showing the Peacekeeper MIRV

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> It's unbelievable how stupid you can be. Who cares what Frank Harvey what's-his-name wrote in Popular Science. Are you blind? Look at the following photographic and video evidence. Do the warheads look like they're falling vertically? Idiot.


And it is unbelievable how obtuse *YOU* are. The questions I posed about that wide angle MIRV photo are legitimate. Do you really believe that those points on the horizon are exactly where you perceive the warheads will land? No one sane will say 'Yes' because of the lack of altitude information about those lines.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mech

Martian2 said:


> It's unbelievable how stupid you can be. Who cares what Frank Harvey what's-his-name wrote in Popular Science. Are you blind? Look at the following photographic and video evidence. Do the warheads look like they're falling vertically? Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Splash image showing the Peacekeeper MIRV
> 
> (insert video)


 
Yeah, who cares about frank...? When we have the awesome photographic evidence from martian2...a self proclaimed internet douche bag. 

You know, i used to think that you were capable of some form of intelligent thought and possessed a fairly good scientific background. Reading your recent posts, i dont think you're anything more than a fanboy with too much time on his hands.

I notice something peculiar about your posts...you screw up on an epic scale when attempting to explain things. However, the copy/paste information database is alright.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> And it is unbelievable how obtuse *YOU* are. The questions I posed about that wide angle MIRV photo are legitimate. Do you really believe that those points on the horizon are exactly where you perceive the warheads will land? No one sane will say 'Yes' because of the lack of altitude information about those lines.



I give up. You're a moron. Oh look, some no-name person wrote an article somewhere. This must be the truth! My eyes deceive me! My senses deceive me! Look Martin, I found a book where someone said the sky is green!!! You are wrong!

We had this discussion before. I am not going to repost all of the ballistic charts from RAND and other mainstream publications again. Well, maybe just one. Link is here if you want to read all of the old arguments again: http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-defence/59274-chinas-missile-defense-system-3.html

----------

My post from May 29, 2010:

What do the experts say? The experts are in agreement that a ballistic missile and warhead come in at an angle. Look at the dotted yellow, pink, blue, and purple parabolas.

You can find the same altitude vs. distance graph in Figure 3.7 (that shows a range of 1,200 km) on page 28 in the *RAND report on "Estimation and Prediction of Ballistic Missile Trajectories"* (see http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2006/MR737.pdf).

http://hadmernok.hu/archivum/2007/2/2007_2_balajti.html





Figure 19. Ballistic missile trajectories and its detection requirements

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> I give up. You're a moron. Oh look, *some no-name person wrote an article somewhere.* This must be the truth! My eyes deceive me! My senses deceive me! Look Martin, I found a book where someone said the sky is green!!! You are wrong!


And who are *YOU*? Someone who needs to take a basic photography class.

Here is another one...






Look at the single vertical line and try to imagine a different viewer perspective. How do you know that a shift in viewer's angle will not produce a shift in supposedly descent angle?


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> And who are *YOU*? Someone who needs to take a basic photography class.
> 
> Here is another one...
> 
> Look at the single vertical line and try to imagine a different viewer perspective. How do you know that a shift in viewer's angle will not produce a shift in supposedly descent angle?



Read the old thread. I've already explained to you that it's not an optical illusion. You cannot reproduce the extreme angles in the Peacekeeper photograph. Also, if you watch the MIRV video, the unarmed warheads create a debris pattern in a particular direction. The non-circular debris pattern is consistent with an incoming MIRV that struck the island at an angle. Simple physics.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Read the old thread. I've already explained to you that it's not an optical illusion. You cannot reproduce the extreme angles in the Peacekeeper photograph. Also, if you watch the MIRV video, the unarmed warheads create a debris pattern in a particular direction. The non-circular debris pattern is consistent with an incoming MIRV that struck the island at an angle. Simple physics.


And you are confused between a different viewing perspective and an illusion. Do you even know the definition of an 'illusion'? As for that Figure 3.7 in that RAND source. The laugh is still upon *YOU* for failing to consider the graduations of the vertical graph, which is altitude. The graduations are very coarse so of course the entire trajectory graph will have the typcial parabolic path. But at the target's position, if we refine the altitude graph, the descent trajectory will be close to vertical.

And the 'round nose' post to prove how wrong you are is coming.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> And you are confused between a different viewing perspective and an illusion. Do you even know the definition of an 'illusion'? As for that Figure 3.7 in that RAND source. The laugh is still upon *YOU* for failing to consider the graduations of the vertical graph, which is altitude. The graduations are very coarse so of course the entire trajectory graph will have the typcial parabolic path. But at the target's position, if we refine the altitude graph, the descent trajectory will be close to vertical.



Your argument is stupid. If all ballistic missile warheads could only descend vertically onto their targets, missile defense would be a piece of cake. Just shoot straight up and you only have to worry about the timing of the intercept.

Also, you know about MARVs. It is a completely unpredictable trajectory. Not merely a MARV circling around a vertical axis as it descends. You're stupid and I can't help you. I'm going to the gym.

The ACTUAL REAL-LIFE video of the MIRV impact on the island clearly shows a directed debris pattern. Using deduction, we know it must have hit at an angle. Use your brain. Real life evidence trumps some stupid articles.

Wait a minute, I will tell you exactly the moment in the video that you should look at.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zabaniyah

j20blackdragon said:


> Not as scary as this.



That's not scary, it is funny  

Seriously, a plane slowly disintegrating from the sky. That's scary ****!

---------- Post added at 02:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:57 AM ----------

Great, from fighters to missiles! I love this place

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Your argument is stupid. If all ballistic missile warheads could only descend vertically onto their targets, missile defense would be a piece of cake. *Just shoot straight up and you only have to worry about the timing of the intercept.*
> 
> Also, you know about MARVs. It is a completely unpredictable trajectory. Not merely a MARV circling around a vertical axis as it descends. You're stupid and I can't help you. I'm going to the gym.


And you are the stupid one here as highlighted. In any head-on interception scheme, be it of a ballistic warhead or even of an aircraft, the collision has only one chance to succeed, and that is why missile defense is so difficult to achieve. The issue is no longer detection, from launch to reentry. The issue is to guarantee that one chance. The maneuvering vehicle is a separate issue.


----------



## Martian2

At 1:03 in the video, the debris impact is skewed heavily to the right of the forward-view of the camera. The evidence is indisputable. The unarmed warhead struck at an angle to create a non-circular debris cloud. You're an idiot. So is that Frank Harvey guy.

This is simple physics. The unarmed warhead struck at an angle. It imparted its momentum to the debris. The debris flew mostly to the right of the picture frame. It is 100% a non-circular debris cloud. Therefore, the warhead clearly did not impact the ground vertically.

I'm going to the gym. You need to get a brain.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> At 1:03 in the video, the debris impact is skewed heavily to the right of the forward-view of the camera. The evidence is indisputable. The unarmed warhead struck at an angle to create a non-circular debris cloud. You're an idiot. So is that Frank Harvey guy.
> 
> This is simple physics. The unarmed warhead struck at an angle. It imparted its momentum to the debris. The debris flew mostly to the right of the picture frame. It is 100% a non-circular debris cloud. Therefore, the warhead clearly did not impact the ground vertically.
> 
> I'm going to the gym. You need to get a brain.


I have no issues with the Kwajalein test firing. Nowhere have I said that *EACH* descent angle must be completely vertical. I have always said 'quite' or 'close'. The descent angle *PER* warhead depends on the targets themselves through trajectory shaping so none will be exactly the same. The Kwajalein test firing should not be taken as typical of how all US ICBMs will descend upon their targets. But it is the USAF's own literature that I rely upon...






The main advantage with descent angles with increasing departures from vertical is the increased aerodynamic flight time over long distances. The main problem is increased odds of hitting the wrong target through 'terrain masking' by the defense...






And that technique prompted the development of maneuverable vehicles. The illustration above shows the different paths a vehicle could take, each with increasing assurance of hitting a target. So if we are to take the Kwajalein test firing as typical of how all US ICBMs behave, then vital targets that uses mountain ranges will be quite survivable, even against a nuclear blast. The Trident D5 has MARVs that can perform trajectory shapings.

Here is where you failed to understand the differences between hitting multiple targets versus hiting different points on the same target: The Kwajalein test firing was of the latter. The idea is that spreading smaller yields inside a perimeter will do much more damage to that target than using one large yield, which could be the sum of those smaller yields, at the center of the same target. But it does not qualify as hitting multiple targets and that would be city X, Y, and Z when they are several thousands km apart. Which lead us back to the first illustration where the USAF outlined the basic flight profile of an ICBM where that profile is applicable to individual warheads over true multiple targets.

At this point am treading very close to the OPSEC line so I will leave you and your ego to crow further about yourself on this subject.  That 'round nose' post to show how wrong you are about your explanation of RCS control is coming.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> ......
> At this point am treading very close to the OPSEC line so I will leave you and your ego to crow further about yourself on this subject.  That 'round nose' post to show how wrong you are about your explanation of RCS control is coming.


 
Gambit, man, I admire your tenacity.. I would have given up long time ago. The man is simply unable to understand.



martian2 said:


> In my own defense, *I am the first person on the internet to say*:
> 
> 1. There is no RAM coating on T-50 engines after almost two years from its debut.
> 
> 2. T-50 upper-body fuselage behind the pilot does not appear to follow "continuous curvature" principle. It's too steep.
> 
> 3. Latter half of T-50 engine pod is not canted. Only the front half of the air duct is canted.
> 
> 4. J-20 Mighty Dragon canards are a superb design choice, because the placement of winglets forward of the main wings creates the benefit of supermaneuverability; while the placement of horizontal tailplanes on the F-22 merely engenders stability without supermaneuverability.
> 
> *These are just some of my recent pioneering observations on stealth design*. During the last nine months, I'm pretty sure I made other *important* observations regarding the J-20, F-22, F-35, and T-50. Time passes and I forget. And no, I will not spend the time to review my mountain of old posts to itemize my work.
> 
> I don't recall Gambit making a single important unique observation



Martian dude, I have two words for you... delusions of grandeur 

you should get that checked man. By a pro.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> Gambit, man, I admire your tenacity.. I would have given up long time ago. The man is simply unable to understand.


The goal is less about him than about presenting counter-arguments to his nonsense to the readers. Am willing to be generous and say 1/2 of them are objective enough to see through.



amalakas said:


> Martian dude, I have two words for you... delusions of grandeur
> 
> you should get that checked man. By a pro.


It really is sad to see how anyone could be, to put it bluntly, an 'attention whore'. Pioneering observations? Wow...!!! He speaks as if Ufimtsev, Skolnik, Jenn, and Knott never existed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## marshall

j20blackdragon said:


> Yeah, this is a Russian engine...


I just love the look of the J-10B. The DSI inlet makes it look like a smiling shark.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> Also, I believe that I have been fair. Sukhoi has had almost two years to rectify the obvious problems with the T-50 design. It doesn't look like Sukhoi fixed a thing at all.


 
Perhaps because Sukhoi engineers -Who unlike us have made supersonic fighter jets before- were engaged with the rather more important task of putting 30 odd tonnes of supersonic bulk in the air safely and also carry out stuff such as evaluation, testing, verification, and adjusting and fine tuning.. while crunching numbers. 

I am sure you'll forgive them, they are only human after all. 



gambit said:


> The goal is less about him than about presenting counter-arguments to his nonsense to the readers. Am willing to be generous and say 1/2 of them are objective enough to see through.
> 
> 
> It really is sad to see how anyone could be, to put it bluntly, an 'attention whore'. Pioneering observations? Wow...!!! He speaks as if Ufimtsev, Skolnik, Jenn, and Knott never existed.



I don't know about 'attention whore' .. but the man has consistently demonstrated that he has very little comprehension of military technology and operation. 
He clearly hasn't seen an operation manual of any piece of hardware -clearly not one of any system with ballistic or anti ballistic properties-, he has no comprehension of how military tech evolves in application and scope. How operational requirements change in the face of changing potential operations theaters and how military equipment must address a host of requirements and considerations. 

He seems to understand nothing about fighter plane design, reading his posts, there is almost and underlying feeling that he considers the F-22 (for example) just an antiquated design, simply because it looks "too conventional", No connection to 'why and for what reason' in the design of a particular feature or even overall system. 

He claims that canards are nothing more than tailplanes at the front! Missing out completely both on the design requirements and restrictions of canard vs tailplane configurations, but more importantly in his favorite area, RCS, the interactions of complex bodies with radio waves, behavior and characteristics of. 

It has been suggested that the F-22 is less maneuverable than the J-20 (who knows ) simply because of the tailplane/canard thing, while completely ignoring the fact that the F-22 has consistently demonstrated sustained AoAs of 60^ at least.. unheard of for western operational aircraft. 

An almost blind faith for just newly developed systems, with no tradition, no bibliography (internal), no history, no expertise behind them. 

Boing,Lokheed,Sukhoi, MiG,Mil, Sikorsky ..whatever you feel about their products, they have been doing this job for decades.. and some Monday morning quarter backs come on these fora with ideas on how FIGHTER JETS should be made !!!!! How arrogant I would say !!!!


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> *I don't know about 'attention whore'* .. but the man has consistently demonstrated that he has very little comprehension of military technology and operation.


Eminently appropriate.



amalakas said:


> He clearly hasn't seen an operation manual of any piece of hardware -clearly not one of any system with ballistic or anti ballistic properties-, he has no comprehension of how military tech evolves in application and scope. How operational requirements change in the face of changing potential operations theaters and how military equipment must address a host of requirements and considerations.
> 
> *He seems to understand nothing about fighter plane design, reading his posts, there is almost and underlying feeling that he considers the F-22 (for example) just an antiquated design, simply because it looks "too conventional", No connection to 'why and for what reason' in the design of a particular feature or even overall system. *
> 
> He claims that canards are nothing more than tailplanes at the front! Missing out completely both on the design requirements and restrictions of canard vs tailplane configurations, but more importantly in his favorite area, RCS, the interactions of complex bodies with radio waves, behavior and characteristics of.
> 
> It has been suggested that the F-22 is less maneuverable than the J-20 (who knows ) simply because of the tailplane/canard thing, while completely ignoring the fact that the F-22 has consistently demonstrated sustained AoAs of 60^ at least.. unheard of for western operational aircraft.
> 
> An almost blind faith for just newly developed systems, with no tradition, no bibliography (internal), no history, no expertise behind them.
> 
> Boing,Lokheed,Sukhoi, MiG,Mil, Sikorsky ..whatever you feel about their products, they have been doing this job for decades.. and some Monday morning quarter backs come on these fora with ideas on how FIGHTER JETS should be made !!!!! How arrogant I would say !!!!


Over at one of the Chinese members' two playgrounds, someone gave himself the handle 'Engineer', clearly to distinguish himself from the rest, boldly proclaimed that the J-20's all-moving vertical stabs are technologically superior to the 'conventional' stab/rudder system on the F-22. Damn near spat my coffee all over the monitors. This 'Engineer' clearly has no understanding of the surface area requirements versus force desired to effect axis stabilization and control. This 'Engineer' was also clueless to the nearly one hundred years of aviation history from the Be2 bi-plane to the SR-71 to the F-117 and all in between that has both systems.






This is where our man got his 'expertise' and 'pioneering observations'.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HavocHeaven

DrSomnath999 said:


> First...Composite materials does not guarantee absorbance. So the composite materials can be tossed.
> 
> Second...Absorbers are not %100 effective. There are always trace EM reflections from the surface. And it is their behaviors that are unpredictable.
> 
> Third...but these prototype is showing large canards .Curvature on the canards is a given but altering them for RCS reduction purposes would affect their airfoil shapes, reducing aerodynamic effectiveness.but these prototype is showing large canards
> 
> And the fourth is totally absurd
> .
> no 5th gen fighter has canards as it is needless because thrust vectoring nozzles can compensate the manuverability for it .Thats why even Russia also which dont want canards in pakfa.It would be surely detected by anti stealth very low frequency radar most probably ground based radars (X band	8 to 12 GHz)
> 
> so plz stop posting craps .
> A big lol for u
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------
> 
> 
> what!! J20 superior to f22
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i think thats why robert gates cancelled it's production
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------
> 
> 
> ok lets see that in future ,whether they would develop it or not F-22 type 2D flat engine nozzles.



A NASA study has demonstrated that the shaping of canard-based designs does not exclude them from stealth club.
Check it out, both the canard configuration and the tail configuration fall into the "moderate observable" category in the following picture.


----------



## amalakas

HavocHeaven said:


> A NASA study has demonstrated that the shaping of canard-based designs does not exclude them from stealth club.
> Check it out, both the canard configuration and the tail configuration fall into the "moderate observable" category in the following picture.



not sure what i am looking at...


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> Eminently appropriate.
> 
> 
> Over at one of the Chinese members' two playgrounds, someone gave himself the handle 'Engineer', clearly to distinguish himself from the rest, boldly proclaimed that the J-20's all-moving vertical stabs are technologically superior to the 'conventional' stab/rudder system on the F-22. Damn near spat my coffee all over the monitors. This 'Engineer' clearly has no understanding of the surface area requirements versus force desired to effect axis stabilization and control. This 'Engineer' was also clueless to the nearly one hundred years of aviation history from the Be2 bi-plane to the SR-71 to the F-117 and all in between that has both systems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where our man got his 'expertise' and 'pioneering observations'.



Was that the same engineer who didn't know what phase margin a control engineer would allow for a closed loop system made for a reference signal following or tracking ? .. the one who now works for raytheon supposedly ? 

arrogance.. sheer arrogance ..


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> Was that the same engineer who didn't know what phase margin a control engineer would allow for a closed loop system made for a reference signal following or tracking ? .. the one who now works for raytheon supposedly ?
> 
> arrogance.. sheer arrogance ..


Dunno. It is good that the Chinese members here are proud of what China accomplished and I have never said they should not. Heck, I left aviation over ten years ago and have forgotten most of the math I used daily and we used a lot of junk yard cars in the radar range instead of sophisticated software, but if there is a god of aviation, perhaps you as a Greek can check your mythology for one, he must be laughing his butt off at the claims these guys made and still making.


----------



## gambit

HavocHeaven said:


> A NASA study has demonstrated that the shaping of canard-based designs does not exclude them from stealth club.
> Check it out, both the canard configuration and the tail configuration fall into the "moderate observable" category in the following picture.


No one ever said it does, least of all me and I posted a lot of explanations on the basics of radar detection and 'stealth' that are universal to everyone. The problem here is that the more scatterers (or generators) you have, the greater the problems of trying to model, predict, and finally measure your complex body.

The first two: Model and Prediction, can be switched and with today's sophisticated software it is even easier. But measurement is the final determination of whether your intended design will go below a certain threshold and for that you need a full scale version of your design. We do not know the extent of China's RCS measurements of the J-20. The fact that the aircraft is flying mean at some point during the modeling and estimation phase, the engineers must have come to a conclusion that they can no longer tinker with the design without adverse consequences, EM or aerodynamics. We do not have the data upon which they based that conclusion. Therefore it is only reasonable that we *NOT* make wild assumptions as some have made here.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> Dunno. It is good that the Chinese members here are proud of what China accomplished and I have never said they should not. Heck, I left aviation over ten years ago and have forgotten most of the math I used daily and we used a *lot of junk yard cars in the radar range instead of sophisticated software*, but if there is a god of aviation, perhaps you as a Greek can check your mythology for one, he must be laughing his butt off at the claims these guys made and still making.



Apollo must be the God of flying, but Greeks assign Ikarus as the protector of aviators, and actually call all cadets 'Ikari' .



That's funny, we used to use old Unimog trucks to test and calibrate our fighter and AA radars, works almost as good as software.


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> Apollo must be the God of flying, but Greeks assign Ikarus as the protector of aviators, and actually call all cadets 'Ikari' .


Then he and Joe must be enjoying themselves...

Know your Patron Saint


> St. Joseph of Copertino: Is patron of aviators.





amalakas said:


> That's funny, we used to use old Unimog trucks to test and calibrate our fighter and AA radars, works almost as good as software.


Corvettes were very difficult to measure, especially at ground level.


----------



## marshall

DrSomnath999 said:


> First...Composite materials does not guarantee absorbance. So the composite materials can be tossed.
> 
> Second...Absorbers are not %100 effective. There are always trace EM reflections from the surface. And it is their behaviors that are unpredictable.
> 
> Third...but these prototype is showing large canards .Curvature on the canards is a given but altering them for RCS reduction purposes would affect their airfoil shapes, reducing aerodynamic effectiveness.but these prototype is showing large canards


As was already mentioned, the F-22 all-moving tailplanes have a similar stealth impact as the J-20 canards. The J-20 does not have tailplanes. However, canards arguably have a greater effect on stealth because they are more actively maneuvered in the absence of thrust vectoring. At this time, I believe it is a minor tradeoff to achieve superior maneuverability vs a relatively insignificant stealth impact. However, if the J-20 is to ever be fitted with thrust vectoring, the combination of canards will give it unbeatable agility.




DrSomnath999 said:


> And the fourth is totally absurd
> .
> no 5th gen fighter has canards as it is needless because thrust vectoring nozzles can compensate the manuverability for it .Thats why even Russia also which dont want canards in pakfa.It would be surely detected by anti stealth very low frequency radar most probably ground based radars (X band	8 to 12 GHz)


Actually, the J-20 5th generation fighter has canards.  This is not to say that the J-20 should not have thrust vectoring as this would give it clearly superior maneuverability over thrust vectoring only aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> Corvettes were very difficult to measure, especially at ground level.



Unimog 








a bit easier to measure than corvettes, not to mention corvettes are a bit rare in Greece, perhaps a bit harder to place on a pylon though.


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> Unimog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a bit easier to measure than corvettes, not to mention corvettes are a bit rare in Greece.


I heard they are pretty tough rigs.


----------



## gambit

marshall said:


> As was already mentioned, *the F-22 all-moving tailplanes have a similar stealth impact as the J-20 canards. The J-20 does not have tailplanes. * However, canards arguably have a greater effect on stealth because they are more actively maneuvered in the absence of thrust vectoring. At this time, I believe it is a minor tradeoff to achieve superior maneuverability vs a relatively insignificant stealth impact. However, if the J-20 is to ever be fitted with thrust vectoring, the combination of canards will give it unbeatable agility.


This is where you are mistaken. No one is denying that the F-22's rear horizontal stabs are EM generators. Yes, they are. But their diffracted signals are off into free space, not onto the fuselage or onto the wings as in the case of the J-20. This is where it gets problematic. Interactions means two possible events: Destructive interference (good) or Constructive interference (bad). The diffracted signals from the canards will interact with the diffracted signals off the fuselage and the wings. We do not know the results of those interactions.


----------



## marshall

DrSomnath999 said:


> ...On one ground u are saying j20 engine are based on LOAN technology & another hand u r saying the ventral fins shield the jet engines from lateral view and contribute to lateral infrared stealth then what's the use ventral fins then tell me . Do u think it can protect the plane from 5th gen HEAT seeking missiles like python 5 absolutely
> no you told it blends from side profile but what from behind & below ?It would be surely detected by anti stealth very low frequency radar most probably ground based radars (X band	8 to 12 GHz)from below and aesa radar from behind
> so again a big LOL for u


I think most people understand that components can sometimes have secondary benefits besides their primary function. Ventral fins that also block most of the lateral heat signature from the nozzles that are not already attenuated by the LOAN technology is an added bonus wouldn't you agree?

As for hiding the heat signature from the back, I think that would be a pretty good trick for any fighter. Care to mention some successful examples?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

marshall said:


> As for hiding the heat signature from the back, I think that would be a pretty good trick for any fighter. Care to mention some successful examples?



F-117 ............................

---------- Post added at 01:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:33 AM ----------




gambit said:


> I heard they are pretty tough rigs.



chassis tough ..yes
engine reliable... ahhh


----------



## marshall

gambit said:


> This is where you are mistaken. No one is denying that the F-22's rear horizontal stabs are EM generators. Yes, they are. But their diffracted signals are off into free space, not onto the fuselage or onto the wings as in the case of the J-20. This is where it gets problematic. Interactions means two possible events: Destructive interference (good) or Constructive interference (bad). The diffracted signals from the canards will interact with the diffracted signals off the fuselage and the wings. We do not know the results of those interactions.


Good point. I cannot comment without a supercomputer on hand but if I were to take a wild guess, I would say the continuous curvature as implemented on the canards would be shaped to diffract any EM outwards away from the fuselage from the frontal aspect. However, avoiding the wings is a problem. In real world situations, the canards should be kept in alignment most times except in dogfights or once detected. I would not be surprised if there were different flight modes available for this very reason.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

ptldM3 said:


> And define 'powerful'. Does Huzhigeng mind telling everyone where he got his information? For starters the NIIP's performance is classified.



Ask him. I was not the one saying it.

Large size implies greater number of T/R modules, giving it better tracking abilities.


----------



## marshall

marshall said:


> ...As for hiding the heat signature from the back, I think that would be a pretty good trick for any fighter. Care to mention some successful examples?





amalakas said:


> F-117


Not sure this is correct. I'm not talking about laterally or from above or below like the YF-23. I asked if there are any fighters that hide their engine heat signature from the *BACK*...as in if you are looking into the exhaust, which as I said would be a pretty good trick.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

marshall said:


> Good point. I cannot comment without a supercomputer on hand but if I were to take a wild guess, *I would say the continuous curvature as implemented on the canards would be shaped to diffract any EM outwards away from the fuselage.* However, avoiding the wings is a problem. In real world situations, the canards should be kept in alignment most times except in dogfights or once detected. I would not be surprised if there were different flight modes available for this very reason.


And I see that you felled for that 'continuous curvature' thingie. Your guess is as wild as it is wrong. In order to have diffracted signals away from the fuselage, the *TRAILING EDGE* of the canard must be angled 'away' from the fuselage. Continuous curvature has nothing, or at best very little, to do with this. Am sure you can find plenty of publicly available images of the J-20 to see for yourself the angle of those trailing edges.


----------



## Akasa

gubbi said:


> What are you? Some kind of authority on defense systems? Those posts you "quote" are simply jokes! Throwing around big words doesnt make YOU a defense analyst!!
> 
> Sorry mate. Your posts are absurd, stupid and delusional. You are and will remain a thickskull jester.



And if quoting big words makes his posts superior in reliability and accuracy when compared to yours (which it does to a huge extent), then the purpose is achieved.

Sorry, mate. Your whining is laughable, useless, and ineffective. You are and will remain and ignorant blabbermouth who buries his head in the sand.


----------



## lamlap

Sorry, mate. Your argument is nonsense, laughable, useless, and ineffective

---------- Post added at 10:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 AM ----------

my post to gambit 

grow up


----------



## j20blackdragon

A real stealth aircraft has a flat and clean lower fuselage to reduce both specular returns and diffraction.

The first 4 pictures are real stealth aircraft. The last one is not. 





















I see gaps, seams, protrusions, surface discontinuities, sudden changes in shape, and fully exposed engines on the PAK FA. 

Did the Russians stumble onto a secret super stealth design that the rest of the world is too stupid to see? I doubt it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

j20blackdragon said:


> A real stealth aircraft has a flat and clean lower fuselage to reduce both specular returns and *diffraction.*




You have no clue as to what you are talking about kid 

Diffraction generally refers to EM energy when it exits off of a body such as a wing, boom, flaps, ect. Sometimes diffraction is used to describe complex behavior when EM energy strikes something such as a cavity.

Diffraction occurs when an abrupt edge or discontinuity occurs. The goal is to control this diffraction, preferably so it occurs behind an aircraft (horizontal stabs) and not in front (canards).

And please, I&#8217;m like 100% certain that you just learned the word 'specular'. Don't act like you know what you are talking.

There is no rule saying you have to have a flat fuselage to achieve 'stealth' although the flat fuselage is the simplest way that assures the least chance of any signals coming back. You can have an underside that is anything but flat, what is important is controlling and redirecting EM energy. IF you look at the F-117 it has many faceted surfaces, some in close proximity for today's standards all that faceting is not necessary but the point is the complex faceting on the F-117 caused EM energy to behave in a complex manner. The same philosophy holds true for the pak-fa.

And take a closer look at the rear lower fusalage of the B-2, flat is it?





j20blackdragon said:


> I see gaps, seams, protrusions, surface discontinuities,




Again you have no clue as to what you are talking about, I have come across many J-20 fanboys that used the word 'surface discontinuitie' but when I ask them to explain what it means and point out these discontinuities to the readers all have shamelessly disappeared or ignored my request, which could only mean that these J-20 fanboys copied and pasted something they have no comprehension of.

So point out these surface discontinuities to everyone. There are also techniques used to reduce or eliminate this phenomenon, and I will explain it with a source but of course you first have to explain to the readers as to what surface discontinuities are and where they are found on the pak-fa.

And FYI every aircraft has surface discontinuities. And as I stated before they can be controlled so the fact that you even mentioned the subject proves that you have no idea as what you are talking about.

Quick start Googling surface discontinuities in a futile attempt to throw together a response.



As for protrusions the J-20 has many and they are quite large, I take it that you forgot to examine the J-20's wings and perhaps those nice protrusions in front of the intake so commonly referred to as DSI's.

As for seams and gaps, again you are merely looking for something to find in order to bash the pak-fa, no matter how silly it is. Even worse is that you can't back any of your claims with an in depth explanation and a source.






j20blackdragon said:


> *sudden changes in shape*,




Again phrases like that only illustrates your incompetence, all aircraft have sudden changes in shape  you also want to explain this particular phrase? What phenomenon are you referring to? If we take your silly phrase literally something like a vertical stabilizer is a sudden change in shape from the fuselage.




j20blackdragon said:


> and fully exposed engines on the PAK FA.




Oh I forgot the J-20's engines are not exposed, it must be an optical elusion  perhaps you are talking about the intakes, in that case Boeing must have lied when they stated that the F-15 Silent Eagle can achieve the same frontal RCS as the F-35 export model.





j20blackdragon said:


> Did the Russians stumble onto a secret super stealth design that the rest of the *world is too stupid* to see? I doubt it.





Yes and many of the stupid have been concentrated in this forum most of them flying Chinese flags.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

Gaps, seams, protrusions, surface discontinuities, sudden changes in shape are all sources of diffraction. The more gaps and imperfections there are the greater the total RCS return. It all adds up. There's no need to point them out because anyone with eyes can spot them on any picture of the PAK FA.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

j20blackdragon said:


> Gaps, seams, protrusions, surface discontinuities, sudden changes in shape are all sources of diffraction. The more gaps and imperfections there are the greater the total RCS return. It all adds up. There's no need to point them out because anyone with eyes can spot them on any picture of the PAK FA.



Busted! Running away like a coward. As i stated point out and explain with a source so everyone can judge for themselves, i'm sure many people can not spot them so please show everyone. And as explained some of phrases you used such as 'sudden changes in shape' only illustrates that you just throw together a sentence that you yourself can not explain.

And please don't use phrases such as " There's no need to point them out because anyone with eyes can spot them". That crap may fly in China but here that does not work. If you make a claim you better be able to explain it. It's clearly obvious that you have dug yourself into a hole.

And do you have any idea the meaning of the photo you posted? It illustrates edge diffraction from a wing, what does this have to do with the pak-fa? If anything that picture only illustrates the negative effects of canards. And congradulations all aircraft have flaps and ailerons, meaning that the J-20 also has surface discontinuities.

Your weak attempt just backfired on you


----------



## lamlap

T-50 is a joke

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lamlap

j20blackdragon said:


> Gaps, seams, protrusions, surface discontinuities, sudden changes in shape are all sources of diffraction. The more gaps and imperfections there are the greater the total RCS return. It all adds up. There's no need to point them out because anyone with eyes can spot them on any picture of the PAK FA.



totally agree

T-50 is a joke, it's a tool for Russia cheating Indian's money...hahahaha


----------



## ptldM3

lamlap said:


> T-50 is a joke



Not as big of a joke as the Chinese aircraft industry, installing AL-31's on one of the J-20's only shows how Incompetent your industry is.

You can suck up to your brother as much as you wish but if you go to post #307 you will see how bad he got burned, and in post #308 you can see how he not only cowardly ran away from my challenge but also posted an image that backfired on him. You and him bring nothing new to the table.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## lamlap

ptldM3 said:


> Not as big of a joke as the Chinese aircraft industry, installing AL-31's on one of the J-20's only shows how Incompetent your industry is.



We are still Far Better than you, Because India can only buy T-50 from Russia hahahahaha

Indian aircraft industry are TOTALLY A JOKE

Your UGLY LCA is a BIG JOKE too

Chinese's J10B are Superior


by the way, J10B and J20 are installing with China-made Engine WS-10G or other variants


----------



## ptldM3

lamlap said:


> We are still Far Better than you, Because India can only buy T-50 from Russia hahahahaha
> 
> Indian aircraft industry are TOTALLY A JOKE
> 
> Your LCA is a joke too
> 
> Chinese's J10B are Superior
> 
> 
> by the way, J10B and J20 are installing Chinese-made Engline WS-10g or other variants



I'm not Indian Genius.


----------



## lamlap

ptldM3 said:


> I'm not Indian Genius.



Same

Indian aircraft industry are TOTALLY A JOKE


----------



## gambit

> gambit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is a 'round nose' less effective at RCS control than a 'non-round nose'? You are correct but that is from guessing in comparing 'looks'. You violated your own rule. To redeem yourself, you need to explain your guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martian2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will play your game this one time.
> 
> I believe a round nose reflects radar in all directions at a relatively constant intensity. This means the radar reflection is detectable depending on the sensitivity and distance of the enemy radar.
> 
> However, the shaped nose is superior for stealth because if you examine the shape carefully, it redirects the incoming radar energy below the chine line into only a few directions.
> 
> An examination of the shaped nose above the chine line shows that it relies on the "continuous curvature" principle for stealth.
> 
> An examination of the shaped nose below the chine line shows that it mostly relies on the facet principle for stealth. Below the chine line, the nose is not completely faceted due to aerodynamic considerations. However, it is mostly faceted.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

As I replied before: Wrong.

Here is the correct answer...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/20908-rcs-different-fighters-7.html#post2104567


----------



## gambit

ptldM3 said:


> You have no clue as to what you are talking about kid
> 
> Diffraction generally refers to EM energy when it exits off of a body such as a wing, boom, flaps, ect. Sometimes diffraction is used to describe complex behavior when EM energy strikes something such as a cavity.
> 
> Diffraction occurs when an abrupt edge or discontinuity occurs. *The goal is to control this diffraction*, preferably so it occurs behind an aircraft (horizontal stabs) and not in front (canards).
> 
> And please, Im like 100% certain that you just learned the word 'specular'. Don't act like you know what you are talking.
> 
> *There is no rule saying you have to have a flat fuselage to achieve 'stealth'* although the flat fuselage is the simplest way that assures the least chance of any signals coming back. You can have an underside that is anything but flat, what is important is controlling and redirecting EM energy. *IF you look at the F-117 it has many faceted surfaces*, some in close proximity for today's standards all that faceting is not necessary but the point is the complex faceting on the F-117 caused EM energy to behave in a complex manner. The same philosophy holds true for the pak-fa.


That is true: Redirecting of reflected/diffracted signals. People must understand that an aircraft is a finite body and those radar signals must eventually come off the aircraft at some time and somewhere.

The F-117's many surface discontinuities are evident in this photo...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/F-117_Nighthawk_Front.jpg

Those seams create concave and convex structures and each one of those seams is a surface discontinuity, and yet thanks to careful planning, the diffracted signals are mostly redirected away from the seeking radar.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lamlap

*Indian aircraft industry are TOTALLY A JOKE*

Chinese are Far Better than you indians, Because India can only buy T-50 from Russia hahahahaha

by the way, J10B and J20 are installing with China-made Engine WS-10G or other variants 

Chinese's J10B are also Superior  

Your UGLY LCA is a BIG JOKE too


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

Good for China. 

I am happy to see that their defence production is adapting and the tech. gap is decreasing by the day. 

look forward to continued cooperation with the friendly neighbour country


----------



## RockyX

lamlap said:


> *Indian aircraft industry are TOTALLY A JOKE*
> 
> Chinese are Far Better than you indians, Because India can only buy T-50 from Russia hahahahaha
> 
> by the way, J10B and J20 are installing with China-made Engine WS-10G or other variants
> 
> Chinese's J10B are also Superior
> 
> Your UGLY LCA is a BIG JOKE too



At least we don't copy-paste. That's why no one is ready to sell their best Aircraft to China. 

We make what we can or afford. If needed, We buy by paying hard cash as per rules. We buy as per ToT and manufacture in our own country. Like Sukhoi 30 MKI, MIG29, MIRAGE 2k, now Rafale/Typhhon later ( PAK FA, F-35 may be)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zabaniyah

RockyX said:


> At least we don't copy-paste. That's why no one is ready to sell their best Aircraft to China.
> 
> We make what we can or afford. If needed, We buy by paying hard cash as per rules. We buy as per ToT and manufacture in our own country. Like Sukhoi 30 MKI, MIG29, MIRAGE 2k, now Rafale/Typhhon later ( PAK FA, F-35 may be)



If you had the ability to 'copy/paste', I am sure you'd have done so already a long time ago 

Reverse engineering advanced military equipment are by no means child's play. In fact as days go by, China's ideas are becoming more and more original. 

Did you know that even Japan used to 'copy/paste'? Think about it


----------



## lamlap

RockyX said:


> We make what we can or afford. If needed, We buy by paying hard cash as per rules. We buy as per ToT and manufacture in our own country. Like Sukhoi 30 MKI, MIG29, MIRAGE 2k, now Rafale/Typhhon later ( PAK FA, F-35 may be)



buy? Solve your slums first


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> As I replied before: Wrong.
> 
> Here is the correct answer...
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/20908-rcs-different-fighters-7.html#post2104567





gambit said:


> That behavior is quite evident for the F-15 and all aircrafts with similar radome or fuselage structures.
> 
> *The same cannot be said for the SR-71, which is quite close to the extreme end of the shaping spectrum: The diamond shape.* Any impinging radar signal will deflect away from source direction and this angled facetings technique was evident in the retired F-117.



1. My analysis of the shaped-nose relying on the "continuous curvature" principle above the chine line and the facet principle below the chine line is correct. You only know how to quote textbooks, without a thorough and complete understanding. To claim that my analysis is incorrect is simply wrong.

2. The top-half of the SR-71 nose is a curve, not a faceted diamond-shape as you claim. You need glasses.






Lockheed SR-71A Blackbird has a curved upper-nose (based on "continuous curvature" principle), not faceted diamond-shape.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Whazzup

lamlap said:


> buy? Solve your slums first



You are the biggest joke and dumbest character I have seen in this forum till now are you really a Chineese ??? Till now the only thing you have done is to troll and derail this thread if you don't have any kind of knowledge whats going onhere just stop posting .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Whazzup

j20blackdragon said:


> A real stealth aircraft has a flat and clean lower fuselage to reduce both specular returns and diffraction.
> 
> The first 4 pictures are real stealth aircraft. The last one is not.
> 
> 
> I see gaps, seams, protrusions, surface discontinuities, sudden changes in shape, and fully exposed engines on the PAK FA.
> 
> Did the Russians stumble onto a secret super stealth design that the rest of the world is too stupid to see? I doubt it.



Oh god not again hadn't I already ans that buddy saying this again and again will not going to help you 
That's a prototype not a final product and those gaps you are pointing at again and again will be filled up when we are going to integrate internal weapon bay between the air intakes heres a pic for better understanding











Anyways better luck next time.


----------



## Zabaniyah

With the T-50 having an internal weapon bay, it is a key a 5th generation feature. 

Anyways, with the T-50 and J-20 both being prototypes, it is too early to jump to conclusions. 

I have heard from somewhere that the T-50 would focus more on aerodynamic characteristics than being stealthy. Obviously the engines still do need work - which by far is the hardest thing to master at. 

Although, the J-20's general design has its critics - which many here fail to counter miserably. I mean, why the hell have canards while having TVC? It is an awfully redundant feature.


----------



## Whazzup

Zabanya said:


> With the T-50 having an internal weapon bay, it is a key a 5th generation feature.
> 
> Anyways, with the T-50 and J-20 both being prototypes, it is too early to jump to conclusions.
> 
> I have heard from somewhere that the T-50 would focus more on aerodynamic characteristics than being stealthy. Obviously the engines still do need work - which by far is the hardest thing to master at.
> 
> Although, the J-20's general design has its critics - which many here fail to counter miserably. I mean, why the hell have canards while having TVC? It is an awfully redundant feature.



Regarding T50 yes it will be concentrating more on aerodynamics and less on stealth but not Indian FGFA (if one go by wiki) we are already having 200plus MKI which is itself is very aerodynamic what we need a pure stealth plane , While J20 will surely going depend on its stealth only just like F35(bcoz of its size and weight) .
And regarding the comparison dude saying the same for god knows how many times.


----------



## Martian2

Blitzo said:


> It's alright there's no need. You aren't going to convince me the PAK FA can not be fitted with an engine blocker. It's not super advanced technology, the F-18E/F uses it and we all know how long it has been around for.
> 
> As for six inches... Lol I never said the engine blocker was six inches, I was basing it off eyeballing this picture:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually think it's probably a good deal longer than six inches, considering the diameter needed to cover the entire front of the engine.
> 
> If you want to read more up on it the picture first posted came from here Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA first flight - pictures, videos and analysis and there's a good bit of discussion to go along with it.
> I would go onto some of the other forums like key or secretprojects for testimonials from people there who probably know much more than me and you, but I can't really be bothered.



My discussion with Blitzo on the Russian radar blocker ended a while ago. I am not resurrecting the debate. However, while my mind is clear, I want to write down and share a few new observations.

1. Based on physics, the Russian radar blocker won't work. The specular reflection from the mostly perpendicular surfaces will be enormous and easily detectable.

2. The idea of using micro-ducts is patently silly. The principle of stealth behind the F-22, J-20, and F-35 is to use a large cavity (e.g. the long "S" air duct) to reflect an incoming radar wave multiple times towards the inside of the long S-duct. With each bounce inward, the RAM coating converts some of the radar energy into heat energy. The process is the same with the radar-wave bounce back out of the interior of the long S-duct.

With micro-ducts, it is impossible to have multiple bounces to attenuate an incoming radar wave. The cavity is too small.

3. A micro-duct design will create a broad and diffuse specular radar return. Based on physics, the cavity has to be large and smooth to reflect an incoming radar wave. With a micro-duct, the surface will not appear to be smooth, because it is curved on a small-scale (which is noticeable to the wavelength of S/C/L/X band radar).

4. Look at Blitzo's picture (see above). Do you see that giant round disk in the middle? There goes your stealth. Also, the large perpendicular metal spokes radiating from the giant round hub in the middle will also create a massive radar return.

In conclusion, due to physics problems, the Russian radar blocker won't work and it's a fantasy.

(Sorry Blitzo, but I believe I possess more analytical power on stealth than all of the forum members at KeyPublishing combined. They came up with a stupid claim and I'm here to debunk it.)


----------



## Martian2

CardSharp said:


> Well here's a bit of info I came across. The people at key aviation have come to the consensus that the infamous 'exposed engine' is actually the engine blocker.



An "engine blocker" will not save the T-50 from detection. When all that radar energy enter the jet engine cavity, there are only two outcomes. The energy is either reflected or absorbed. The fan blades of the "engine blocker" are roughly perpendicular. Whatever radar energy that is not absorbed will all be mostly reflected back to the enemy fighter's detector. Also, due to the spinning blades, the enemy radar detector will notice a modulating reflected signal.

If that is an engine blocker, it is poorly designed. To a radar beam moving at the speed of light, the spinning engine blocker blades are basically standing still. Looking at the picture, we can see that 90% of the radar beams will impact and reflect off the engine fan blades behind the engine blocker. The engine blocker will have minimal effect on lowering the radar reflection from the metallic engine fan blades.

The only difference between naked engine fan blades and an installed engine blocker is a slightly weaker reflected radar signal. It won't help much. Therefore, you do not see the U.S. using a comparable approach. The penalty in fuel efficiency and power output (from disrupted air flow) probably far outweighs the limited lower RCS from an engine blocker.





A Russian T-50 engine blocker is no substitute for a Chinese J-20 S-duct design.


----------



## wealdcn017

f22 can not fly over 5000m,
f35 will be cut;
t50's buttocks was burning;

only j20 flying lonely


----------



## Whazzup

wealdcn017 said:


> f22 can not fly over 5000m,
> f35 will be cut;
> t50's buttocks was burning;
> 
> only j20 flying lonely



Thats bcoz your govt don't share latest news with its citizens , Actually making 5th gen plane is extremely different task and if think that China can really do it without facing any real probelm then only god can help you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> A Russian T-50 engine blocker is no substitute for a Chinese J-20 S-duct design.



No it isn't because they didn't want to substitute the Chinese S-duct. They wanted to create exactly what they created. 

It is very hard for you to understand a few things.. isn't it? 

What you don't understand is, that even if it turns out the T-50 is not stealthy at all, EVERYTHING ON IT AND ABOUT IT is by design, not by accident and guestimation !!!! 

You keep commenting on crap you have no clue about.. DSI, S-ducts and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.blah blah blah .. 

A real engineer, or a guy with real engineering spirit, or even some real experience in military affairs, would have a completely different approach on the whole issue. 

That is where you make a fool of your self and expose it to really ...really easy blows.


----------



## houshanghai

Zabanya said:


> With the T-50 having an internal weapon bay, it is a key a 5th generation feature.
> 
> Anyways, with the T-50 and J-20 both being prototypes, it is too early to jump to conclusions.
> 
> I have heard from somewhere that the T-50 would focus more on aerodynamic characteristics than being stealthy. Obviously the engines still do need work - which by far is the hardest thing to master at.
> 
> Although, the J-20's general design has its critics - which many here fail to counter miserably. I mean, why the hell have canards while having TVC? It is an awfully redundant feature.




1.Canards be made sufficiently stealthy treatment which don't necessarily affect stealth. 
actually,F22's huge twin vertical stabilizers affect stealth too.however, all j20 and t50 have a pair of small acreage all-moving tailfins .the stealthy design is better than F22's . 
2.bcz there will be more close air combat between 5 gen fighters,so super maneuverability is very important at this time .The design of canards+TVC can provide stronger super maneuverability for j20, this is good for air fighting. 
3,Each country's air force has its own peculiarity and PLAAF like canards very much. usa and russian have conventional tradition in their fighter .then our china has canards tradition too.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Obambam

RockyX said:


> *At least we don't copy-paste.* That's why no one is ready to sell their best Aircraft to China.
> 
> We make what we can or afford. If needed, We buy by paying hard cash as per rules. We buy as per ToT and manufacture in our own country. Like Sukhoi 30 MKI, MIG29, MIRAGE 2k, now Rafale/Typhhon later ( PAK FA, F-35 may be)





> _Good artists copy great artists steal_ - Steve Jobs


----------



## lamlap

J20 is the best

Martian2 is the best

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

Martian2 said:


> My discussion with Blitzo on the Russian radar blocker ended a while ago. I am not resurrecting the debate. However, while my mind is clear, I want to write down and share a few new observations.
> 
> 1. Based on physics, the Russian radar blocker won't work. The specular reflection from the mostly perpendicular surfaces will be enormous and easily detectable.
> 
> 2. The idea of using micro-ducts is patently silly. The principle of stealth behind the F-22, J-20, and F-35 is to use a large cavity (e.g. the long "S" air duct) to reflect an incoming radar wave multiple times towards the inside of the long S-duct. With each bounce inward, the RAM coating converts some of the radar energy into heat energy. The process is the same with the radar-wave bounce back out of the interior of the long S-duct.
> 
> With micro-ducts, it is impossible to have multiple bounces to attenuate an incoming radar wave. The cavity is too small.
> 
> *3. A micro-duct design will create a broad and diffuse specular radar return. Based on physics, the cavity has to be large and smooth to reflect an incoming radar wave. With a micro-duct, the surface will not appear to be smooth, because it is curved on a small-scale (which is noticeable to the wavelength of S/C/L/X band radar).*
> 
> 4. Look at Blitzo's picture (see above). Do you see that giant round disk in the middle? There goes your stealth. Also, the large perpendicular metal spokes radiating from the giant round hub in the middle will also create a massive radar return.
> 
> In conclusion, due to physics problems, the Russian radar blocker won't work and it's a fantasy.
> 
> (Sorry Blitzo, but I believe I possess more analytical power on stealth than all of the forum members at KeyPublishing combined. They came up with a stupid claim and I'm here to debunk it.)



I will explain point #3 in greater detail to make it easily understandable.

Imagine that photons (which include radar waves) are a group of ping pong balls. If you throw a group of ping pong balls against the wall in a long hallway, they'll just bounce down the hallway/cavity.

Now, try throwing a group of ping pong balls into a Mythical Russian radar blocker with micro-ducts, which are roughly the size of the ping pong balls. Most of the ping pong balls will bounce back out. There is your "broad and diffuse specular radar return."

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> I will explain point #3 in greater detail to make it easily understandable.
> 
> *Imagine that photons (which include radar waves)* are a group of ping pong balls. If you throw a group of ping pong balls against the wall in a long hallway, they'll just bounce down the hallway/cavity.
> 
> Now, try throwing a group of ping pong balls into a Mythical Russian radar blocker with micro-ducts, which are roughly the size of the ping pong balls. Most of the ping pong balls will bounce back out. There is your "broad and diffuse specular radar return."




wow !!!

12345678901

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

Purported Mythical Russian radar blocker (Source: Blitzo)

I want to make it clear that my analysis and debunking of the Mythical Russian radar blocker did not arise out of a desire to pick on the Russian T-50/Pak Fa.

Blitzo is a well-known member among defense forums. Blitzo stated that the entire Key Publishing forum membership had debated the Russian radar blocker issue and arrived at the collective judgment that it was an effective stealth device to block enemy radar.

I had no choice but to debunk the stupid conclusion of the entire Key Publishing forum community. In my opinion, their collective judgment on stealth design is not worth much and I had to analyze the Mythical Russian radar blocker in detail to set the record straight.

Give me a break. How hard is it to look at the picture and notice the giant non-stealthy metallic disc in the center of the drawing? The entire Key Publishing forum community is blind as a bat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> Purported Mythical Russian radar blocker (Source: Blitzo)
> 
> I want to make it clear that my analysis and debunking of the Mythical Russian radar blocker did not arise out of a desire to pick on the Russian T-50/Pak Fa.
> 
> Blitzo is a well-known member among defense forums. Blitzo stated that the entire *Key Publishing forum* membership had debated the Russian radar blocker issue and arrived at the collective judgment that it was an effective stealth device to block enemy radar.
> 
> I had no choice but to debunk the stupid conclusion of the entire Key Publishing forum community. In my opinion, their collective judgment on stealth design is not worth much and I had to analyze the Mythical Russian radar blocker in detail to set the record straight.
> 
> Give me a break. How hard is it to look at the picture and notice the giant non-stealthy metallic disc in the center of the drawing? The entire Key Publishing forum community is blind as a bat.



I am not a member nor have i ever read that forum. Could you please provide a link for them?


----------



## j20blackdragon

Gaps, cracks, seams, protrusions, surface discontinuities, sudden changes in shape, changes in material are everywhere!

This isn't a stealth aircraft. I don't know what it is, perhaps a normal 4th generation fighter.

The PAK FA is disgusting. I'm gonna throw up.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

amalakas said:


> I am not a member nor have i ever read that forum. Could you please provide a link for them?



I ignore trolls like you. You are only a bug and not worthy of my time.

I will respond to Gambit, because he has earned it. That is the main reason (and probably the only reason) that I'm still here on Defense.pk

*Just watch. When Gambit leaves, I will leave on the same day.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lamlap

j20blackdragon said:


> Gaps, cracks, seams, protrusions, surface discontinuities, sudden changes in shape, changes in material are everywhere!
> 
> This isn't a stealth aircraft. I don't know what it is, perhaps a normal 4th generation fighter.
> 
> The PAK FA is disgusting. I'm gonna throw up.




HAHAHA

Totally agree

T-50 is only a 3rd generation fighter = Su27 upgraded version


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> I ignore trolls like you. You are only a bug and not worthy of my time.
> 
> I will respond to Gambit, because he has earned it. That is the main reason (and probably the only reason) that I'm still here on Defense.pk
> 
> *Just watch. When Gambit leaves, I will leave the same day.*




Oh man you are deteriorating worst and worst every day. I am not asking for a response, I am asking for a link. You can't separate between the two ? 

Oh and by the way, what you describe above, is borderline stalking behavior .. again get it checked, by a pro.


----------



## DrSomnath999

marshall said:


> As was already mentioned, the F-22 all-moving tailplanes have a similar stealth impact as the J-20 canards. The J-20 does not have tailplanes. However, canards arguably have a greater effect on stealth because they are more actively maneuvered in the absence of thrust vectoring. At this time, I believe it is a minor tradeoff to achieve superior maneuverability vs a relatively insignificant stealth impact. However, if the J-20 is to ever be fitted with thrust vectoring, the combination of canards will give it unbeatable agility.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the J-20 5th generation fighter has canards.  This is not to say that the J-20 should not have thrust vectoring as this would give it clearly superior maneuverability over thrust vectoring only aircraft.



what rubbish there is no need of canards in 5th gen fighters as they have thrust vectoring nozzle to compensate that.
now see T50 prototype




Leading edge root extensions (LERX)

PAK FA Features Movable LERX, this would be more like a Stealthy Canard.


LERX are fillets or strakes, typically roughly triangular in shape, running from the leading edge of the wing root to a point near the cockpit along the fuselage. They tend to be fairly small in span, extending out less than a metre.

On a modern fighter aircraft they provide usable airflow over the wing at high angles of attack. In cruising flight the effect of the LERX is minimal. However: when the angle of attack increases, as in a dog fight, the LERX starts to generate a high-speed vortex that remains attached to the top of the wing. Due to the effects described by Bernoulli's principle the wing therefore has a low pressure zone on top, and continues to generate lift past the normal stall point. The F/A-18 Hornet has especially large examples, as does the Sukhoi Su-27. Early prototypes of the Su-27 crashed due to poorly designed LERX, causing it to freeze at angles of attack above 5 degrees. This has since been overcome. In fact, the LERX help to make possible advanced maneuvers such as the Pugachev's Cobra, the Cobra Turn and the Kulbit.



LERX can be seen pitching downward to create more lift.





Zoom in, you can see LERX,IRST in front of cocpit, some sort of Situational Awareness sensor behind the cockpit possibly a Missle warning/Detection Sensor along with other sensors and/or antennas and the 30mm cannon.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> 1. My analysis of the shaped-nose relying on the "continuous curvature" principle above the chine line and the facet principle below the chine line is correct. You only know how to quote textbooks, without a thorough and complete understanding. To claim that my analysis is incorrect is simply wrong.


You cobbled together phrases without a clue of what they mean. What is that 'continuous curvature' principle? What behaviors are associated with it? Anyone can see that my explanation on the differences of behaviors are much more clarifying than yours -- convoluted.



Martian2 said:


> 2. The top-half of the SR-71 nose is a curve, not a faceted diamond-shape as you claim. You need glasses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lockheed SR-71A Blackbird has a curved upper-nose (based on "continuous curvature" principle), not faceted diamond-shape.


If you cannot see how simple shapes are used to illustrate the foundations of more complex ones, you have no business in this discussion.

You are now duly exposed as an egotistical fraud.


----------



## DrSomnath999

marshall said:


> I think most people understand that components can sometimes have secondary benefits besides their primary function. Ventral fins that also block most of the lateral heat signature from the nozzles that are not already attenuated by the LOAN technology is an added bonus wouldn't you agree?
> 
> As for hiding the heat signature from the back, I think that would be a pretty good trick for any fighter. Care to mention some successful examples?


Another B.S ,plz stop this false propanganda about ventral fins ,which aeroexpert tell u this ,just tell me ,BASELESS, simply baseless assumption. If u think by adding ventral fins u can save ur plane from heat seeking missiles ,then all heat seeking missiles would became obsolete 
Now another thing for a second i assume what r u saying but what about stealth comprise on it ? you told it blends from side profile but what from behind & below ?It would be surely detected by anti stealth very low frequency radar most probably ground based radars (X band	8 to 12 GHz)from below and aesa radar from behind.no doubt about it 
now see f22 & b2 bomber do they have ventral fins to save from heat seeking missiles ,NO !!









---------- Post added at 10:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 PM ----------




gambit said:


> You are now duly exposed as an egotistical fraud.


nothing more to say

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Purported Mythical Russian radar blocker (Source: Blitzo)
> 
> I want to make it clear that my analysis and debunking of the Mythical Russian radar blocker did not arise out of a desire to pick on the Russian T-50/Pak Fa.
> 
> Blitzo is a well-known member among defense forums. Blitzo stated that the entire Key Publishing forum membership had debated the Russian radar blocker issue and arrived at the collective judgment that it was an effective stealth device to block enemy radar.
> 
> I had no choice but to debunk the stupid conclusion of the entire Key Publishing forum community. In my opinion, their collective judgment on stealth design is not worth much and I had to analyze the Mythical Russian radar blocker in detail to set the record straight.
> 
> Give me a break. How hard is it to look at the picture and notice the giant non-stealthy metallic disc in the center of the drawing? The entire Key Publishing forum community is blind as a bat.


Issuing an opinion is hardly a 'debunking'. Prove your point with credible third party sources. This is becoming a referendum on your credibility on this subject.


----------



## DrSomnath999

mr gambit sir plz post ur opinion about ventral fins & tail booms 
REGARDS


----------



## Martian2

Purported Mythical Russian radar blocker (Source: Blitzo)



gambit said:


> Issuing an opinion is hardly a 'debunking'. Prove your point with credible third party sources. This is becoming a referendum on your credibility on this subject.



You're kidding me. Why do I need a citation for pointing out the gigantic non-stealthy metallic disc in the center and the spokes radiating from it? If that's the extent of your criticism, my analysis is rock solid.

----------

Off-topic:

I want to say "hello" and welcome my good friend Marshall, who has started posting in this thread. I've had some heated/intense debates with Marshall on the other Pakistani Defence forum on the topic of economics for about as long as I've been debating Gambit on this forum (e.g. roughly two years).

Though I have disagreed with Marshall and Gambit over the years, I respect both of their opinions.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> Purported Mythical Russian radar blocker (Source: Blitzo)
> 
> 
> 
> You're kidding me. Why do I need a citation for pointing out the gigantic non-stealthy metallic disc in the center and the spokes radiating from it? If that's the extent of your criticism, my analysis is rock solid.


Your analysis is hardly 'rock solid'. More like wet sand that children plays with.

First...The concept of a radar blocker is not new, even your usage of DSI demonstrate that.

Second...Assuming that the above image *IS* the device used, your supposedly 'debunking' of its efficacy that is based upon looks and violated your own rule about using looks in 'stealth' missed the point of RCS control completely, which is that of 'balanced stealth' where all EM generators must be treated only to the extent that each no longer dominate. If the device reduced the inlets' RCS contributorship to below a desired threshold, it worked.

The failure to understand this 'balanced stealth', or the balancing of various contributors, shows you do not know what you are talking about.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

*t 50 flat nozzles being developed*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

houshanghai said:


> 1.Canards be made sufficiently stealthy treatment which don't necessarily affect stealth.
> actually,F22's huge twin vertical stabilizers affect stealth too.however, all j20 and t50 have a pair of small acreage all-moving tailfins .the stealthy design is better than F22's .


We can count the amount of corner reflectors created by these tail-end flight control surfaces: The F-22 has one per side. The J-20 has two. Even though they may not be 90 deg reflectors, the J-20's two corner reflectors combined surface areas increases lateral aspect reflected energy.


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> Purported Mythical Russian radar blocker (Source: Blitzo)
> 
> 
> 
> You're kidding me. Why do I need a citation for pointing out the gigantic non-stealthy metallic disc in the center and the spokes radiating from it? If that's the extent of your criticism, my analysis is rock solid.




Rock solid.. 

let us see, have you got the readings from the sensors that measured the efficacy of the aforementioned radar blocker in reducing an a priori given RCS value of again a given target behind it? 
in which chamber? what were the frequencies and peak values used from the transmitter? 
where was the receiving equipment placed in relation to the transmitter and how many were they used?
what was the distance (or simulated distance) between the given radar blocker and the equipment? 
Did you notice a negligible drop in dB values, consistently in different frequencies and peak power values ? 
was then the said pair of blocker / known RCS target placed in a nacelle type structure to measure effects of said device in a nacelle? 
were repeated measurements taken of this configuration? 
when ? 
where? 
by whom? 
Have you got credible scientific sources that indicate that a radar blocker of said configuration does not ultimately reduce the RCS of a given dB target? 
Have you perhaps an analysis by a credible source that said blocker does indeed reduce RCS, but also vital mass air flow to the engine?Is there a comparative chart or table ? 

rock solid ???? 

more like rock in a lake sinking ...


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> My discussion with Blitzo on the Russian radar blocker ended a while ago. I am not resurrecting the debate. However, while my mind is clear, I want to write down and share a few new observations.
> 
> 1. Based on physics, the Russian radar blocker won't work. The specular reflection from the mostly perpendicular surfaces will be enormous and easily detectable.
> 
> 2. The idea of using micro-ducts is patently silly. The principle of stealth behind the F-22, J-20, and F-35 is to use a large cavity (e.g. the long "S" air duct) to reflect an incoming radar wave multiple times towards the inside of the long S-duct. With each bounce inward, the RAM coating converts some of the radar energy into heat energy. The process is the same with the radar-wave bounce back out of the interior of the long S-duct.
> 
> *With micro-ducts, it is impossible to have multiple bounces to attenuate an incoming radar wave. The cavity is too small.*
> 
> 3. A micro-duct design will create a broad and diffuse specular radar return. Based on physics, the cavity has to be large and smooth to reflect an incoming radar wave. With a micro-duct, the surface will not appear to be smooth, because it is curved on a small-scale (which is noticeable to the wavelength of S/C/L/X band radar).
> 
> 4. Look at Blitzo's picture (see above). Do you see that giant round disk in the middle? There goes your stealth. Also, the large perpendicular metal spokes radiating from the giant round hub in the middle will also create a massive radar return.
> 
> In conclusion, due to physics problems, the Russian radar blocker won't work and it's a fantasy.
> 
> (Sorry Blitzo, but I believe I possess more analytical power on stealth than all of the forum members at KeyPublishing combined. They came up with a stupid claim and I'm here to debunk it.)


The highlighted completely disqualified you. Do you have any idea how small are these EM particles?


----------



## Martian2

As a reminder to the trolls, I ignore your posts.

I am here to compare my views with Gambit's thoughts. If I believe my analysis is correct, I will consider incorporating it into my next stealth video. My videos are watched by tens of thousands of people. I am interested in ensuring that the content of my videos is factually correct.

Unwittingly, Gambit assists me in this process. I find him to be of value. However, I find no value in posts by you trolls and accordingly, I ignore them.



gambit said:


> The highlighted completely disqualified you. Do you have any idea how small are these EM particles?



You're being an idiot again. I used the term particles, because it is easier for lay people to understand. I was being liberal in my use of the particle/wave duality of photons. Obviously, I'm referring to the wavelengths of the incoming radar.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

martian2 said:


> *(Sorry Blitzo, but I believe I possess more analytical power on stealth than all of the forum members at KeyPublishing combined. They came up with a stupid claim and I'm here to debunk it.)*



Yes ..you and Dr. Who ..


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> Rock solid..
> 
> let us see, have you got the readings from the sensors that *measured the efficacy of the aforementioned radar blocker in reducing an a priori given RCS value* of again a given target behind it?
> in which chamber? what were the frequencies and peak values used from the transmitter?
> where was the receiving equipment placed in relation to the transmitter and how many were they used?
> what was the distance (or simulated distance) between the given radar blocker and the equipment?
> Did you notice a negligible drop in dB values, consistently in different frequencies and peak power values ?
> was then the said pair of blocker / known RCS target placed in a nacelle type structure to measure effects of said device in a nacelle?
> were repeated measurements taken of this configuration?
> when ?
> where?
> by whom?
> Have you got credible scientific sources that indicate that a radar blocker of said configuration does not ultimately reduce the RCS of a given dB target?
> Have you perhaps an analysis by a credible source that said blocker does indeed reduce RCS, but also vital mass air flow to the engine?Is there a comparative chart or table ?
> 
> rock solid ????
> 
> more like rock in a lake sinking ...


 I would not even go that far in language. The man cannot even answer with much simpler in mine. As for equipment placements, he has no experience upon which to base his 'debunking'. The man violated his own rule in using looks to judge 'stealth'.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

Air intake ducts are not curved to shield engine compressors as in the Raptor; instead ducts are blocked using composite material. Similarly, the nozzles are blocked to shield turbine blades. The extent of shielding is variable. It is minimized when engine power requirements are high. The blocking concept is illustrated in the video below.






---------- Post added at 11:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:07 PM ----------




amalakas said:


> Dr. Who ..


what is the meaning Dr. Who


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> As a reminder to the trolls, I ignore your posts.
> 
> I am here to compare my views with Gambit's thoughts. *If I believe my analysis is correct*, I will consider incorporating it into my next stealth video. My videos are watched by tens of thousands of people. I am interested in ensuring that the content of my videos are factually correct.


Of course you would. Your ego will not allow you to anything else.



Martian2 said:


> Unwittingly, Gambit assists me in this process. I found him to be of value.


Good that you learn so much from me.



Martian2 said:


> You're being an idiot again. I used the term particles, because it is easier for lay people to understand. I was being liberal in my use of the particle/wave duality of photons. Obviously, *I'm referring to the wavelengths of the incoming radar.*


Really? They are centimetric (cm). Despite the label 'micro' those ducts hardly look centimetric to me.


----------



## amalakas

Martian2 said:


> As a reminder to the trolls, I ignore your posts.
> 
> I am here to compare my views with Gambit's thoughts. If I believe my analysis is correct, I will consider incorporating it into my next stealth video. My videos are watched by tens of thousands of people. I am interested in ensuring that the content of my videos is factually correct.
> 
> *Unwittingly, Gambit assists me in this process*. I find him to be of value. However, I find no value in posts by you trolls and accordingly, I ignore them.
> 
> 
> 
> You're being an idiot again. I used the term particles, because it is easier for lay people to understand. I was being liberal in my use of the particle/wave duality of photons. Obviously, I'm referring to the wavelengths of the incoming radar.



No, Gambit willingly assists you in seeing the light, or some of it at least. But I think he does it for the benefit of people who might get misled by your ''rock solid'' analysis and create false ideas about how things work in general ... it's bad for people to get the impression supersonic jet fighters are created by people on the back of paper napkins (all due respect Kelly Johnson,you were the exception).


----------



## DrSomnath999

.




gambit said:


> Good that you learn so much from me.


not only him but we all in this forum have many things to learn from u


----------



## gambit

> amalakas said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Gambit willingly assists you in seeing the light, or some of it at least. But I think he does it for the benefit of people who might get *misled* by your ''rock solid'' analysis and *create false ideas* about how things work in general ... it's bad for people to get the impression supersonic jet fighters are created by people on the back of paper napkins (all due respect Kelly Johnson,you were the exception).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrSomnath999 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .not only him but we all in this forum have many things to learn from u
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Guys, thanks for the support, but understand that this kind of challenges will not be allowed over at their two playgrounds. They will protect their own. For here, keep focus on the technical issues/challenges.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zabaniyah

self delete...


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> And who are *YOU*? Someone who needs to take a basic photography class.
> 
> Here is another one...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the single vertical line and try to imagine a different viewer perspective. How do you know that a shift in viewer's angle will not produce a shift in supposedly descent angle?



I will answer your stupid question to prove the photograph of the peacekeeper MIRV reentry is indisputable proof of ballistic missile warheads impacting at different angles. Look carefully at the MIRV photograph below.





Peacekeeper MIRV reentry

In the photograph, the horizontal baseline (e.g. the horizon) is clearly discernible. If you have ever taken a math class, you know that you can draw your X-axis along the horizon.

To calculate the angle of impact for each ballistic missile warhead, take out your protractor to measure the angle between the X-axis and each ballistic missile trajectory. You have to place the center of the protractor at the point of impact (e.g. intersection of missile trajectory with X-axis/horizon).

Try it at home. Print out the photograph and go through the math exercise as stated above. You will notice the missile warhead on the far right impacted at a much steeper angle than the warhead on the left side of the photograph.

In all of these cases, none of the missiles impacted vertically. Since you can see the horizon, for a missile to fall vertically, you should see a vertical trajectory; which does not exist in the Peacekeeper MIRV photograph.

For comparison, I have seen photographs of skyscrapers in New York City where the horizon is discernible and all of the skyscrapers look vertical, as they should. Similarly, if the Peacekeeper MIRVs had impacted vertically then we should have seen vertical trajectories.





With a discernible horizon/X-axis, vertical skyscrapers in New York City look vertical. If the Peacekeeper MIRVs had fallen vertically then their trajectories would have looked vertical, like the skyscrapers.

It is ludicrous for Gambit to claim that an indisputable photograph of MIRVs impacting at different angles is an illusion and that they are actually falling vertically. His argument is clearly fallacious.

*I should mention that it is possible, even with a clear horizon, to change your point of view to align with the plane of a ballistic missile warhead trajectory to make an angled flight look like it's falling vertically. However, the converse is not true. When there is a clear horizon, it is impossible to shift your point of view to make a vertical trajectory look like an angled trajectory. It is obvious to me that Gambit does not understand this asymmetry.*

I view Gambit as someone who is autistic. Sometimes, he says something important. However, many times, he says things that are dead wrong.

----------

Gambit is just strange. Even after I confronted him with indisputable photographic proof, such as the top part of the SR-71 nose having been shaped in accordance with "continuous curvature," Gambit still insists it obeys faceted/diamond principle.

Unfortunately, I'm stuck with the crazy guy. I never know when he will make another important post, such as the one which showed that my RAM citation (which occurred on another forum) was wrong and not applicable to all wavelengths and/or military aircraft.





Lockheed SR-71A Blackbird has a curved upper-nose (based on "continuous curvature" principle), not faceted diamond-shape.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> I will answer your stupid question to prove the photograph of the peacekeeper MIRV reentry is indisputable proof of ballistic missile warheads impacting at different angles. Look carefully at the MIRV photograph below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peacekeeper MIRV reentry
> 
> In the photograph, the horizontal baseline (e.g. the horizon) is clearly discernible. If you have ever taken a math class, you know that you can draw your X-axis along the horizon.
> 
> To calculate the angle of impact for each ballistic missile warhead, take out your protractor to measure the angle between the X-axis and each ballistic missile trajectory. You have to place the center of the protractor at the point of impact (e.g. intersection of missile trajectory with X-axis/horizon).
> 
> Try it at home. Print out the photograph and go through the math exercise as stated above. You will notice the missile warhead on the far right impacted at a much steeper angle than the warhead on the left side of the photograph.


And am going to ask you again: How do you know that those are the exact impact points? The issue here is that you took a test firing to be indicative of *ALL* launches and that you took a wide angle photo and determine without considering the viewer's position that that is exactly how *ALL* descent angles will be. Heck, not even artillery men will agree with you and they deal with much less distance.



Martian2 said:


> I should mention that it is possible, even with a clear horizon, to change your point of view to align with the plane of a ballistic missile warhead trajectory to make an angled flight look like it's falling vertically. However, the converse is not true. When there is a clear horizon, *it is impossible to shift your point of view to make a vertical trajectory look like an angled trajectory.* It is obvious to me that Gambit does not understand this asymmetry.


Utter BS. Assume that an object is falling at a 45 deg angle from a 'side' view, in other words, the object is falling laterally away from me, if I shift my viewing position 90 deg so that the object is falling towards me, it will appear in a 2-dimension photo to be falling vertically. Buddy, I watched enough Shuttle launches in Fla., from my house backyard in Orlando and at the Cape itself, to see this effect in action.



Martian2 said:


> I view Gambit as someone who is autistic. Sometimes, he says something important. However, many times, he says things that are just dead wrong.


And yet how many things have you 'proved' me wrong besides this alleged item? Dang, it is so funny that so many of the Chinese boys latched on to that DF-21D warhead descending vertically onto a ship and you said nothing about it but yet when your own claim about the same thing is challenged, you went apoplectic on us.

So tell us: How would a DF-21D warhead descend on a ship?



Martian2 said:


> Gambit is just strange. Even after I confronted him with indisputable photographic proof, such as the top part of the SR-71 nose having been shaped in accordance with "continuous curvature," Gambit still insists it obeys faceted/diamond principle.
> 
> Unfortunately, I'm stuck with the crazy guy. I never know when he will make another important post, such as the one which showed that my RAM citation (which occurred on another forum) was wrong and not applicable to all wavelengths and/or military aircraft.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lockheed SR-71A Blackbird has a curved upper-nose (based on "continuous curvature" principle), not faceted diamond-shape.


I guessed you did not read my explanation carefully enough. Which part of the ogive bit missed you?

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/20908-rcs-different-fighters-7.html#post2104567


gambit said:


> The addition of curvatures into the diamond shape result in the (complete) ogive...



And what is this 'continuous curvature' thingie? Got any explanation on behaviors?


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> Really? They are centimetric (cm). Despite the label 'micro' those ducts hardly look centimetric to me.







L-band radar wavelength is almost 1 foot. (Note: 1 inch = 2.54 cm)





Purported Mythical Russian radar blocker (Source: Blitzo)

Those micro ducts are roughly the same size as, or smaller than, L-band radar wavelength. As I have already stated, the microducts will produce a "broad and diffuse specular [radar] reflection."


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> L-band radar wavelength is almost 1 foot. (Note: 1 inch = 2.54 cm)


Gee wizz...Tell me something I do not know. If anything, I bet you learned that there are physical wavelengths from me.



Martian2 said:


> Those micro ducts are roughly the same size as L-band radar wavelength.


Then you should have no problems provide a source for that. But then again, we are not talking about the L-band but the targeting freqs, which are in the centimetric regions. It would be folly to ignore these freqs.


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> Gee wizz...Tell me something I do not know. If anything, I bet you learned that there are physical wavelengths from me.
> 
> Then you should have no problems provide a source for that. But then again, we are not talking about the L-band but the targeting freqs, which are in the centimetric regions. It would be folly to ignore these freqs.



I don't want to keep arguing with you; especially since you are clearly wrong. A microduct design will not work and it is clearly detectable with L-band and probably S-band radar.

I would appreciate it if you would stop with the nonsensical claim that I learned many things from you. Like everyone else, I learned about electromagnetic wavelengths in high school. However, you do occasionally post interesting diagrams and information, which I do read.

----------

Regarding the ogive design, it is consistent with my post that the top part is based on "continuous curvature" principle and the bottom part with the facet principle. You claimed my analysis was incorrect. You are wrong. There was nothing wrong with my analysis. It was right on target.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> I don't want to keep arguing with you; especially since you are clearly wrong. A microduct design will not work and it is clearly detectable with L-band and probably X-band radar.


My PC's motherboard is 'micro' ATX but its physical measurements are 9.6x9.6 in. So the label 'micro' is clearly irrelevant. Show us a credible source that says an engine radar blocker has openings in the cm range.



Martian2 said:


> I would appreciate it if you would stop with the nonsensical claim that I learned many things from you. Like everyone else, I learned about electromagnetic wavelengths in high school. You do occasionally post interesting diagrams and information, which I do read.


It is not nonsensical. You used many phrases and words today that you did not used before when you came here.

Now as for the 'round nose' bit...

The ogive as a RCS compact range standard : Dominek, A. : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive


> E- and H-plane radar cross section (RCS) patterns at 4 and 10 GHz are provided (based upon moment method calculations) for a perfectly conducting *ogive* to be used as a compact range verification standard.


The ogive is a well known standard shape used in calibration, qualification of new measurement facilities, and in aircraft designs. Which part of the ogive in my debunking of you that you do not understand? Heck, did you even know of this?


----------



## Martian2

gambit said:


> My PC's motherboard is 'micro' ATX but its physical measurements are 9.6x9.6 in. So the label 'micro' is clearly irrelevant. Show us a credible source that says an engine radar blocker has openings in the cm range.
> 
> 
> It is not nonsensical. You used many phrases and words today that you did not used before when you came here.
> 
> Now as for the 'round nose' bit...
> 
> The ogive as a RCS compact range standard : Dominek, A. : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
> 
> The ogive is a well known standard shape used in calibration, qualification of new measurement facilities, and in aircraft designs. Which part of the ogive in my debunking of you that you do not understand? Heck, did you even know of this?



I have no intention of spending hours in here arguing with you. I just don't have the time. I will see you at the next discussion when a different observation regarding stealth has been made.

As far as I'm concerned, you did not raise any significant arguments to suggest that my analysis of the Mythical Russian radar blocker was flawed. My analysis is now eligible for my next set of videos. You have served your function.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> I have no intention of spending hours in here arguing with you. I just don't have the time. I will see you at the next discussion when a different observation regarding stealth has been made.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, you did not raise any significant arguments to suggest that my analysis of the Mythical Russian radar blocker was flawed. My analysis is now eligible for my next set of videos. You have served your function.


My advice is to confine your nonsense in those two playgrounds where gullible conscript rejects will swallow wholesale your stuff. Put them here and they will be challenged regardless of whether you intend to defend your claims or not. Your ego is outsized for your knowledge in this subject.

---------- Post added at 05:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:12 PM ----------




Martian2 said:


> Regarding the ogive design, it is consistent with my post that the top part is based on "continuous curvature" principle and the bottom part with the facet principle. You claimed my analysis was incorrect. You are wrong. There was nothing wrong with my analysis. It was right on target.


You provided no 'analysis' whatsoever. You guessed and it was correct. Nothing more. My explanation was more detailed on how signals behaves on a surface.


----------



## below_freezing

gambit said:


> Eminently appropriate.
> 
> 
> Over at one of the Chinese members' two playgrounds, someone gave himself the handle 'Engineer', clearly to distinguish himself from the rest, boldly proclaimed that the J-20's all-moving vertical stabs are technologically superior to the 'conventional' stab/rudder system on the F-22. Damn near spat my coffee all over the monitors. This 'Engineer' clearly has no understanding of the surface area requirements versus force desired to effect axis stabilization and control. This 'Engineer' was also clueless to the nearly one hundred years of aviation history from the Be2 bi-plane to the SR-71 to the F-117 and all in between that has both systems.
> 
> This is where our man got his 'expertise' and 'pioneering observations'.


 
Name this person's account and give me his posts? I don't think I've ever seen someone that calls himself "Engineer" at ChineseDefence.

Indeed, at ChineseDefence we are highly self critical with controversial topics everywhere. If you have a problem with one of our topics you're welcome to pick it out and debate it. Otherwise why bring it up?


----------



## gambit

below_freezing said:


> Name this person's account and give me his posts? I don't think I've ever seen someone that calls himself "Engineer" at ChineseDefence.


Your 'other' playground. When I saw the man made that ridiculous assertion and *NO ONE* called him out on it despite the availability of public information, my respect for that crowd went south quickly.



below_freezing said:


> Indeed, at *ChineseDefence we are highly self critical* with controversial topics everywhere. If you have a problem with one of our topics you're welcome to pick it out and debate it. Otherwise why bring it up?


Sure you are......Any explanations why your new playground quickly became the 'echo chamber' *YOU* feared?


----------



## below_freezing

gambit said:


> Your 'other' playground. When I saw the man made that ridiculous assertion and *NO ONE* called him out on it despite the availability of public information, my respect for that crowd went south quickly.
> 
> 
> Sure you are......Any explanations why your new playground quickly became the 'echo chamber' *YOU* feared?



the echo chamber dudes left or post less. i don't know any other websites, i only use 2 English forums.

ive also noticed that you are unable to say that the J-20 is "definitely" not stealthy. you can only say that it is possibly not as stealthy as predicted and the main thing you've brought up, was the canards.

but what if the canards were made of radio transparent material?

we know that radomes are made of such radio transparent plastics:

Radar transparent rigid polyurethane ... - Google Patents

why could a canard, and its associated control elements, not be made of the same material? then the canards could be ignored in RCS models.


----------



## gambit

below_freezing said:


> ive also noticed that *you are unable to say* that the J-20 is "definitely" not stealthy. you can only say that it is possibly not as stealthy as predicted and the main thing you've brought up, was the canards.


The correct word is 'unwilling'. I have always advocated caution in making assertions either way. The aircraft is too new. The application of RCS control methods is still too technically esoteric and difficult for most countries to give the public any idea on even how to make a baseline assessment on anyone's capability to create a 'stealth' aircraft. The result is that we have extremes on opinions as to what 'stealth' is, let alone on who can make something 'stealthy'.



below_freezing said:


> but what if the canards were made of radio transparent material?
> 
> we know that radomes are made of such radio transparent plastics:
> 
> Radar transparent rigid polyurethane ... - Google Patents
> 
> why could a canard, and its associated control elements, not be made of the same material? then the canards could be ignored in RCS models.


Until we see it...

There are technical hurdles that must overcome and usually ideas under development do not have the burden of practical engineering.


----------



## j20blackdragon

The Russians have revolutionized stealth!

Gaps, seams, protrusions, surface discontinuities, sudden changes in shape, and fully exposed engines are how you actually make an airplane stealthy!

Several DECADES of American stealth design rules are WRONG! Amazing! 






















This is what a real stealth aircraft looks like. Do you believe me?


----------



## marshall

Martian2 said:


> I will explain point #3 in greater detail to make it easily understandable.
> 
> Imagine that photons (which include radar waves) are a group of ping pong balls. If you throw a group of ping pong balls against the wall in a long hallway, they'll just bounce down the hallway/cavity.
> 
> Now, try throwing a group of ping pong balls into a Mythical Russian radar blocker with micro-ducts, which are roughly the size of the ping pong balls. Most of the ping pong balls will bounce back out. There is your "broad and diffuse specular radar return."


Funny analogy but illustrates perfectly. LOL

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## marshall

Martian2 said:


> ----------
> 
> Off-topic:
> 
> I want to say "hello" and welcome my good friend Marshall, who has started posting in this thread. I've had some heated/intense debates with Marshall on the other Pakistani Defence forum on the topic of economics for about as long as I've been debating Gambit on this forum (e.g. roughly two years).
> 
> Though I have disagreed with Marshall and Gambit over the years, I respect both of their opinions.


I've been busy making money on the stock market but have hit a really bad streak in the last few months. So, I'm moving away from the market a bit. It's been uglllyyyy as of late. Market manipulation in the gold and silver paper markets...that's all I can say about that.


----------



## below_freezing

marshall said:


> Funny analogy but illustrates perfectly. LOL


 
no it is not. the photon model is useful when any discontinuities or obstacles present in the path of the EM radiation is very large with respect to the wavelength, or quantum mechanical things involving atoms, molecules or solids like fluorescence, photovoltaics or diode lasers are under investigation.

when the obstacle sizes and the EM wavelengths are comparable in size then the wave model is much more useful.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## marshall

below_freezing said:


> no it is not. the photon model is useful when any discontinuities or obstacles present in the path of the EM radiation is very large with respect to the wavelength, or quantum mechanical things involving atoms, molecules or solids like fluorescence, photovoltaics or diode lasers are under investigation.
> 
> when the obstacle sizes and the EM wavelengths are comparable in size then the wave model is much more useful.


Sure it is. The whole point is to be stealthy against your opponent, not against specific radar bands that an opponent would obviously not use against such an enemy. That is one of the reasons why the F-35 is criticized when compared to the F-22A because the F-22A is stealthy to all radars while the F-35 has narrow band stealth.


----------



## below_freezing

marshall said:


> Sure it is. The whole point is to be stealthy against your opponent, not against specific radar bands that an opponent would obviously not use against such an enemy. That is one of the reasons why the F-35 is criticized when compared to the F-22A because the F-22A is stealthy to all radars while the F-35 has narrow band stealth.



the problem is all the radar bands are anywhere from 1 meter to 1 centimeter, comparable to the size of features on the airplane, and thus still obey the wave model more than the photon model. this is basic high school physics.


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> My discussion with Blitzo on the Russian radar blocker ended a while ago. I am not resurrecting the debate. However, while my mind is clear, I want to write down and share a few new observations.
> 
> 
> 1. *Based on physics, the Russian radar blocker won't work*. The specular reflection from the mostly perpendicular surfaces will be enormous and easily detectable.





You mean to say that a teams of engineers/designers with PHD's/Masters/bachlors got it wrong! Dearly respected sir, thank you for you enlightening and groundbreaking information. I am truly humbled and honored to be in your presents, you are like a messiah.





Martian2 said:


> 2. *The idea of using micro-ducts is patently silly*.







More like you're silly, I take it you are not aware of the F-117's intakes. Lets take a look. Check this out, I will post a source, amazing isn't? You should try it sometimes instead of making assumptions that backfire on you.


Source:


The Radar Game - Understanding Stealth and Aircraft Survivability




> A screen covered the engine ducts and the canopy was shielded. Diffusers and baffling prevented radar waves entering the engine intake from hitting the engine itself and reflect-ing back to the receiver. Diffusers covered the front of the intake and screened out radar waves by using a wire mesht hat was smaller than the wavelength of the radar, similar to the screen on a microwave oven&#8217;s glass that preventmicrowaves from leaving the interior of the appliance. *The intake on the F-117 was covered with a fine grill mesh whose gaps were smaller than the wavelengths of enemy radar*








Martian2 said:


> The principle of stealth behind the F-22, J-20, and F-35 is to use a large cavity (e.g. the long "S" air duct) to reflect an incoming radar wave multiple times towards the inside of the long S-duct. With each bounce inward, the RAM coating converts some of the radar energy into heat energy. The process is the same with the radar-wave bounce back out of the interior of the long S-duct.




And what makes you think that an S-duct, literally causes EM energy to 'bounce'?





Martian2 said:


> With micro-ducts, *it is impossible to have multiple bounces *to attenuate an incoming radar wave. *The cavity is too small*.





Than *explain this*:




Martian2 said:


> RAM-coated cockpit glass,* removing exposed rivets*, removing all those gaps, vents, and protrusions......





So on one hand you claim that something as large as a radar blocker with 'gaps' large enough to place a fist in is too small to achieve EM energy to bounce around while on the other hand you loudly shout that rivets are 'poor for stealth', so apparently pin-hole sized rivets can cause EM energy to cause returns but a radar blocker's vents are too small to cause any bounces.





You really need to keep track of your post you consistently contradict yourself. You have the worst case of double standards I have ever seen, you twist and manipulate everything in favor of the J-20 while all the while putting down the pak-fa based on bias opinions. Sad how some of the same rules you set for the pak-fa do not apply to your J-20.




Martian2 said:


> 3. A micro-duct design will create a broad and diffuse specular radar return. Based on physics, *the cavity has to be large and smooth *to reflect an incoming radar wave[/B]. With a micro-duct, the surface will not appear to be smooth, because it is curved on a small-scale (which is noticeable to the wavelength of S/C/L/X band radar).[/B]










Has to be large and smooth? 





Martian2 said:


> In conclusion, *due to physics problems*, the Russian radar blocker won't work and it's a fantasy.






I doubt you have ever taken any physics classes.








Martian2 said:


> An "engine blocker" will not save the T-50 from detection. When all that radar energy enter the jet engine cavity, there are only two outcomes. The energy is either reflected or absorbed. The fan blades of the "engine blocker" are roughly perpendicular. Whatever radar energy that is not absorbed will all be mostly reflected back to the enemy fighter's detector. *Also, due to the spinning blades*, the enemy radar detector will notice a modulating reflected signal.





Lets clear a few thing up, the picture of that radar blocker is not meant for the pak-fa. Even if we assume some EM energy will exit the blocker we have several things happening at once. Firstly, the EM energy that escapes the radar blocker will bounce around wildly and second it will bounce around in a cavity that is treated with obsorbers, with each bounce EM becomes weaker and weaker, than comes complex scatter, it is not known how much of this complex scatter will make it back to the receiver. So essentially you are making claims without examining all aspects. If we assume some EM energy will escape, (we have no definitive answer as to how much will escape) it could be 1%-5% or 10%-20%, there is no way to know, than as mentioned a loss of energy will occur, for all we know the inner walls of the intake can absorb all the excess EM energy but if the energy is not completely lost by the time it exits the intake it will than scatter, the important thing is that only some (if any) of the EM energy will actually travel back to its source.

So what makes you think that whatever EM energy (if any) will have enough strength to return to its source?






Martian2 said:


> *If that is an engine blocker*, it is poorly designed. To a radar beam moving at the speed of light, the spinning engine blocker blades are basically standing still. Looking at the picture, we can see that 90% of the radar beams will impact and reflect off the engine fan blades behind the engine blocker. The engine blocker will have minimal effect on lowering the radar reflection from the metallic engine fan blades.






It isn't.








Martian2 said:


> I will explain point #3 in greater detail to make it easily understandable.
> 
> *Imagine that photons (which include radar waves) are a group of ping pong balls. If you throw a group of ping pong balls against the wall in a long hallway, they'll just bounce down the hallway/cavity.
> 
> Now, try throwing a group of ping pong balls into a Mythical Russian radar blocker with micro-ducts, which are roughly the size of the ping pong balls. Most of the ping pong balls will bounce back out. There is your "broad and diffuse specular radar return."*







 




j20blackdragon said:


> Gaps, cracks, seams, protrusions, surface discontinuities, sudden changes in shape, changes in material are everywhere!




The coward is back. I asked you to point out these defects, you have failed, I asked you to post a source, you failed to do that as well. I asked you to explained what phenomenon some of this falls into, you failed. 


And now you make wild claims of 'cracks', where are these cracks? Show everyone, I for one would love to see these mysterious cracks.


I can also see that you have zero understanding in this subject so I will try to say this in an easy to understand manner that even a child can understand.

Seams--every aircraft has these, even the J-20, the J-20's weapons bays, canopy and access panels all have seams genius.

Protrusions--the J-20 has far more than the pak-fa, sorry it's the truth. The J-20's under wing actuators are by far larger than the pak-fa's actuators, the pak-fa also has no DSI's. *The whole is larger than its parts*, and the J-20 has a *whole lot *of 'bumps' that are large.


surface discontinuities--from the picture you posted it showed an aileron, are you telling me that the J-20 has no ailerons? And thus no surface discontinuities?  It would be nice to think these things through before publicly embarrassing yourself.





j20blackdragon said:


> This isn't a stealth aircraft. *I don't know what it is*, perhaps a normal 4th generation fighter.





You don't know many things. what's new?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## below_freezing

the number of surface discontinuities on the J-20 are indeed much less than the number on the T-50. you don't need image analysis software to prove this, though if you really want me to, i'll get to it when im back at the lab.

the DSI is supposedly a RCS reducing element; the T-50 not having DSI or engine radar blockers is indeed a disadvantage. don't let ideology blind you and don't assume that just because the opponent is wrong, you are right - you could both be wrong.


----------



## marshall

marshall said:


> Good point. I cannot comment without a supercomputer on hand but if I were to take a wild guess, I would say the continuous curvature as implemented on the canards would be shaped to diffract any EM outwards away from the fuselage from the frontal aspect. However, avoiding the wings is a problem. In real world situations, the canards should be kept in alignment most times except in dogfights or once detected. I would not be surprised if there were different flight modes available for this very reason.





gambit said:


> And I see that you felled for that 'continuous curvature' thingie. Your guess is as wild as it is wrong. In order to have diffracted signals away from the fuselage, the *TRAILING EDGE* of the canard must be angled 'away' from the fuselage. Continuous curvature has nothing, or at best very little, to do with this. Am sure you can find plenty of publicly available images of the J-20 to see for yourself the angle of those trailing edges.


Excuse me, I meant to use the word "refract" or "reflect", if you may, instead of diffract. Please forgive me. LOL I thought my meaning was obvious given that canards are at the front of the plane which would make diverting EM completely away from the plane extremely difficult, which I pointed out.


----------



## marshall

below_freezing said:


> the problem is all the radar bands are anywhere from 1 meter to 1 centimeter, comparable to the size of features on the airplane, and thus still obey the wave model more than the photon model. this is basic high school physics.


I see your point now, I was picturing the ball in my mind. hahah


----------



## gambit

marshall said:


> Sure it is. *The whole point is to be stealthy against your opponent, not against specific radar bands that an opponent would obviously not use against such an enemy.* That is one of the reasons why the F-35 is criticized when compared to the F-22A because the F-22A is stealthy to all radars while the F-35 has narrow band stealth.


Aaahhh...Wrong.

To understand why you are wrong we must have some basic understanding of radar detection and target resolutions.

First...The highly desirable target resolutions are:

- Altitude
- Speed
- Aspect angle
- Heading

Second...To calculate them we must have pulses...







The illustration above is applicable to *ALL* wavelengths, from the meters length HF/VHF/UHF bands to the ghz centimetric and millimetric bands.

Third...Each pulse has:

- Duration
- Leading edge
- Trailing edge

The whole thing is called 'finite pulse length'.

I will not get into other items like PA, PW, and PRI as shown in the illustration. Suffice to say that without pulses, we cannot calculate the lists of target resolutions. We depend on knowing from each time indexes (or slices) of those pulses, from when a pulse impact a target to when the echo received, to know how fast, how high, and which heading is the target with respect to us.

Fourth...It is self evident that the higher the freq the closer the pulses to each other that we can create, the shorter those time slices will be, the higher the target resolutions. For example, the standard light flickers at 60 cycles (hz) but in high speed camera photography the shutter speed create light pulses much greater than 60 cycles to give us those spectacular 'slo-mo' sports actions. If we have strobe lights lower than 60 cycles like those so popular in nightclubs, those time slices are too far apart so we see movements that are 'jerky' and 'disjointed'.

All of this means that the closer the attacker is to us, the higher his target resolutions we want so we can defend ourselves, and this mean the world over is restricted to the centimetric and some millimetric bands to create those target resolutions. The downside to using higher freqs with shorter pulses is that since each pulse has a finite amount of energy (finite pulse length) the higher the freqs we use to calculate high target resolutions, the closer we must allow the attacker to come to us before we use those limited energy to find his target resolutions. It is the typical Catch-22 dilemma in using high freqs.

This is why air defense radar systems have multiple antennas for multiple stages of target detection:

- Meters length freqs for long range search purposes. Very poor target resolutions but at least we know the general direction of a potential threat. For a busy civilian airport, we only need to know the coarse information of what is 200 km out. No need for fine grain information.

- Low end of the centimetric freqs for increased target resolutions for threat assessments and assignments. For a busy civilian airport, we need to know a bit more so we can negotiate landing permissions and priority.

- High end of the centimetric and millimetric freqs to missile guidance. This is where all threats are no longer potential but are genuine danger. We need the maximum fine grain possible of all threats' altitudes, speeds, headings, and aspect angles.

Because active cancellation is not yet possible, the first law of RCS control is:

1- Design for specific threat freqs. This mean the highly useful and popular X-band.

Next are:

2- Use angle facetings to control exposure of large expanse of surfaces.

3- Use 'lossy' material or absorber whenever possible to control surface wave behaviors.

4- Enforce tolerances across large expanse of surfaces.

5- Treat edges to control diffractions, this includes plan forming of all flight control elements.

6- Avoid corner reflectors of any degree when possible. If not, then avoid the 90 deg kind.

7- Avoid straight line cavities. Or heavily diffuse entrant signals before the cavities.

8- Avoid surface discontinuities whenever possible. If not possible, see law 5.

9- Shield high-gain antennas from out-of-band freqs. This mean use law 2 to prevent non-threat freqs from exposing the aircraft.

If the F-35 is more visible in the EM spectrum than the F-22 it will be because of considerations that compelled the designer to focus less on some of the above laws than others.


----------



## lamlap

T-50 is only a 3rd generation fighter = Su27 upgraded version


----------



## lamlap

Chinese can produce SUPEIOR J10B, J20 with China-Made Engine

Indians produce nothing, only Ugly LCA (Mig-21 level ) with foreign Engline

hahahahahahahahahahahahahah

hahahahahahahahahah

---------- Post added at 05:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:29 PM ----------

*Indians can only talk talk talk with big mouth*


----------



## Martian2

marshall said:


> I've been busy making money on the stock market but have hit a really bad streak in the last few months. So, I'm moving away from the market a bit. It's been uglllyyyy as of late. Market manipulation in the gold and silver paper markets...that's all I can say about that.



I'm sorry to hear about that. I'm tired of Santro deleting my posts and the stupid trolls. Please visit ChineseDefence.com to converse with me on economics or J-20 Mighty Dragon stealth fighter. I'm basically saying that I've reached my troll limit and giving up on posting on this forum.

I have a new stealth insight and my calculations will be ready by tomorrow night. I hope to see you over there.

I like comparing notes with Gambit, but the troll-annoyance factor isn't worth it. Screw it. I'm willing to have a few more minor errors in my videos. I think I can crank out three more videos by the end of this year.

My invitation to continue our conversations at a more friendly forum, where Santro can't delete our posts, extends to "lamlap" and everyone else (excluding trolls of course; you guys stay put here). My next insight is titled, *"Why every stealth fighter needs a S-duct."* It'll be ready by tomorrow night. I have to do the calculations.

Unfortunately, I don't know how to use a paint program yet, but my arguments should become readily obvious. It'll knock your socks off.

One final thing, I'll have the post on the T-50 planform alignment violation(s) up by Saturday on the other Santro-free forum. I just need to collect the right pictures for illustration.

See you on the other side, my friends. No Santro and no trolls. You can't beat that.


----------



## j20blackdragon

*THIS* is what a stealth fighter looks like.






This is what a stealth fighter is *NOT* supposed to look like. Any questions?


----------



## gambit

below_freezing said:


> *the number of surface discontinuities on the J-20 are indeed much less than the number on the T-50.* you don't need image analysis software to prove this, though if you really want me to, i'll get to it when im back at the lab.


But the F-117 has more surface discontinuities and probably more than either.



below_freezing said:


> *the DSI is supposedly a RCS reducing element*; the T-50 not having DSI or engine radar blockers is indeed a disadvantage. don't let ideology blind you and don't assume that just because the opponent is wrong, you are right - you could both be wrong.


How? If the DSI 'bump' offer some measure of shielding for the engine, then why are the DSI 'bumps' on the J-20 is irrelevant for RCS while the 'bumps' on the F-35 are detrimental? Is it because Kopp said so?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

This picture might make a lot of people mad. I'll post it anway.


----------



## below_freezing

gambit said:


> But the F-117 has more surface discontinuities and probably more than either.
> 
> 
> How? If the DSI 'bump' offer some measure of shielding for the engine, then why are the DSI 'bumps' on the J-20 is irrelevant for RCS while the 'bumps' on the F-35 are detrimental? Is it because Kopp said so?



I don't think the DSI bumps on the F-35 are detrimental to its stealth; on the contrary I think its a deliberate design choice.

The F-117 emphasizes a different principle of RCS reduction than the F-22, J-20 or T-50. It is based mostly upon reflection of radio waves away from the receiver; the J-20, F-22 and T-50 attempt to use other methods (non reflective) of RCS reduction. I'm not an expert on electromagnetics and I'll leave this to someone with better expertise.


----------



## Project 627

DrSomnath999 said:


> *1. NUCLEAR SUBMARINES *
> 
> *(i) SSBN type094 submarine & type 96 submarine*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> General characteristics
> Displacement:	8,000 tons surfaced , 9,000 tons submerged
> Length:	133 m
> Propulsion:	Nuclear reactor, 1 shaft
> 
> 
> Armament:	Torpedoes: six 533 mm bow tubes Missiles: 12 JL-2 SLBM,16 JL-2 SLBM (Type 2),20-24 JL-2 SLBM (Type 3)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Type 096 submarine is a new class of SSBN rumored to be in development for the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). Little information exists about the project. Some sources suggests that the new submarine will carry 24 SLBMs. It will be the successor to the Type 094 SSBN currently under evaluation by the PLAN.
> 
> *(ii)SSGNType 093 submarine & type 95 submarine*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Design
> 
> The Type 093 is estimated to be roughly 7000t displacement when dived. The Type 093 is estimated to be 110 metres (360 ft) long with a beam of 11m and can dive to a maximum depth of 400 metres (1,300 ft). It is estimated to have a noise level of 110db[3] and have an endurance of 80 days. This submarine is the first to incorporate flank linear array sonars designated as H/SQG-207 in its design, and this linear flank array was designed by the 715th Institute, with deputy chief designer Mr. Li Qihu (&#26446;&#21551;&#34382, who was the chief designer of H/SQ-2 262/262A/262B/262C/H-SQG-4 sonars used to upgrade Type 035, 033, both 091 and 092, 035G, and 039 submarines.
> The improved Type 093G incorporates new technologies such as retractable diving planes and a modified hull for greater acoustic stealth.[
> Weapons
> 
> The Type 093 is expected to be armed with six 533 mm and/or 650 mm torpedo tubes that will launch Russian or indigenous wire-, acoustic, and wake-homing torpedoes as well as anti-ship and land attack cruise missiles. This could include the submarine launched version of YJ-83 anti-ship missile. Currently YJ-83 is not believed to be nuclear tipped. Nuclear deterrence missions are delegated to the 092 Xia class and 094 Jin class SSBN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is anticipated that Type 095 submarines will have a substantially reduced acoustical signature, *incorporating the latest Russian submarine technology,* within a larger version of the Xia/Jin hull type.[3][6][7] The Type 095's acoustical signature is estimated to be superior to Soviet-era Victor III (Project 671RTM) submarines but inferior to Akula I (Project 971) submarines initially introduced in the late 1980s.[1][2] Additionally, it is also speculated that Type 095 submarines may be armed with long-range anti-ship HY-4 cruise missiles and act as a potential undersea escort for any future PLAN aircraft carrier task forces
> 
> *PLEASE NOTE*
> This is my personal assumption of top 10 future weapons,i have tried my
> level best to give as much accurate list i could.If i by chance had missed out any weapon or u want to change the list then plz comment
> I hope u would appreciate my hard work.THANK YOU
> 
> *FROM THE AUTHOR*
> This article is dedicated to to all the great peoples of CHINA



WHAT?


----------



## no_name

below_freezing said:


> I don't think the DSI bumps on the F-35 are detrimental to its stealth; on the contrary I think its a deliberate design choice.
> 
> The F-117 emphasizes a different principle of RCS reduction than the F-22, J-20 or T-50. It is based mostly upon reflection of radio waves away from the receiver; the J-20, F-22 and T-50 attempt to use other methods (non reflective) of RCS reduction. I'm not an expert on electromagnetics and I'll leave this to someone with better expertise.



I think it's different design approach adpopted because limits of computational power at the time means they have to carve the F-117 up into sizeable blocks and look at the combined effects from them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

below_freezing said:


> I don't think the DSI bumps on the F-35 are detrimental to its stealth; on the contrary I think its a deliberate design choice.


Of course it was a design choice. But the F-35's DSI 'bumps' are not what I was talking about but the various other 'bumps' elsewhere on the aircraft. The question is that if the J-20's DSI 'bumps' are not detrimental to 'stealth' then why are the F-355's assorted 'bumps' are detrimental? Because Kopp said so? Remember...Your man has been propagating that argument all this time without any credible arguments to support it.



below_freezing said:


> The F-117 emphasizes a different principle of RCS reduction than the F-22, J-20 or T-50. It is based mostly upon reflection of radio waves away from the receiver; the J-20, F-22 and T-50 attempt to use other methods (non reflective) of RCS reduction. I'm not an expert on electromagnetics and I'll leave this to someone with better expertise.


Technically incorrect. Radar detection is based upon assorted modes of reflected signals. Same for RCS control methods. The F-22, F-35, and B-2 uses some of the F-117's angled facetings method but all methods are about the same goal: To direct reflected and diffracted signals away from source direction.


----------



## Zarvan

Let See How many of those weapons Pakistan Can Get I think we are getting Type 54 Frigates and Nuclear Submarines and also we will very soon go for J-10B and also we will get whenever it is ready J-20 but are we can we be interested in Destroyer if our economy allows?


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Zarvan said:


> Let See How many of those weapons Pakistan Can Get I think we are getting Type 54 Frigates and Nuclear Submarines and also we will very soon go for J-10B and also we will get whenever it is ready J-20 but *are we can we be interested in Destroyer if our economy allows?*



Of course.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Of course.


Sir on how many Stealth Planes is China working on I mean are their some other projects also going with J-20 ?


----------



## marshall

Martian2 said:


> *I should mention that it is possible, even with a clear horizon, to change your point of view to align with the plane of a ballistic missile warhead trajectory to make an angled flight look like it's falling vertically. However, the converse is not true. When there is a clear horizon, it is impossible to shift your point of view to make a vertical trajectory look like an angled trajectory. It is obvious to me that Gambit does not understand this asymmetry.*





gambit said:


> Utter BS. Assume that an object is falling at a 45 deg angle from a 'side' view, in other words, the object is falling laterally away from me, if I shift my viewing position 90 deg so that the object is falling towards me, it will appear in a 2-dimension photo to be falling vertically. Buddy, I watched enough Shuttle launches in Fla., from my house backyard in Orlando and at the Cape itself, to see this effect in action.


You do realize that after claiming his statement was BS that you then immediately replied by repeating exactly the same so-called BS using a different example but the same logic. Does this mean you understand the logic but are calling it BS anyways?


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Zarvan said:


> Sir on how many Stealth Planes is China working on I mean are their some other projects also going with J-20 ?



From what i known, 4 types of 5th gen stealth fighters so far.

1. J-20 air superiority/multi-role
2. J-16 air superiority/multi-role
3. J-18 STOVL multi-role
4. J-2X Pakistan's 5th gen stealth fighter project


----------



## Zarvan

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> From what i known, 4 types of 5th gen stealth fighters so far.
> 
> 1. J-20 air superiority/multi-role
> 2. J-16 air superiority/multi-role
> 3. J-18 STOVL multi-role
> 4. J-2X Pakistan's 5th gen stealth fighter project


 Can you tell more details about J-2X I have heard for the first time


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Zarvan said:


> Can you tell more details about J-2X I have heard for the first time



It has only been confirmed so far, no further detail has been leaked.

I think J-2X is likely a joint development like JF-17, and PAF could still purchase J-20 apart just like it purchases J-10B apart from JF-17.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

marshall said:


> You do realize that after claiming his statement was BS that you then immediately replied by repeating exactly the same so-called BS using a different example but the same logic.


Let us try this again...

The man is claiming that based upon a single test firing with a wide angle photo, *ALL* warheads descend upon an angle. I am saying that is not true and that you cannot make that kind of a blanket statement. I have always maintain that depends on the distance involved, the descend angle may begin with an angle but once the Earth's rotation moved the ground point towards that spatial intercept point, the final descent angle may often approaches vertical. You simply cannot make his kind of a sweeping statement without knowing the variables involved.







That is the recent Atlantis deorbiting from the ISS view. Key word search 'atlantis iss deorbiting'.

If we go by photos alone, my NASA source fully support my argument. But I do not go by photos alone. I have relevant experience in this matter and explained why back on post 280 => http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-defence/128212-top-10-future-weapons-china-19.html#post2103030

This is the problem with this guy: His ego. He cannot accept the fact that someone may have knowledge based upon experience that may not agree with his preconceived notions of whatever he bloviate about.


----------



## marshall

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> From what i known, 4 types of 5 gen stealth fighters so far.
> 
> 1. J-20 air superiority/multi-role
> 2. J-16 air superiority/multi-role
> 3. J-18 STOVL multi-role
> 4. J-2X Pakistan's 5 gen stealth fighter project


As far as verified projects, only the J-20 and J-16 are confirmed projects. The STOVL project is speculation and rumor on the Chinese BBSes as far as I can tell. It would make a lot of sense for this sort of carrier borne aircraft because it would allow China to rapidly induct smaller aircraft carriers on smaller, simpler vessels once expansion to the 2nd island chain began. Sounding good doesn't make it reality though and I highly doubt it's on the table given the difficulty and remote timeframe when this sort of aircraft would eventually be useful. There's also been some speculation of stealth versions of the JF-17 and JH-7. No authentic news on this front either what follows is my own speculation...the JF-17 and indeed ALL of China's mainline aircraft are undergoing studies or actual flight testing of low-observable modifications, but no purpose built stealth versions of these aircraft. This has already happened to the J-11B when compared to the SU-27 and the J-10B can almost be described as a LO aircraft at this point. 

Whether these modifications will eventually result in something comparable in stealth to an F-15SE, I think the Russian derived fighters (J-11B, J-15) have a great potential for this. The underbelly between the engines is perfectly placed for an internal weapons bay that would behave like the PAK FA. The rest would be easy by comparison, not to say that adding an internal weapons bay is easy.


----------



## Zarvan

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> It has only been confirmed so far, no further detail has been leaked.
> 
> I think J-2X is likely a joint development like JF-17, and PAF could still purchase J-20 apart just like it purchases J-10B apart from JF-17.


In which China hopes to induct J-20 in its fleet?


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

marshall said:


> As far as verified projects, only the J-20 and J-16 are confirmed projects. The STOVL project is speculation and rumor on the Chinese BBSes as far as I can tell. It would make a lot of sense for this sort of carrier borne aircraft because it would allow China to rapidly induct smaller aircraft carriers on smaller, simpler vessels once expansion to the 2nd island chain began. Sounding good doesn't make it reality though and I highly doubt it's on the table given the difficulty and remote timeframe when this sort of aircraft would eventually be useful. There's also been some speculation of stealth versions of the JF-17 and JH-7. No authentic news on this front either what follows is my own speculation...the JF-17 and indeed ALL of China's mainline aircraft are undergoing studies or actual flight testing of low-observable modifications, but no purpose built stealth versions of these aircraft. This has already happened to the J-11B when compared to the SU-27 and the J-10B can almost be described as a LO aircraft at this point.
> 
> Whether these modifications will eventually result in something comparable in stealth to an F-15SE, I think the Russian derived fighters (J-11B, J-15) have a great potential for this. The underbelly between the engines is perfectly placed for an internal weapons bay that would behave like the PAK FA. The rest would be easy by comparison, not to say that adding an internal weapons bay is easy.



The STOVL project is coupled with the amphibious assault ship, since China has no interest to build the aircraft carrier less than 80,000 tons.

---------- Post added at 01:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:32 AM ----------




Zarvan said:


> In which China hopes to induct J-20 in its fleet?



Possible, since it is dimentionally smaller than J-15, only its maximum takeoff weight is greater.


----------



## marshall

DrSomnath999 said:


> what rubbish there is no need of canards in 5th gen fighters as they have thrust vectoring nozzle to compensate that.
> now see T50 prototype
> Leading edge root extensions (LERX)
> 
> PAK FA Features Movable LERX, this would be more like a Stealthy Canard...


You said there are no 5th gen fighters with canards and I replied that there is...the J-20, self explanatory. I never said canards HAVE to be on 5th gen fighters, obviously since the other 5th gen fighters and projects all do not have it. The fact that LERX does some of what a canard can does not make it equivalent. Canards superior maneuverabily to non-vectored thrust fighters add a degree of stability an order of magnitude greater than LERX can. In combination with thrust vectoring, a canard would gives a fighter a degree of supermaneuverabity that would allow it to dance sky acrobatics while retaining stability at lower speeds than with vectoring+LERX. As I said, the maneuverabilty with vectoring+canards would be unbeatable, especially at lower speeds.


----------



## gambit

marshall said:


> *You said there are no 5th gen fighters with canards and I replied that there is...the J-20, self explanatory.* I never said canards HAVE to be on 5th gen fighters, obviously since the other 5th gen fighters and projects all do not have it. The fact that LERX does some of what a canard can does not make it equivalent. Canards superior maneuverabily to non-vectored thrust fighters and add a degree of stability an order of magnitude greater than LERX can. In combination with thrust vectoring, a canard would gives a fighter a degree of supermaneuverabity that would allow it to dance sky acrobatics while retaining stability at lower speeds than with vectoring+LERX. As I said, the maneuverabilty with vectoring+canards would be unheard of.


And self-referential. Not good. There are no accepted criteria as to what constitute a '5th-gen' class. However, there are some reasonable features that would nudge an aircraft into that unofficial class:

1- Radar cross section (RCS) of less than 1 meter square at 150-200 km distance.

2- A quadruple redundant fly-by-wire flight control system (FLCS).

3- An AESA radar system.

4- Integrated sensors.

You presume that the J-20 is '5th-gen' based solely upon appearance alone, meaning it 'looks stealthy' without any hard data to back it up. If those canards do not bring the aircraft to below 1 meter square at the effective radar distance of most fighter class radar, calling it '5th-gen' will not make it so.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## marshall

gambit said:


> And self-referential. Not good. There are no accepted criteria as to what constitute a '5th-gen' class.


That's according to your own self-referential opinion but ironically well over 98% of everybody else in the know are quite certain what 5th gen is.




gambit said:


> However, there are some reasonable features that would nudge an aircraft into that unofficial class:
> 
> 1- Radar cross section (RCS) of less than 1 meter square at 150-200 km distance.
> 
> 2- A quadruple redundant fly-by-wire flight control system (FLCS).
> 
> 3- An AESA radar system.
> 
> 4- Integrated sensors.


I see that you omitted supercruise which would disqualify the F-35 according to your definition of a 5th gen fighter. Can you explain why the F-35 is not 5th gen or is supercruise not on the list because it sounds nice to say the F-35 is a 5th gen fighter? 





gambit said:


> You presume that the J-20 is '5th-gen' based solely upon appearance alone, meaning it 'looks stealthy' without any hard data to back it up. If those canards do not bring the aircraft to below 1 meter square at the effective radar distance of most fighter class radar, calling it '5th-gen' will not make it so.


On appearance alone? Are you kidding me? HAHAH... I will let that one slide and attribute it to a clumsy trolling attempt. Please refer to the 50 thousand messages posted in January 2011 worldwide after the J-20 unveiling. If you prefer professional sources, refer to the dozens of studies from APPEARANCE and VISUAL analysis by various international aviation experts. If you want to argue against all the experts, feel free to send some disparaging remarks their way and I'm sure some will take up your challenge. I wish you good luck, you will need it.


----------



## below_freezing

gambit said:


> Of course it was a design choice. But the F-35's DSI 'bumps' are not what I was talking about but the various other 'bumps' elsewhere on the aircraft. The question is that if the J-20's DSI 'bumps' are not detrimental to 'stealth' then why are the F-355's assorted 'bumps' are detrimental? Because Kopp said so? Remember...Your man has been propagating that argument all this time without any credible arguments to support it.
> 
> 
> Technically incorrect. Radar detection is based upon assorted modes of reflected signals. Same for RCS control methods. The F-22, F-35, and B-2 uses some of the F-117's angled facetings method but all methods are about the same goal: To direct reflected and diffracted signals away from source direction.



RCS control can also be done with absorption or non-reflective deflection of radio waves.


----------



## gambit

marshall said:


> That's according to your own self-referential opinion but ironically well over 98% of everybody else in the know are quite certain what 5th gen is.


Then certainly you have no problems showing me a credible source that has a committee somewhere laying down the specs. This is just like the word 'stealth' where over 98% of the public uses that word but the few of us uses 'low radar observable'.

You should understand that when the experts write for the lay public, they will use popular terms in their explanations to give the people a reasonable frame of reference of the many complex issues they have to deal with. How often do you see an expert call the helicopter an 'aircraft' when technically it is? Or how many use the more casual 'helo' for that matter?



marshall said:


> I see that you omitted supercruise which would disqualify the F-35 according to your definition of a 5th gen fighter. Can you explain why the F-35 is not 5th gen or is supercruise not on the list because it sounds nice to say the F-35 is a 5th gen fighter?


I have never called the F-22 and the F-35 '5th-gen'. I have always conditioned my usage of that label as 'supposedly' or 'convenient'. Whenever I use the words 'stealth' or 'stealthy' I always put them in quotes to denote their dubious technical contexts. The reason why thrust vectoring and the supercruise abilities are not included is because they are considered 'nice to have' items, in other words, the aircraft itself can accomplish it mission without them, whereas the current progress in the EM battlespace places higher priority on low radar observability and sensor integration to deliver ordnance accurately on targets. I take it you never heard of the F-117, hardly a '5th-gen' yet able to accomplish much despite being subsonic and have no radar?



marshall said:


> On appearance alone? Are you kidding me? HAHAH... *I will let that one slide* and attribute it to a clumsy trolling attempt. Please refer to the 50 thousand messages posted in January 2011 worldwide after the J-20 unveiling. If you prefer professional sources, refer to the dozens of studies from APPEARANCE and VISUAL analysis by various international aviation experts. If you want to argue against all the experts, feel free to send some disparaging remarks their way and I'm sure some will take up your challenge. I wish you good luck, you will need it.


I am so glad for your generosity. Now all you have to do is show me the technical data.


----------



## gambit

below_freezing said:


> RCS control can also be done with absorption or non-reflective deflection of radio waves.


That made absorber a component of how to control reflected signals, which is the foundation of radar detection. In other words, you need to know the behaviors *BEFORE* you can devise a method to manipulate them.


----------



## marshall

marshall said:


> Sure it is. *The whole point is to be stealthy against your opponent, not against specific radar bands that an opponent would obviously not use against such an enemy*. That is one of the reasons why the F-35 is criticized when compared to the F-22A because the F-22A is stealthy to all radars while the F-35 has narrow band stealth.





gambit said:


> Aaahhh...Wrong.
> 
> To understand why you are wrong we must have some basic understanding of radar detection and target resolutions.
> ...
> _...much unrelated but factual minutiae omitted..._
> ...
> If the F-35 is more visible in the EM spectrum than the F-22 it will be because of considerations that compelled the designer to focus less on some of the above laws than others.


Whatever you say, now back to the context of what I said instead of the unrelated rant that you veered off on. F-35 stealth is most effective in the X-band and has weaknesses at lower bands. That is why it is often derided as a narrowband stealth aircraft. In other words, an aircraft with radar operating at a lower radar frequency would see the F-35 almost as easily as a non-stealth LO aircraft and it would get detected at relatively distant BVR range. As I said originally and will repeat *"The whole point is to be stealthy against your opponent, not against specific radar bands that an opponent would obviously not use against such an enemy"*. Look up L-Band radar and F-35. You will find that this is exactly what is happening for ground radar installations and will happen in the near future for some fighter radars.


----------



## gambit

marshall said:


> Whatever you say, now back to the context of what I said instead of the unrelated rant that you veered off on.


That mean you did not understand it.



marshall said:


> F-35 stealth is most effective in the X-band and has weaknesses at lower bands. That is why it is often derided as a narrowband stealth aircraft.


If the F-35 has a higher RCS in certain freqs than the X-bands that still does not make it any less effective. An aircraft is an exercise in compromises.



marshall said:


> In other words, an aircraft with radar operating at a lower radar frequency would see the F-35 almost as easily as a non-stealth LO aircraft and it would get detected at relatively distant BVR range.


What kind of aircraft would that be? Be careful before answering.



marshall said:


> As I said originally and will repeat *"The whole point is to be stealthy against your opponent, not against specific radar bands that an opponent would obviously not use against such an enemy"*. Look up L-Band radar and F-35. You will find that this is exactly what is happening for ground radar installations and will happen in the near future for some fighter radars.


I will put my posts up against yours about this subject any day so it is hilarious that anyone here could 'advise' me to look up the L-band. Your highlighted comment is equally hilarious in that you specified no type of opponent. The fact that radar detection freqs ranges from the meters length to the millimetric mean that it is not possible with the current technology to deal with them all. So it is necessary to target the most problematic ones, which are the centimetric and low end millimetric. Now is that too difficult to grasp?


----------



## amalakas

marshall said:


> Whatever you say, now back to the context of what I said instead of the unrelated rant that you veered off on. F-35 stealth is most effective in the X-band and has weaknesses at lower bands. That is why it is often derided as a narrowband stealth aircraft. In other words, an aircraft with radar operating at a lower radar frequency would see the F-35 almost as easily as a non-stealth LO aircraft and it would get detected at relatively distant BVR range. As I said originally and will repeat *"The whole point is to be stealthy against your opponent, not against specific radar bands that an opponent would obviously not use against such an enemy"*. Look up L-Band radar and F-35. You will find that this is exactly what is happening for ground radar installations and will happen in the near future for some fighter radars.


 
LM is confident that the F-35 is effective against current and near future threats. 
That is the point. L-Band radars for instance are not installed on currently used AiM missiles. 
So even if a ground station tells you there is an F-35 flying towards you, how are you going to shoot it down? Your interceptors on X and K bands can't see it, using which missiles to lock on? 

- remember I am not a fun of F-35, I am just stating what the point is-


----------



## amalakas

j20blackdragon said:


> You use GCI and AWACS to vector in stealth fighters of your own and use infrared missiles or maybe even the cannon. BVR combat will be significantly less effective because both sides have stealth. It's going to be up close and personal, and now you know why the J-20 has canards, ventral fins, and all sorts of design compromises that maximize aerodynamic performance at the expense of stealth in some cases.



You can't do that easily.. AWACS don't have L band radars. CGI's will know the position but not the vectors and altitude of the targets ... 
you will be sending your fighters in blindly to get close enough to fire ..what .. 5km effective range missiles... that is so close you wouldn't even believe how close you must get for that..


----------



## j20blackdragon

amalakas said:


> So even if a ground station tells you there is an F-35 flying towards you, how are you going to shoot it down? Your interceptors on X and K bands can't see it, using which missiles to lock on?
> 
> - remember I am not a fun of F-35, I am just stating what the point is-



You use GCI and AWACS to vector in stealth fighters of your own and use infrared missiles or maybe even the cannon. BVR combat will be significantly less effective because both sides have stealth. It's going to be up close and personal, and now you know why the J-20 has canards, ventral fins, and all sorts of design compromises that maximize aerodynamic performance at the expense of stealth in some cases.


----------



## DrSomnath999

marshall said:


> You said there are no 5th gen fighters with canards and I replied that there is...the J-20, self explanatory. I never said canards HAVE to be on 5th gen fighters, obviously since the other 5th gen fighters and projects all do not have it. The fact that LERX does some of what a canard can does not make it equivalent. Canards superior maneuverabily to non-vectored thrust fighters add a degree of stability an order of magnitude greater than LERX can. In combination with thrust vectoring, a canard would gives a fighter a degree of supermaneuverabity that would allow it to dance sky acrobatics while retaining stability at lower speeds than with vectoring+LERX. As I said, the maneuverabilty with vectoring+canards would be unbeatable, especially at lower speeds.



ur J20 may be requiring canards for supermaneuverabity as it is a special 5th gen fighter




,but all other 5th gen doesnt require canards for supermaneuverabity as they are having thrust vectoring nozzles to achieve that,just see the chart

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

Seriously, the PAK FA simply *doesn't* compare to this.

The two planes aren't even in the same league.


----------



## ptldM3

j20blackdragon said:


> Seriously, the PAK FA simply *doesn't* compare to this.
> 
> The two planes aren't even in the same league.



We should respect the Chinese aircraft industry because after all the JF-17's radar is not based off the Zhuk, and China totally does not use Russian engines, and the PL-12 does not use a seeker made/co-developed by a Russian company by the name of AGAT.

I one day hope that the pak-fa will use advanced composites in the form of melted down Barbie dolls and knock-off sneakers, than for shock and awe Sukhoi should follow the J-20 mighty-drag queen and use some flat black paint to get that gorgeous look. A 'highly reliable source' aka 'insider' has acknowledged that the flat black paint used on 2001 J-20 was obtained by committing a home invasion on some unsuspecting ricers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

amalakas said:


> You can't do that easily.. AWACS don't have L band radars.



The Israeli Phalcon is L-band.

The US Navy's E-2C is UHF-band.


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> Seriously, the PAK FA simply *doesn't* compare to this.
> 
> The two planes aren't even in the same league.


Stop posting pictures we have already seen and contribute something worthwhile. All you are trying to do is bury legitimate debates to protect your fellow Chinese. It is a sign of cowardice.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

Man this thread is infested with all types of flames and butthurt.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

Seen this photo in another thread, in it you see Lockheed's C-130 replacement mock-up. So where are all the people saying that stealth has to have 's-ducts' and a 'flat belly'?


----------



## S10

ptldM3 said:


> Seen this photo in another thread, in it you see Lockheed's C-130 replacement mock-up. So where are all the people saying that stealth has to have 's-ducts' and a 'flat belly'?


Transports have low observable requirements now? Maybe Russian mafia need to smuggle arms or drugs out of Russia?


----------



## ptldM3

S10 said:


> Transports have low observable requirements now?





Appearently so.




S10 said:


> Maybe Russian mafia need to smuggle arms or drugs out of Russia?





Don't be silly the Russian mafia deals with the Columbians and now perhaps the Mexican in drug smuggling...


----------



## Project 627

S10 said:


> Transports have low observable requirements now? Maybe Russian mafia need to smuggle arms or drugs out of Russia?




IMAGES: Lockheed's stealth C-130 successor revealed - The DEW Line


----------



## marshall

gambit said:


> Then certainly you have no problems showing me a credible source that has a committee somewhere laying down the specs. This is just like the word 'stealth' where over 98% of the public uses that word but the few of us uses 'low radar observable'.
> 
> You should understand that when the experts write for the lay public, they will use popular terms in their explanations to give the people a reasonable frame of reference of the many complex issues they have to deal with. How often do you see an expert call the helicopter an 'aircraft' when technically it is? Or how many use the more casual 'helo' for that matter?


Stealth aircraft is not an international standard that you would set like something by the IEEE, ISO, etc. For this reason, most people generally use the standard bearer of the time to define what is that standard. The F-22A is today's standard bearer just as the F-117 was yesterday's, which is why the F-117 is STILL considered the first operational 5th gen fighter despite lacking today's latest 5th gen features _(AESA, EODAS, supercruise, etc)_.




gambit said:


> I am so glad for your generosity. Now all you have to do is show me the technical data.


There are many such professional aviation expert analysis on this very topic using "appearance" alone as their guideline. Much of what you ask for are rhetorical questions because as outsiders some details are classified. This does not preclude obvious visual cues that any layperson can see. Those visual "appearances" you find deceiving are what these forums are all about afterall. One of the better visual analysis I have read is here....

A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype

It includes computational spectral analysis of the shaping and probable RAM coating effectiveness at different wavelengths.


----------



## gambit

marshall said:


> Stealth aircraft is not an international standard that you would set like something by the IEEE, ISO, etc. For this reason, most people generally use the standard bearer of the time to define what is that standard. The F-22A is today's standard bearer just as the F-117 was yesterday's, which is why the F-117 is STILL considered the first operational 5th gen fighter despite lacking today's latest 5th gen features _(AESA, EODAS, supercruise, etc)_.


Good. Then we can conclude that the '5ht-gen' label is something that is casually used and is not really something that can be settled upon. Heck, there are arguments here that China call '5th-gen' as '6th-gen' or something like that. So if China can depart without consulting other major aviation powers, especially one that started the trend in 'low radar observable', what reason are there for us to place any value on these convenient labels?



marshall said:


> There are many such professional aviation expert analysis on this very topic using "appearance" alone as their guideline. Much of what you ask for are rhetorical questions because as outsiders some details are classified. This does not preclude obvious visual cues that any layperson can see. Those visual "appearances" you find deceiving are what these forums are all about afterall. One of the better visual analysis I have read is here....
> 
> A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype
> 
> It includes computational spectral analysis of the shaping and probable RAM coating effectiveness at different wavelengths.


That APA nonsense again? They use physical optics only. As if that was not bad enough, they used estimated physical dimensions derived from photographs to plug into their PO algorithms. Ever heard of 'Garbage In. Garbage Out.'? Heck, the section 'What the Simulation Does Not Demonstrate' is longer than the section 'What the Simulation Does Demonstrate'. *TWICE* as long. But here is the clincher that made what APA did a joke...



> The PO computational algorithm performs most accurately at broadside or near normal angles of incidence, with decreasing accuracy at increasingly shallow angles of incidence, reflecting the limitions of PO modelling.



What this mean is that PO is good only if the radar is staring *STRAIGHT* at the surface. The moment there is any angular displacement, and we are talking about a dynamic target here, PO calculations breaks down. The greater the angular displacement, the worse it gets. Given the fact that this is common knowledge, APA cannot hide this limitation. Even Chinese engineers know *NOT* to use the PO method alone...







Now show me the data that has the J-20 below the unofficial 1 meter square at 150-200 km distance. If there are none, then what I said is valid: That the J-20's label as '5th-gen' is based solely upon appearance and fanboy-ism.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## marshall

marshall said:


> ...As I said originally and will repeat *"The whole point is to be stealthy against your opponent, not against specific radar bands that an opponent would obviously not use against such an enemy"*. Look up L-Band radar and F-35. You will find that this is exactly what is happening for ground radar installations and will happen in the near future for some fighter radars.





gambit said:


> What kind of aircraft would that be? Be careful before answering.


As I expected, you resort to nitpicking of wording and syntax rather than the meaning and context of the message. Re-read what I said in the context of the message and it's obvious I'm talking about aircraft not regarded as 5th gen stealth but having LO radar features...like the Eurofighter for example. How else to describe such aircraft that are not 5th gen but still relatively stealthy comparatively speaking to their generation. Get it? or maybe not. Now let's hear your take on the word LO and stealth, I mean acronym LO and stealth.




gambit said:


> I will put my posts up against yours about this subject any day so it is hilarious that anyone here could 'advise' me to look up the L-band. Your highlighted comment is equally hilarious in that you specified no type of opponent. The fact that radar detection freqs ranges from the meters length to the millimetric mean that it is not possible with the current technology to deal with them all. So it is necessary to target the most problematic ones, which are the centimetric and low end millimetric. Now is that too difficult to grasp?


So how does the above quote relate to how this thread started? I said...*"The whole point is to be stealthy against your opponent, not against specific radar bands that an opponent would obviously not use against such an enemy"*, and followed up with the example of the F-35 being weak in the lower radar bands and thus vulnerable to L-Band radars. That's a public fact and it is also public fact that various design bureaus have developed wing mounted L-band radars for this very purpose.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter vs Russia's New Airborne Counter-Stealth Radars


----------



## amalakas

j20blackdragon said:


> The Israeli Phalcon is L-band.
> 
> The US Navy's E-2C is UHF-band.



You are of course right, I forgot the Israeli phalcon.


----------



## marshall

amalakas said:


> LM is confident that the F-35 is effective against current and near future threats.
> That is the point. L-Band radars for instance are not installed on currently used AiM missiles.
> So even if a ground station tells you there is an F-35 flying towards you, how are you going to shoot it down? Your interceptors on X and K bands can't see it, using which missiles to lock on?
> 
> - remember I am not a fun of F-35, I am just stating what the point is-


True, but I see the F-35 being detected first a coup in itself. The L-Band AESA radars being developed do not have alot of power so detection probably wouldn't occur until within relatively close BVR range. I'm not sure how good of an idea it would be to have the fighter guide missiles to the F-35 since that might expose the J-20 itself but there would be decades to develop a safe and lethal solution given the projected life of the F-35. Might be feasible for the detecting fighter to establish datalink to space satellite to do the guidance instead. So the detecting fighter could send the instructions with the detected location to guide the missile, and from there a military satellite could guide the missile with SAR radar to the target.


----------



## marshall

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The STOVL project is coupled with the amphibious assault ship, since China has no interest to build the aircraft carrier less than 80,000 tons.


Has this actually been confirmed or are you referring to experts on the Chinese BBSes? The "Snowy Owl" stories have never actually be confirmed as far as I'm aware. The pictures that have been released have always turned out to be PS'ed.


----------



## marshall

DrSomnath999 said:


> ur J20 may be requiring canards for supermaneuverabity as it is a special 5th gen fighter
> 
> 
> 
> ,but all other 5th gen doesnt require canards for super-maneuverability as they are having thrust vectoring nozzles to achieve that,just see the chart


Well let's hope that the J-20 will eventually have vectored nozzles then. It would make it an even more superior supermaneuverable fighter than it will already be.


----------



## gambit

marshall said:


> As I expected, you resort to nitpicking of wording and syntax rather than the meaning and context of the message. Re-read what I said in the context of the message and it's obvious I'm talking about aircraft not regarded as 5th gen stealth but having LO radar features...like the Eurofighter for example. How else to describe such aircraft that are not 5th gen but still relatively stealthy comparatively speaking to their generation. Get it? or maybe not. Now let's hear your take on the word LO and stealth, I mean acronym LO and stealth.
> 
> 
> 
> So how does the above quote relate to how this thread started? I said...*"The whole point is to be stealthy against your opponent, not against specific radar bands that an opponent would obviously not use against such an enemy"*, and followed up with the example of the F-35 being weak in the lower radar bands and thus vulnerable to L-Band radars. That's a public fact and it is also public fact that various design bureaus have developed wing mounted L-band radars for this very purpose.
> 
> F-35 Joint Strike Fighter vs Russia's New Airborne Counter-Stealth Radars


This is silly. How can you be 'stealthy against your opponent' if you do not know what freq he is using? But if you *DO KNOW* what freq he is using, then you should shape (or target) against that freq, which was the point of my post. And here are some additional information and logic to support my arguments => http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/20908-rcs-different-fighters-8.html#post2111905

Take your time and read if you want to learn the truth from real engineering.

What you said: *...be stealthy against your opponent...* may give people the impression that you know what you are talking about but for those of us who have relevant experience know it is nonsense.

As for the supposedly L-band on the T-50...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_aircraft


> The Dutch company Thales Nederland, formerly known as Holland Signaal, have developed a naval phased-array radar called SMART-L, which also is operated at L-Band and is claimed to offer counter stealth benefits. However, *as with most claims of counter-stealth capability, these are unproven and untested.*



Do you even stop to think for a bit? Assume that this freq will be used, why do you think the antenna arrays for the L-band are on the wings and not in the radome? Because the main antenna is for the X-band, which is the main freqs for vital targeting information, which is what I tried to explain to you but you dismissed it as drivel. The L-band is not as capable and for the T-50 it is limited to the front view. What if the 'stealth' enemy is behind or either sides?


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> This is silly. How can you be 'stealthy against your opponent' if you do not know what freq he is using? But if you *DO KNOW* what freq he is using, then you should shape (or target) against that freq, which was the point of my post. And here are some additional information and logic to support my arguments => http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/20908-rcs-different-fighters-8.html#post2111905
> 
> Take your time and read if you want to learn the truth from real engineering.
> 
> What you said: *...be stealthy against your opponent...* may give people the impression that you know what you are talking about but for those of us who have relevant experience know it is nonsense.
> 
> As for the supposedly L-band on the T-50...
> 
> Stealth aircraft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Do you even stop to think for a bit? Assume that this freq will be used, why do you think the antenna arrays for the L-band are on the wings and not in the radome? Because the main antenna is for the X-band, which is the main freqs for vital targeting information, which is what I tried to explain to you but you dismissed it as drivel. The L-band is not as capable and for the T-50 it is limited to the front view. What if the 'stealth' enemy is behind or either sides?


 
We debated on this long time ago. The point of the L-band extensions on the T-50 is to alert the pilot/system/formation that a VLO adversary is indeed in field and provide (for now a guess) minimalistic information on a vector. 

With the current experience we have on L-band radars this is NOT enough to direct -current- missiles to the target (s). 

My debate with Gambit at the time was that Russians have in their arsenal and can launch a mix of missiles with IR and active seeker heads which can expose the threat further or prevent whatever the adversary has in mind since it has to begin evasive actions. 
An IR medium/long range missile can be launched with mimimal information provided by the L-band radar. Ofcourse the weapons release software needs to be modified to allow for that. 

The other advantage of having this onboard is that it delays / denies the first shot 

The L-band system will alert the flight, other sensors will be automatically alligned, possible early launch will force the opponent to lose the first shot opportunity since russians have longer range weapons. but even if a launch takes place (with current arsenal) the sensors will detect the launch flare and alert the pilot a salvo is coming . 

this increases the odds tremendously since evasive actions can be taken "cranking". 

as for the VLO adversary being in the rear of the T-50, well, then yes, currenty it has no ability it seems to actively see it.. 

on the other hand nor does the F-22 as far as I know. The passive system on the F22 doesn't offer true 360^ coverage .. or am I mistaken?


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> We debated on this long time ago. The point of the L-band extensions on the T-50 is to alert the pilot/system/formation that a VLO adversary is indeed in field and provide (for now a guess) minimalistic information on a vector.
> 
> With the current experience we have on L-band radars this is NOT enough to direct -current- missiles to the target (s).
> 
> My debate with Gambit at the time was that Russians have in their arsenal and can launch a mix of missiles with IR and active seeker heads which can expose the threat further or prevent whatever the adversary has in mind since it has to begin evasive actions.
> An IR medium/long range missile can be launched with mimimal information provided by the L-band radar. Ofcourse the weapons release software needs to be modified to allow for that.
> 
> The other advantage of having this onboard is that it delays / denies the first shot
> 
> The L-band system will alert the flight, other sensors will be automatically alligned, possible early launch will force the opponent to lose the first shot opportunity since russians have longer range weapons. but even if a launch takes place (with current arsenal) the sensors will detect the launch flare and alert the pilot a salvo is coming .
> 
> this increases the odds tremendously since evasive actions can be taken "cranking".


In theory, yes...But in practice? Doubtful. Because the VLO adversary will be alerted to the presence of a seeker.



amalakas said:


> as for the VLO adversary being in the rear of the T-50, well, then yes, currenty it has no ability it seems to actively see it..
> 
> on the other hand nor does the F-22 as far as I know. The passive system on the F22 doesn't offer true 360^ coverage .. or am I mistaken?


Passive detection is usually 360 deg.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> In theory, yes...But in practice? Doubtful. Because the VLO adversary will be alerted to the presence of a seeker.
> 
> 
> Passive detection is usually 360 deg.


 
You mean RWR ?


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> You mean RWR ?


The F-22's radar warning receiver set is good enough to provide its missiles with targeting information. So monitoring L-band emissions will not be so difficult.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> The F-22's radar warning receiver set is good enough to provide its missiles with targeting information. So monitoring L-band emissions will not be so difficult.


 
i wouldn't know about that... experiance with the F-22 as you can guess is non existant


----------



## marshall

gambit said:


> That APA nonsense again? They use physical optics only. As if that was not bad enough, they used estimated physical dimensions derived from photographs to plug into their PO algorithms. Ever heard of 'Garbage In. Garbage Out.'? Heck, the section 'What the Simulation Does Not Demonstrate' is longer than the section 'What the Simulation Does Demonstrate'. *TWICE* as long. But here is the clincher that made what APA did a joke...
> 
> What this mean is that PO is good only if the radar is staring *STRAIGHT* at the surface. The moment there is any angular displacement, and we are talking about a dynamic target here, PO calculations breaks down. The greater the angular displacement, the worse it gets. Given the fact that this is common knowledge, APA cannot hide this limitation. Even Chinese engineers know *NOT* to use the PO method alone...


No analysis on appearance alone can be complete regardless of methodology unless you have every minute detail of the aircraft on hand as well full knowledge of the materials composition of the aircraft. Only with unfettered access to the aircraft could any complete study be performed using a supercomputer. If this is the track you are following, then your question has been rhetorical all along because it cannot be answered since the J-20 is a publicly known but still classified project. The whole point of military forums like this one are to discuss these issues, the what-ifs, new developments, tactical/strategic implications, etc....not rhetoric to shut down discussions until projects are *completely* declassified.

If this is not your intention, then I would disagree that this is a "garbage in garbage out" analysis as you put it. PO computational method is not ideal with any angular displacement only if you are trying to achieve 100% accuracy. However, results were quoted as being in rough agreement with 3rd party measurements of test shapes approximating different J-20 surfaces. That does not sound like garbage in/out as you exaggerate. Diffraction was not measured in this study as stated in the footnotes. The study is called "*A Preliminary Assessment of SPECULAR Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype*" afterall. I do believe you are too dismissive of this study. In the absence of any hard details from China, military analysts rely on studies such as these to make their preliminary assessments for strategic decisions. 




gambit said:


> Now show me the data that has the J-20 below the unofficial 1 meter square at 150-200 km distance. If there are none, then what I said is valid: That the J-20's label as '5th-gen' is based solely upon appearance and fanboy-ism.


If your sole mission is to ask for classified information and absolute proof, then you are correct and I suggest you go to Chengdu and request access to their classified RCS studies. Almost everybody else looks at what current information is available and from there note the various radar reducing features, and compare it to the estimated RCS of different known stealth aircraft or believed to be stealth aircraft and make rough approximations of capabilities. This is what every analyst does including professional aviation experts when performing their research. If some choose to call it a 5th gen aircraft because they believe it to have those qualities, it does not make them "fanboys". If you choose to believe others do not agree with you to be rah-rah cheerleaders....aka fanboys, that is your prerogative.

Btw, the Eurofighter Typhoon, which is a 4+ gen fighter is a well known example of a non-5th gen LO aircraft. There is consensus among the aviation community that its RCS with clean configuration is around ~1m square. The Eurofighter Typhoon has a *CANARD* delta layout. The J-20 also has a *CANARD* delta layout along with an F-22A style chin, serpentine inlets, continuous curvature, LOAN nozzles, planform alignment, internal weapon bays, RAM coating, oxide coated canopy, etc.... According to your insinuation, the J-20 cannot even match a 1m square RCS despite the multitude of estimates and studies that say otherwise, some of which estimate RCS of a fraction of a fraction of 1m square. Maybe you should educate all the Eurofighter fanboys the error of their ways.


----------



## marshall

gambit said:


> This is silly. How can you be 'stealthy against your opponent' if you do not know what freq he is using? But if you *DO KNOW* what freq he is using, then you should shape (or target) against that freq, which was the point of my post. And here are some additional information and logic to support my arguments => http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/20908-rcs-different-fighters-8.html#post2111905
> 
> Take your time and read if you want to learn the truth from real engineering.
> 
> What you said: *...be stealthy against your opponent...* may give people the impression that you know what you are talking about but for those of us who have relevant experience know it is nonsense.


I thought I already answered this question and you just repeated it in different words here. Refer to message #413. You obviously did not understand the meaning and context of what I was saying because it was absolute proof of what I said using actual real-world examples. If you have real world experience in this field, then I can only suggest you get further training in real-world English classes since you consistently misunderstand context and meaning in messages and regularly use grammatical/syntax issues as points in your arguments rather than address what counterparts are actually saying.




gambit said:


> As for the supposedly L-band on the T-50...
> 
> Stealth aircraft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Do you even stop to think for a bit? Assume that this freq will be used, why do you think the antenna arrays for the L-band are on the wings and not in the radome? Because the main antenna is for the X-band, which is the main freqs for vital targeting information, which is what I tried to explain to you but you dismissed it as drivel. The L-band is not as capable and for the T-50 it is limited to the front view. What if the 'stealth' enemy is behind or either sides?


I didn't dismiss anything, that is your exaggeration. If there is anything I dismiss, it is your own blanket dismissal of L-Band radar advantages vis-a-vis stealth aircraft detection. Nobody ever suggested L-Band is a singular replacement for all radars. On the contrary, it is a supplement since it cannot be used for targeting but adds the immeasurable advantage of providing first detection. This opens a whole slew of tactical scenarios that the opponent does not have. In the case of the F-35, if it were to ever be on the receiving end of this scenario against a similarly capable aircraft, it would be at a disadvantage obviously!


----------



## marshall

amalakas said:


> My debate with Gambit at the time was that Russians have in their arsenal and can launch a mix of missiles with IR and active seeker heads which can expose the threat further or prevent whatever the adversary has in mind since it has to begin evasive actions.
> An IR medium/long range missile can be launched with mimimal information provided by the L-band radar. Ofcourse the weapons release software needs to be modified to allow for that.


What do you think of the Russian L-Band wing mounted radars? I think the scanning methodology is clumsy. You have to wag the aircraft side to side to get a decent view of the horizon. I think it should be 1 part of an integrated UHF/L-Band stealth detection network with space based radars playing a prominent role. I cannot see any other way to do it without endangering the detecting fighter if it attacked.




amalakas said:


> The L-band system will alert the flight, other sensors will be automatically alligned, possible early launch will force the opponent to lose the first shot opportunity since russians have longer range weapons. but even if a launch takes place (with current arsenal) the sensors will detect the launch flare and alert the pilot a salvo is coming .


Rumors have circulated that stealth missiles are being developed with IR shrouded nozzles to prevent this. If these sorts of missiles were in production, it would be likely the detected stealth aircraft would be shot down if a salvo of 3 such missiles were fired, directly at the aircraft and the other two 15 or so degrees to either side. At the probable detection range of less than 50km, at the mach 4+ flight speed of these missiles, they would reach the target in less than 1 minute and achieve IR lock in less than 40 seconds. Of course, if there were other aircraft in the vicinity, it might shoot them down by accident though. LOL




amalakas said:


> on the other hand nor does the F-22 as far as I know. The passive system on the F22 doesn't offer true 360^ coverage .. or am I mistaken?


EODAS is 360. I don't know what the detection range is though. There's speculation that J-20 will have a similar system.


----------



## gambit

marshall said:


> I thought I already answered this question and you just repeated it in different words here. Refer to message #413. You obviously did not understand the meaning and context of what I was saying because it was absolute proof of what I said using *actual real-world examples.* If you have real world experience in this field, then I can only suggest you get further training in real-world English classes since you consistently misunderstand context and meaning in messages and regularly use grammatical/syntax issues as points in your arguments rather than address what counterparts are actually saying.


You gotta be joking...What 'real-world examples' did you present? Here are my supporting arguments...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/20908-rcs-different-fighters-7.html#post2107861
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/20908-rcs-different-fighters-8.html#post2111905

Show the readers where my logic is flawed. Keep in mind that they can perform keyword searches and find the vast majority of the 'fighter' class radars out there operate in the X-band.

Let us take your post 413 again...



marshall said:


> Whatever you say, now back to the context of what I said instead of the unrelated rant that you veered off on. F-35 stealth is most effective in the X-band and has weaknesses at lower bands. That is why it is often derided as a narrowband stealth aircraft. In other words, an aircraft with radar operating at a lower radar frequency would see the F-35 almost as easily as a non-stealth LO aircraft and it would get detected at relatively distant BVR range. As I said originally and will repeat *"The whole point is to be stealthy against your opponent, not against specific radar bands that an opponent would obviously not use against such an enemy"*. Look up L-Band radar and F-35. You will find that this is exactly what is happening for ground radar installations and will happen in the near future for some fighter radars.


Where are those 'real-world examples'? You made an assertion that does not jive with the true 'real world', friend. How many 'fighter' class radars out there that *DOES NOT* operate in the X-band? Do not tell me the Russian's latest. It is still largely speculative. But show everyone which air forces in the world that manufacture their own fighter aircrafts and equip them with lower freqs specifically to target 'stealth'.



marshall said:


> I didn't dismiss anything, that is your exaggeration. If there is anything I dismiss, it is your own blanket dismissal of L-Band radar advantages vis-a-vis stealth aircraft detection. Nobody ever suggested L-Band is a singular replacement for all radars. On the contrary, it is a supplement since it cannot be used for targeting but adds the *immeasurable advantage* of providing first detection. This opens a whole slew of tactical scenarios that the opponent does not have. In the case of the F-35, if it were to ever be on the receiving end of this scenario against a similarly capable aircraft, it would be at a disadvantage obviously!


Immeasurable? 

Buddy, if a radar's maximum reach is 100 km distance, effective distance where there are credible target resolution will be at best %75-80 of that 100 km. It is the result of a combination of many things such as atmospheric attenuation, beam broadening, or internal noise. However, passive detection of such a transmission will be at that 100 km, meaning the man you are looking for will know you are looking for him *BEFORE* you even have the odds of finding him. Back in the Cold War, NATO pilots often trained in navigation via passive detection of the limit edges of air defense radar nets. That is called 'threat avoidance'...

Electronic Combat Solutions - Thales Group


>  Capabilities needed for the engagement of combat aircraft against air, ground and surface targets:
> 
> - Multi-target detection and engagement for air-to-air, air-to-ground and air-to-surface missions
> 
> - Automatic terrain following and *threat avoidance for high-speed blind penetration missions*
> 
> - Offensive jamming for suppression of enemy air defences (SEAD)
> 
> - Self-protection


The 'blind penetration' is not exactly blind in the EM spectrum. What the training does is to allow the radar warning receiver set dictate the turns of the flight path. The moment the RWR alert the pilot that he just touched the fringe edge of radar's maximum reach, the pilot will turn away until the alarm is silent. The pilot transmit nothing of his own but uses his RWR set like a blind man uses his cane. For the air defense radar operator, such a fleeting return may be dismissed by the system itself, let alone stay constant enough for him to make a decision on what he saw. So if the enemy is blasting away with his L-band radar trying to find me, I would definitely encourage him to continue.


----------



## marshall

gambit said:


> Show the readers where my logic is flawed. Keep in mind that they can perform keyword searches and find the vast majority of the 'fighter' class radars out there operate in the X-band.
> 
> Let us take your post 413 again...





marshall said:


> Whatever you say, now back to the context of what I said instead of the unrelated rant that you veered off on. F-35 stealth is most effective in the X-band and has weaknesses at lower bands. That is why it is often derided as a narrowband stealth aircraft. In other words, an aircraft with radar operating at a lower radar frequency would see the F-35 almost as easily as a non-stealth LO aircraft and it would get detected at relatively distant BVR range. As I said originally and will repeat *"The whole point is to be stealthy against your opponent, not against specific radar bands that an opponent would obviously not use against such an enemy"*. Look up L-Band radar and F-35. You will find that this is exactly what is happening for ground radar installations and will happen in the near future for some fighter radars.





gambit said:


> Where are those 'real-world examples'? You made an assertion that does not jive with the true 'real world', friend. How many 'fighter' class radars out there that *DOES NOT* operate in the X-band? Do not tell me the Russian's latest. It is still largely speculative. But show everyone which air forces in the world that manufacture their own fighter aircrafts and equip them with lower freqs specifically to target 'stealth'.


I expected you would Look up _L-Band radar and F-35_ but you obviously did not. That was the real-world example. To explain, again...the F-35 is well known to have "narrowband" stealth, meaning it does not provide equal stealth at all radar bands, specifically S, L and UHF radar bands. The lower the radar frequency, the more susceptible to detection the F-35 becomes. In other words, this weakness of the F-35 to certain radar bands allows opponents to exploit it, obviously. I'm not sure why you would assume the X-Band radar would be completely removed in place of a single L-Band radar. I never suggested this, this is your own idea because you can't grasp that an L-Band radar could be a supplement to exploit the F-35's weakness to it. Afterall, the F-35 is not the only opponent that could potentially be faced. Clearly, tactical military thinking is not your forte.

Looking at the hardware side of things, absolutely I will bring up the Russian wing-mounted L-Band AESA radar. The fact that this radar was created for the exact situation we are talking about is very pertinent to this conversation because it *EXISTS* which makes it a perfect real-world example. If you're going to say it is not yet mounted on any production fighter, then by that same logic the F-35 would not be in the real-world since it is not yet a production fighter.

Addressing my contention that opponents would exploit stealth weaknesses of their rivals, I'm not even sure why it is necessary to have this explained to you. It is OBVIOUS and I just gave you a perfect example of it. Honestly, I find it ridiculous I need to explain such a simple concept let alone more than 3 times now. Countering opponents weaknesses is a fundamental part of defense research.

As I said earlier, you didn't understand my English in your zeal to prove whatever you are trying to prove. Your so-called point about "RCS of different fighters" has little to do with the context of what I am talking about and is either your misinterpretation of the context and meaning of my words, or purposeful wordplay to avoid the obvious that you are just plain wrong.

**** L-Band Stealth Weakness ****
The L-band &#8220;game-changer&#8221; | ELP DEFENS(C)E BLOG

**** F-35 Joint Strike Fighter vs Russia's New Airborne Counter-Stealth Radars ****
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter vs Russia's New Airborne Counter-Stealth Radars

I haven't even mentioned the ongoing research into anti-stealth measures that are not fighter based such as the SMART-L radar, certain OTH radars, etc.... The narrowband stealth of the F-35 was a bad idea due to the short-sightedness of LM. They never expected this could be exploited so easily.


----------



## marshall

gambit said:


> The F-22's radar warning receiver set is good enough to provide its missiles with targeting information. So monitoring L-band emissions will not be so difficult.


LPI modes on AESA radars make RWR detection very difficult and pretty much impossible for tracking unless you're using 2 or more datalink'ed F-22s to triangulate the source. Granted, this is a rumored feature of the F-22 but I wouldn't be surprised.


----------



## gambit

marshall said:


> I expected you would Look up _L-Band radar and F-35_ but you obviously did not.


Buddy...I used to be in the business. I know exactly what you are talking about.



marshall said:


> That was the real-world example. To explain, again...the F-35 is well known to have "narrowband" stealth, meaning it does not provide equal stealth at all radar bands, specifically S, L and UHF radar bands. The lower the radar frequency, the more susceptible to detection the F-35 becomes. In other words, this weakness of the F-35 to certain radar bands allows opponents to exploit it, obviously.


No current 'stealth' aircrafts, not even US ones, are immune from the longer wavelengths. This was well known decades ago.



marshall said:


> Looking at the hardware side of things, absolutely I will bring up the Russian wing-mounted L-Band AESA radar. The fact that this radar was created for the exact situation we are talking about is very pertinent to this conversation because it *EXISTS* which makes it a perfect real-world example. If you're going to say it is not yet mounted on any production fighter, then by that same logic the F-35 would not be in the real-world since it is not yet a production fighter.


One example out of how many deployed? And do we have any credible data on its effectiveness? Is the aircraft even operational?



marshall said:


> I haven't even mentioned the ongoing research into anti-stealth measures that are not fighter based such as the SMART-L radar, certain OTH radars, etc.... *The narrowband stealth of the F-35 was a bad idea due to the short-sightedness of LM. They never expected this could be exploited so easily.*


Wrong...LM worked out all the possible combinations of shaping, absorber, and threat freqs as far back as the F-117 days. It is incredibly presumptuous on your part to say that the pioneers of 'stealth' would miss the L-band when the data from the many freqs have been known for decades. Yours and many others' persistence in bringing up your misconception about vulnerability to the L-band by 'stealth' aircraft reveals a misunderstanding of the fundamentals of radar detection.

Here is why you and others are so very wrong about LM's alleged 'shortsightedness'...







We will begin with the sphere, the simplest shape in radar detection.

The sphere will produce three main modes of radiation: Specular, Leaky, and Creeping.

The specular reflection and leaky waves due to surface wave behaviors will always be present. The creeping wave behavior will depend on the '10-lambda' rule. The 10-lambda rule states that *IF* the diameter is greater than 10 wavelengths (lambda), then the creeping wave behavior will not exist. But *IF* the diameter is less than 10 wavelengths (lambda) then the creeping wave will contribute to the sphere's (or cylinder's) RCS. This behavior is applicable to all wavelengths.

If I build my sphere to specifically target the X-band freqs, does that mean I was 'shortsighted' in neglecting the L-band? If the answer is 'Yes' then might as well argue that I was 'shortsighted' in neglecting the meters length HF/VHF/UHF bands as well. In that case, I might as well build my sphere whose diameter is one hundred or even one thousand meters to cover the entire spectrum. That way, the only dominant radiation will be specular. But is that reasonable?

The F-35 is not the F-22. If the F-22 has better performance against the L-band then it was by design. If the F-35 has inferior performance than the F-22 when it comes to the L-band, then it is also *BY DESIGN*. Not because LM was ignorant of the different results by the various freqs or because LM was 'shortsighted'. If they wanted the F-35 to be as effective against the L-band, it would not be the F-35 to start. The mission requirements are different and will demand compromises to some degrees. Use the L-band against the B-2 and we will have the an increase in RCS as well. So is it fair to criticize the B-2 in the same manner?

It is precisely this ignorance of the fundamentals of applied radar detection techniques that make the L-band trumpeters look silly in the eyes of those who actually designed these aircrafts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

marshall said:


> No analysis on appearance alone can be complete regardless of methodology unless you have every minute detail of the aircraft on hand as well full knowledge of the materials composition of the aircraft. Only with unfettered access to the aircraft could any complete study be performed using a supercomputer. If this is the track you are following, then your question has been rhetorical all along because it cannot be answered since the J-20 is a publicly known but still classified project. The whole point of military forums like this one are to discuss these issues, the what-ifs, new developments, tactical/strategic implications, etc....not rhetoric to shut down discussions until projects are *completely* declassified.
> 
> If this is not your intention, then I would disagree that this is a "garbage in garbage out" analysis as you put it. PO computational method is not ideal with any angular displacement only if you are trying to achieve 100% accuracy. However, results were quoted as being in rough agreement with 3rd party measurements of test shapes approximating different J-20 surfaces. That does not sound like garbage in/out as you exaggerate. Diffraction was not measured in this study as stated in the footnotes. The study is called "*A Preliminary Assessment of SPECULAR Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype*" afterall. I do believe you are too dismissive of this study. In the absence of any hard details from China, military analysts rely on studies such as these to make their preliminary assessments for strategic decisions.


I am dismissive of that 'study' for two reasons...

1- What APA did was the equivalent of giving a junior engineer a project to test his abilities to perform his job. Although the project is valid it is a part of the more comprehensive testing regime where specular reflections measurement is just about the easiest test in a series of tests.

2- The quick seizure of this 'study' as somehow indicative of the J-20's true RCS.

These modes of scattering are of varying degrees of intensities on *ANY* complex body...






APA supposedly 'measured' just one mode: SPECULAR SURFACE RETURN. And that was using the word 'measured' very generously considering they admitted they did not perform any physical measurements but only the virtual one.

While...

- Cavity radiation from inlets, exhausts, and cockpit can be as wide as 60 deg in detectable angle and often resonate (ring) making the structure an effective pulsating beacon that can dominate the combined specular reflections from multiple flat surfaces.

- Traveling radiation occurs when the incident angle is nearly horizontal to the surface and direction of travel is opposite that of arrival. Upon meeting a surface discontinuity like an edge, the energy level of this signal is nearly as that of the original impinging signal. So on a wing, if PO is looking at the leading edge, PO will says the only radiation is from the leading edge. Nothing else exist.

- Interactions from all of the above modes do not exist as far as PO is concerned.






For the above...In terms of RCS control, a curved concave structure is a 'convergent' radiator or generator and will concentrate any packet of energy into a directional beam, advertising its presence. Physical Optics measurement will produce a large but false signature because it would mistake this to be from a flat surface. Because of this behavior, US 'stealth' aircrafts routinely flies with such devices called 'Luneburg lens' which are constructed in similar principles to disguise their true RCS.

A convex structure is a 'divergent' radiator and because the PO method can only deal with one impact point which is the tiny amount of surface area that happens to be perpendicular to source direction per degree of translation (movement), the rest of the signal's energy become surface wave energy, the result is a smaller and inaccurate signature. The concave and the convex structures could have identical surface areas but would have opposite RCS signatures via the PO method. The more curvatures are there on an expanse of surface area on a complex body, the greater the departure from accuracy PO will be, and given the current trend where we have largely moved away from F-117's method of RCS control, PO alone cannot provide us with any meaningful estimation of these complex bodies.

The radar cross section (RCS) value is a fictitious value. It is fictitious in the sense that it is heavily dependent upon the measurement regime and the tools used inside that regime. The RCS value is essentially a comparative figure between the sum of what those tools received in terms of power density *PER TOOL* versus the original total power density upon the body. The appropriate analogy here is the story of the blind men and the elephant where each man is a tool and each has his own perception of what is an 'elephant'.

It is to APA's credit that they admitted their own flawed methodlogy but it is sad on the part of the J-20's supporters that they so quickly seized upon that 'study', using the word quite generously, and imposed their own misconceptions and baseless enthusiasm upon the aircraft. Am confident that you are not as cavalier with your credulity in your financial dealings. But I guess nothing is really lost here if one does not count one's own intellectual honesty.

I hate the phrases 'Trust me on this one...' or 'Take my words on this...' and have never used them in these discussions. But I have complete faith that the gents over at Lockheed, Raytheon, or Boeing are smiling condescendingly at APA for this 'study' because in another life I used to do the same thing for other 'studies'.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

marshall said:


> As I said earlier, you didn't understand my English in your zeal to prove whatever you are trying to prove. *Your so-called point about "RCS of different fighters" has little to do with the context of what I am talking about* and is either your misinterpretation of the context and meaning of my words, or purposeful wordplay to avoid the obvious that you are just plain wrong.


Those are links to posts explaining why the X-band is the preferred region and is very pertinent to what we are talking about. Sounds like you are quite afraid of learning something new that would prove you wrong.


----------



## Chinese Century

the vietnamese kid gambit is getting owned!


----------



## gambit

Chinese Century said:


> the vietnamese kid gambit is getting owned!


You wish......I know that *EVERYTHING* I said went wwoooossshhh over your head.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Firemaster

gambit said:


> You wish......I know that *EVERYTHING* I said went wwoooossshhh over your head.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

Each fighter developing country develops based on some kind of approach. 

I can tell you definitely that the Europeans were gobsmacked when the F-22 and F-35 design requirements came out in earnest, because they had been working on aircraft capable of outclassing the F-15 and a possible successor, but definitely not the F-22 !! 

The Russians on the other hand, kept silent due to economic struggles for a long time, and then took a pragmatic approach to things. The flankers are capable of holding their own if they have a way of defending and attacking. The kinematic abilities of the flanker, and even more so of the newest flankers is enough to evade current missiles if given enough warning. The IRST sensor on all flankers is enough to pick up at some range, which exceeds visual but shorter than the range of the AMRAAM stealth type planes. 
Can it help shooting them down? Not to a comfortable point if not coupled with IR imagining seeker heads but still, better than fighting blind and mute. And also thought of equipping their large fighters with L-band radars... now they can also actively look for stealth targets even though they cannot provide firing solutions for the weapons from the L-band radars ... accurate enough at least. 

To me this is a realistic, pragmatic way forward for them, rather than seeking ways that are too expensive, too untested and too .. much anyway. 

The F-22 is shaped -so they say- to evade L-band radars as well- to a degree... so has the stealth problem been countered yet.. not really.. but at least the russians have figured out, that it is better to have a short sword in your hand, rather than nothing at all...


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> Each fighter developing country develops based on some kind of approach.
> 
> I can tell you definitely that the Europeans were gobsmacked when the F-22 and F-35 design requirements came out in earnest, because they had been working on aircraft capable of outclassing the F-15 and a possible successor, but definitely not the F-22 !!
> 
> The Russians on the other hand, kept silent due to economic struggles for a long time, and then took a pragmatic approach to things. The flankers are capable of holding their own if they have a way of defending and attacking. The kinematic abilities of the flanker, and even more so of the newest flankers is enough to evade current missiles if given enough warning. The IRST sensor on all flankers is enough to pick up at some range, which exceeds visual but shorter than the range of the AMRAAM stealth type planes.
> Can it help shooting them down? Not to a comfortable point if not coupled with IR imagining seeker heads but still, *better than fighting blind and mute.* And also thought of equipping their large fighters with L-band radars... now they can also actively look for stealth targets even though they cannot provide firing solutions for the weapons from the L-band radars ... accurate enough at least.
> 
> *To me this is a realistic, pragmatic way forward for them, rather than seeking ways that are too expensive, too untested and too .. much anyway. *
> 
> The F-22 is shaped -so they say- to *evade L-band radars as well- to a degree*... so has the stealth problem been countered yet.. not really.. but at least the russians have figured out, that it is *better to have a short sword in your hand, rather than nothing at all...*


Reasonable enough...On the surface, anyway.

What the L-band trumpeters missed a bit of critical thinking is that if long wavelengths works better against 'stealth' -- and they do -- then why the L-band? Why not use the meters length HF/VHF/UHF bands? The answer lies with the power, antenna, and freq combination. For practical application into a 'fighter' class size aircraft, the L-band is the limit.

Here is the spectrum...

Radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> L	12 GHz	1530 cm	Long range air traffic control and surveillance; 'L' for 'long
> 
> X	812 GHz	2.53.75 cm	Missile guidance, marine radar, weather, medium-resolution mapping and ground surveillance; in the USA the narrow range 10.525 GHz ±25 MHz is used for airport radar; short range tracking. Named X band because the frequency was a secret during WW2.


Lockheed was 'shortsighted' as some alleged? That is amazing an assumption in itself. Somewhere in their repository of EM knowledge, somehow Lockheed engineers missed a few lines and decided to focus on the X-bands. Wiki has the info all along and the Russians suddenly 'discovered' some brand spanking new properties of the L-band that no one noticed before......Then those same people assumed that it would a pinch that all the world's air forces would begin retrofitting the wing leading edges of their current fighters with small arrays of L-band transmitters and _voila_ we have the defeat of 'stealth'.

What APA did was to mislead the public and the gullible jumped on that bandwagon. Any aircraft -- past to today -- is an exercise in best compromises between competing demands. Although the F-35 does share some similarities with the F-22, it is more of a bomber despite its 'F-' designation, therefore it will have different physical characteristics and will exhibit slightly different results in the EM and RCS arenas. So *IF* the F-35 has inferior performance in the L-bands as APA alleged, then it was not because of Lockheed's ignorance but of deliberate compromises. APA pointed this out without telling the public that this is normal practice and let the lay public exercise their imagination. So some people here gullibly assumed that somehow the L-band has quasi-magical properties that only the Russians so far have managed to divined.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> Reasonable enough...On the surface, anyway.
> 
> What the L-band trumpeters missed a bit of critical thinking is that if long wavelengths works better against 'stealth' -- and they do -- then why the L-band? Why not use the meters length HF/VHF/UHF bands? The answer lies with the power, antenna, and freq combination. For practical application into a 'fighter' class size aircraft, the L-band is the limit.
> 
> Here is the spectrum...
> 
> Radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Lockheed was 'shortsighted' as some alleged? That is amazing an assumption in itself. Somewhere in their repository of EM knowledge, somehow Lockheed engineers missed a few lines and decided to focus on the X-bands. Wiki has the info all along and the Russians suddenly 'discovered' some brand spanking new properties of the L-band that no one noticed before......Then those same people assumed that it would a pinch that all the world's air forces would begin retrofitting the wing leading edges of their current fighters with small arrays of L-band transmitters and _voila_ we have the defeat of 'stealth'.
> 
> What APA did was to mislead the public and the gullible jumped on that bandwagon. Any aircraft -- past to today -- is an exercise in best compromises between competing demands. Although the F-35 does share some similarities with the F-22, it is more of a bomber despite its 'F-' designation, therefore it will have different physical characteristics and will exhibit slightly different results in the EM and RCS arenas. So *IF* the F-35 has inferior performance in the L-bands as APA alleged, then it was not because of Lockheed's ignorance but of deliberate compromises. APA pointed this out without telling the public that this is normal practice and let the lay public exercise their imagination. So some people here gullibly assumed that somehow the L-band has quasi-magical properties that only the Russians so far have managed to divined.


 
no, not at all...

simply that it is better to have a low res image, than none at all....
besides you know as well as I, that no weapon exists today for fighter class planes that can be guided or fed by L-band systems, so all this is academic. 

Also, it isn't the russians that magically found the L-band, it is simply that they have large enough fighters .. the Rafale or the EF2000 are simply not big enough, the only European fighter big enough for leading edge L-band radar is the Tornado and that is marginal. 

I have no idea how the chinese plan to -at least attempt- to counter stealth.. an AESA radar does not by itself guarantee that a VLO target will be picked up. Although LM suggests otherwise.

I don't see any attempt on the J-20 for anything like a counter VLO measure on the initial stages. 

I mean .. doubtful or not, the T-50 has stuck with the IRST / L-band combo the russians decided on.. what is the J-20's way ?


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> no, not at all...
> 
> simply that it is better to have a low res image, than none at all....
> besides you know as well as I, that no weapon exists today for fighter class planes that can be guided or fed by L-band systems, so all this is academic.
> 
> *Also, it isn't the russians that magically found the L-band, it is simply that they have large enough fighters .. the Rafale or the EF2000 are simply not big enough, the only European fighter big enough for leading edge L-band radar is the Tornado and that is marginal. *
> 
> I have no idea how the chinese plan to -at least attempt- to counter stealth.. an AESA radar does not by itself guarantee that a VLO target will be picked up. Although LM suggests otherwise.
> 
> I don't see any attempt on the J-20 for anything like a counter VLO measure on the initial stages.
> 
> I mean .. doubtful or not, the T-50 has stuck with the IRST / L-band combo the russians decided on.. what is the J-20's way ?


There is a way of installing this supposedly 'stealth defeating' radar system but it will require sacrifice -- the F-111 way.

Inside the F-111's radome are three antennas: A classical concave dish for the main system and two half-globes terrain following radar (TFR) antennas below the main antenna. Think Dolly Parton. Either one can be used for terrain following (up-down) or ground mapping (side-side).

This method will require the reduction of the size of the main antenna, thereby reducing main system's capability, and intensive avionics upgrade. But would be considerably less expensive than designing a new aircraft. Another downside to this is the possibility of (self)jamming the main antenna due to proximity.

Another method is to carry a centerline pod of a fully self-contained L-band radar system. It has to be centerline because we do not want the aircraft itself to block the system if the pod is carried on either wing. Less intensive avionics upgrade. The downside to this is limited elevation scan because of the pod's position -- below the fuselage.

Whenever a radar system is ordered, the customer will say something to line of: 'The system will be able to detect a one-meter square target at 150 km with %90 probability.' There is no time span specified because the demand is that %90 probability is to be consistent no matter what. There is no credible data that the wing leading edge Russian L-band array has worked based upon common customer demands. This leave the speculative method described above equally uncertain as to efficacy. But just like the Russian's sales brochure method, it does make a good lollipop.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> There is a way of installing this supposedly 'stealth defeating' radar system but it will require sacrifice -- the F-111 way.
> 
> Inside the F-111's radome are three antennas: A classical concave dish for the main system and two half-globes terrain following radar (TFR) antennas below the main antenna. Think Dolly Parton. Either one can be used for terrain following (up-down) or ground mapping (side-side).
> 
> This method will require the reduction of the size of the main antenna, thereby reducing main system's capability, and intensive avionics upgrade. But would be considerably less expensive than designing a new aircraft. Another downside to this is the possibility of (self)jamming the main antenna due to proximity.
> 
> Another method is to carry a centerline pod of a fully self-contained L-band radar system. It has to be centerline because we do not want the aircraft itself to block the system if the pod is carried on either wing. Less intensive avionics upgrade. The downside to this is limited elevation scan because of the pod's position -- below the fuselage.
> 
> Whenever a radar system is ordered, the customer will say something to line of: 'The system will be able to detect a one-meter square target at 150 km with %90 probability.' There is no time span specified because the demand is that %90 probability is to be consistent no matter what. There is no credible data that the wing leading edge Russian L-band array has worked based upon common customer demands. This leave the speculative method described above equally uncertain as to efficacy. But just like the Russian's sales brochure method, it does make a good lollipop.


 

perhaps ..but after all they don't just sell it to external customers..(or try to).. they want to integrate it to their defence... (granted.. we have only been told they will, and the Su-35S has only begun rolling on the production line) but that is what they have officially said. 

based on indications alone, they seem to want this system. all the rest is anyone's guess.


----------



## marshall

gambit said:


> Those are links to posts explaining why the X-band is the preferred region and is very pertinent to what we are talking about. Sounds like you are quite afraid of learning something new that would prove you wrong.



You already said this earlier 2 different times and here was my last reply to it...



marshall said:


> To explain, again...the F-35 is well known to have "narrowband" stealth, meaning it does not provide equal stealth at all radar bands, specifically S, L and UHF radar bands. The lower the radar frequency, the more susceptible to detection the F-35 becomes. In other words, this weakness of the F-35 to certain radar bands allows opponents to exploit it, obviously. I'm not sure why you would assume the X-Band radar would be completely removed in place of a single L-Band radar. I never suggested this, this is your own idea because you can't grasp that an L-Band radar could be a supplement to exploit the F-35's weakness to it. Afterall, the F-35 is not the only opponent that could potentially be faced. Clearly, tactical military thinking is not your forte.


----------



## marshall

gambit said:


> I am dismissive of that 'study' for two reasons...
> 
> 1- What APA did was the equivalent of giving a junior engineer a project to test his abilities to perform his job. Although the project is valid it is a part of the more comprehensive testing regime where specular reflections measurement is just about the easiest test in a series of tests.
> 
> 2- The quick seizure of this 'study' as somehow indicative of the J-20's true RCS.
> 
> These modes of scattering are of varying degrees of intensities on *ANY* complex body...
> ...
> APA supposedly 'measured' just one mode: SPECULAR SURFACE RETURN. And that was using the word 'measured' very generously considering they admitted they did not perform any physical measurements but only the virtual one.
> ...
> ...
> It is to APA's credit that they admitted their own flawed methodlogy but it is sad on the part of the J-20's supporters that they so quickly seized upon that 'study', using the word quite generously, and imposed their own misconceptions and baseless enthusiasm upon the aircraft. Am confident that you are not as cavalier with your credulity in your financial dealings. But I guess nothing is really lost here if one does not count one's own intellectual honesty.
> 
> I hate the phrases 'Trust me on this one...' or 'Take my words on this...' and have never used them in these discussions. But I have complete faith that the gents over at Lockheed, Raytheon, or Boeing are smiling condescendingly at APA for this 'study' because in another life I used to do the same thing for other 'studies'.



I already replied to this same logic in message #441. Detailed technical data for critical military projects are always classified which is why military analysts are sought after for their expert observation and speculation. Unless data is ever released from anechoic chamber data, we go by what information is available. You are free to completely ignore this J-20 study and every other study based on publicly available information while waiting for classified secret data. I wouldn't hold my breath though.




gambit said:


> Am confident that you are not as cavalier with your credulity in your financial dealings.


Last week's market took a nosedive but over the past few years I am doing quite well with my stocks thank you very much!


----------



## marshall

gambit said:


> Wrong...LM worked out all the possible combinations of shaping, absorber, and threat freqs as far back as the F-117 days. It is incredibly presumptuous on your part to say that the pioneers of 'stealth' would miss the L-band when the data from the many freqs have been known for decades. Yours and many others' persistence in bringing up your misconception about vulnerability to the L-band by 'stealth' aircraft reveals a misunderstanding of the fundamentals of radar detection.
> 
> 
> Here is why you and others are so very wrong about LM's alleged 'shortsightedness'...
> ...
> ...
> The F-35 is not the F-22. If the F-22 has better performance against the L-band then it was by design. If the F-35 has inferior performance than the F-22 when it comes to the L-band, then it is also *BY DESIGN*. Not because LM was ignorant of the different results by the various freqs or because LM was 'shortsighted'. If they wanted the F-35 to be as effective against the L-band, it would not be the F-35 to start. The mission requirements are different and will demand compromises to some degrees. Use the L-band against the B-2 and we will have the an increase in RCS as well. So is it fair to criticize the B-2 in the same manner?
> 
> It is precisely this ignorance of the fundamentals of applied radar detection techniques that make the L-band trumpeters look silly in the eyes of those who actually designed these aircrafts.


Of course they did it by design, is that even an argument? What I dispute is their logic and rationale to create such a clearly inferior beast given its supposed designed purpose and future scenarios. The F-22A is feared because it has the advantage in every tactical scenario against every fighter currently existing and in the foreseeable future. Given an entire F-22A regiment in the battlefield, there are no significant weaknesses that can be effectively exploited except for the number of missiles it would need to destroy a numerically superior opponent because of their small numbers and high maintenance.

Now look at the purposefully designed F-35. This is the low part of the high-low fighter distribution of the future. It will gradually replace most F-16s and Hornets. Strategically speaking, the F-35 fits in with the American air strategy as long as air superiority can be assured. The question is, can this be assured given a future where larger numbers of J-20 and PAK FA exist? This is an open question and since it cannot be definitively answered as it can be NOW, then we have to look at the next front line which is the F-35. Can the F-35 compensate for a potential failure of the F-22s to achieve air dominance? This is where the F-35 weaknesses become glaring. Absent air dominance, the F-35s would regularly encounter J-20s and PAK FAs. Given a GREATER weakness to L-Band than J-20s and PAK FA, the F-35 would have a weakness that they do not have. A weakness that could be exploited from not only L-Band radar equipped large airframes like the J-20 and PAK FA but also by AWACS and ground installations that if they were to ever datalink together and cross-triangulate this information AEGIS style, then targeting F-35s would not be impossible via L-Band especially if either space based radar were used....or more likely through the messaging capability of Beidou-II which could send updated coordinates to any missile from the L-Band radar assets.

Now, if we are to look at the international strategic implications of this regarding the F-35 and American allies, the situation becomes dire. If the F-35 will indeed replace the F-16s role in respective air forces, what are the ramifications? What would happen if Russia started selling PAK FAs worldwide? What would happen if F-35 and J-20 adversaries both used only passive radar detection and got into a dogfight? What if F-35 and PAK FA adversaries both used only passive radar detection and got into a dogfight? The F-35s kinematic performance is absolutely terrible against modern fighters and it would be a sitting duck in such a scenario. Given the fact that F-22s will not be sold to any American allies, including the British, I'd say the F-35 was designed pretty crappy as a front-line fighter. I do agree that it was designed this way on purpose though...by short-sighted LM engineers.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

marshall said:


> You already said this earlier 2 different times and here was my last reply to it...


Then we can conclude that either you did not read them or did not understand them.



marshall said:


> Of course they did it by design, is that even an argument? What I dispute is their logic and rationale to create such a clearly inferior beast given its supposed designed purpose and future scenarios.


Because you either did not read or did not understand why the X-band is the preferred region, past, today, and tomorrow, of course you would dispute LM. A dispute based upon ignorance is a laughable one.



marshall said:


> The question is, can this be assured given a future where larger numbers of J-20 and PAK FA exist? This is an open question and since it cannot be definitively answered as it can be NOW, then we have to look at the next front line which is the F-35. Can the F-35 compensate for a potential failure of the F-22s to achieve air dominance? This is where the F-35 weaknesses become glaring.


This argument could be applied against *ANY* weapons system out there, from ships to tanks, from ground to air to naval forces. It could be applied against the F-14, which is dedicated for fleet defense. It could be applied against the A-6, which is for ground strikes. This is a convenient and misleading argument/criticism against the F-35. I have said it before and will say it again: There is nothing wrong with being a 'jack-of-all-trades' as long as the standards for those trades are continually raised. The F-35 fits that bill better than most. I could use your argument/criticism against *EVERY* future aircraft that does not conform to the standards set by the F-22 and call their designers 'short sighted'. The F-35 is not the F-22 just as both fighters are not the B-2.



marshall said:


> Absent air dominance, the F-35s would regularly encounter J-20s and PAK FAs.


How do *YOU* know this?



marshall said:


> Given a GREATER weakness to L-Band than J-20s and PAK FA, the F-35 would have a weakness that they do not have.


How do *YOU* know for certain both the J-20 and the T-50 are better performers than the F-35 in the L-band region? Let me guess -- Because they are not the F-35? Circular logic. You dismissed my demand for credible data for the J-20 but now conveniently you have credible data for both the T-50 and J-20 to definitively declare they are superior performers in the L-band. This is why those of us who have relevant experience in this business do not take your type seriously.



marshall said:


> A weakness that could be exploited from not only L-Band radar equipped large airframes like the J-20 and PAK FA...


How do *YOU* do know that the L-band will be more effective? Because APA speculated so? A 10dB difference equals to half the distance, in other words, if at 100km distance, A and B originally have the same RCS then A did something to reduce its own RCS by 10dB, A will be detected at 50 km distance.

Any credible data to date that a small airborne L-band array will produce that 10dB difference? Do *YOU* know how much room is available under a figher's wing leading edge? Have you turned a wrench even on a prop job? Have you even touched an aircraft?

On post 454 I asked: Why not use the meters length HF/VHF/UHF bands?

Care to give it a try? After all, a meter length pulsed waveform will definitely give that 10dB difference, probably even greater. So why the centimetric L-band? To date, all who are the L-band as 'stealth killer' trumpeters that I have asked this question either fled in ignorance or engaged in mental gymnastics to evade the exposure of their technical ignorance that I envied their skill.



marshall said:


> ...but also by AWACS and ground installations...


Gee whizzz...I did not know that ground stations with their much larger antennas uses longer wavelengths to create tight beams and longer reach...

For any desired beamwidth to discriminate targets in a multiple target environment, longer than X-band wavelengths have been used *FOR DECADES*. This is due to the relationships between wavelength, physical antenna dimensions and physical antenna shape.

The downside to this is that the attacker can use his detection of this scan to evade. This was practiced often during the Cold War.



marshall said:


> What would happen if Russia started selling PAK FAs worldwide? What would happen if F-35 and J-20 adversaries both used only passive radar detection and got into a dogfight? What if F-35 and PAK FA adversaries both used only passive radar detection and got into a dogfight?


Your ignorance in this matter is further revealed.

Technically speaking, there is no such thing as a 'passive radar'. Radar detection is a two-parts process: Transmission and Reception. It is usually a given that both parts are under the control of a single user. If the 'Transmission' part is not under that control, then we have only 'Reception' and this is where the misperception of a mythical creature called 'passive radar' occurred.

Here is where it gets very problematic for your argument:

The B-2, F-117, F-22, and F-35 can fly their entire mission without being an emitter of any EM radiation. The F-117 had no radar. It flew to its target and deliver its bombs using GPS assisted INS alone and it performed quite well. If an F-35 pilot detect any active search he will take evasive maneuvers to avoid his aircraft, not his radar, of becoming an emitter. This is where passive reception of any EM sources is a double-edged sword. The F-35 is *ALREADY IN* that passive receiver mode. So if he maneuvers outside the statistically effective reach of the seeking radar, there will be no dogfights.



marshall said:


> ...by short-sighted LM engineers.


 I can put the same charge against the J-20's designers with its canards being potentially detrimental to RCS control measures.

You obviously are one of those who have no military experience but is grossly emotionally invested into a subject beyond your knowledge, technical and otherwise.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> The B-2, F-117, F-22, and F-35 can fly their entire mission without being an emitter of any EM radiation. The F-117 had no radar. It flew to its target and deliver its bombs using GPS assisted INS alone and it performed quite well. If an F-35 pilot detect any active search he will take evasive maneuvers to avoid his aircraft, not his radar, of becoming an emitter. This is where passive reception of any EM sources is a double-edged sword. The F-35 is *ALREADY IN* that passive receiver mode. So if he maneuvers outside the statistically effective reach of the seeking radar, there will be no dogfights.



On this topic, I have before stated, that the use of the F-35 by the USAF is not main concern.

The F-35 will be sold to allied countries (and is aggressively marketed) which do not possess the resources of the USAF. 

As you can clearly imagine, an allied air force in possession of about 20-30 F-35s cannot afford to use the F-35 in a silent mode, because it will be using it for active air superiority/supremacy missions. 

You know very well, that in a hypothetical conflict between neighbours even non VLO planes can sneak up on you, taking advantage of terrain. You must actively be looking for these planes, you can't rely on them emitting anything either. 

I am just stating a fact for these kind of situations, were having an F-22 you don't care much if you are actively looking for them, they can't touch you anyway. Which is a -varying degree of- concern for the F-35 which if you are an allied country is you most expensive arrow in your arsenal.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

So the J-20 has canards instead of stabilators, so what?


----------



## marshall

gambit said:


> Then we can conclude that either you did not read them or did not understand them.


Whatever you say, but I'm sure most people can differentiate somebody saying a weakness can be countered without removing other beneficial elements...aka...adding L-Band radar as an addition to the main radar (X-Band)...which is the exact example I used....aka the Russian developed wing mounted L-Band radars...which are *intrinsically an ADDITION* to an existing main radar *since they are wing mounted*. Did that register? Probably not since this is now the 4th time I'm repeating this. Instead of getting defensive, you should admit when you are simply wrong instead of throwing out unrelated minutiae in vain attempts to divert attention from the context, something I have noticed you do very often.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-140909-1.html



gambit said:


> Because you either did not read or did not understand why the X-band is the preferred region, past, today, and tomorrow, of course you would dispute LM. A dispute based upon ignorance is a laughable one.


I don't need to dispute that X-Band is the preferred region since I never claimed it was not, that was a red herring you brought up out of the blue to divert attention away from the L-Band weakness of the F-35. This is one of the achilles heels of the F-35 and among the many problems with its poor design. I haven't gotten into its other major design flaws that make it a sitting duck in any non BVR battle. Maybe that's why it tries to overcompensate with an overly powerful radar that ironically would alert opponents of its presence 200km out. I do agree that LM did all of this rotten design on purpose though. lol




gambit said:


> This argument could be applied against *ANY* weapons system out there, from ships to tanks, from ground to air to naval forces. It could be applied against the F-14, which is dedicated for fleet defense. It could be applied against the A-6, which is for ground strikes. This is a convenient and misleading argument/criticism against the F-35. I have said it before and will say it again: There is nothing wrong with being a 'jack-of-all-trades' as long as the standards for those trades are continually raised. The F-35 fits that bill better than most. I could use your argument/criticism against *EVERY* future aircraft that does not conform to the standards set by the F-22 and call their designers 'short sighted'. The F-35 is not the F-22 just as both fighters are not the B-2.


This is incorrect. The F-35 is supposed to be the 5th gen fighter replacement for the F-16 and some ground attack and naval fighters. The main rationale is to replace the F-16s. The F-16 is considered a front line fighter in most foreign air forces and we all know the F-22 is not going to be sold to anybody, including the British...which I already noted earlier. That means, the F-35 was meant to be *THE FRONT LINE* fighter of the future for American allies and customers. By the 2020s, stealth fighters will start to be sold to air forces en masse by either Russia or China, probably Russia. How is the F-35 going to measure up to that scenario given that it has inferior stealth characteristics that allow detection of the F-35 before it could detect its stealth opponents? Mind you, I said that L-Band radars would be used on fighters as well as AWACs and ground installations.




marshall said:


> Absent air dominance, the F-35s would regularly encounter J-20s and PAK FAs.





gambit said:


> How do *YOU* know this?


I'm surprised you could not figure this out. The PAK FA and J-20 are the front line air dominance fighters of their respective countries. In any battle for air dominance, the F-22s would be the primary opponents of these planes. Therefore, if air dominance could not be achieved, it either means more than a few PAK FAs and/or J-20s survived or a large number of F-22s were destroyed. In either case, the F-35s being the next front-line fighter would be forced to step in. In the case of every allied air force, they wouldn't even have the F-22 so the F-35 would be their front-line from the get-go. It's obvious.




gambit said:


> How do *YOU* know for certain both the J-20 and the T-50 are better performers than the F-35 in the L-band region? Let me guess -- Because they are not the F-35? Circular logic. You dismissed my demand for credible data for the J-20 but now conveniently you have credible data for both the T-50 and J-20 to definitively declare they are superior performers in the L-band. This is why those of us who have relevant experience in this business do not take your type seriously.


I never claimed anything about the J-20 or PAK FA "specifically" concerning their L-Band stealth performance. I mentioned the publically declared "narrowband" stealth weakness of the F-35 which Lockheed admitted. Your skepticism over J-20 stealth was concerning its overall stealth RCS figure which you doubted was under ~1 meter square, a figure that I find laughable considering all of your self proclaimed expertise. The J-20s dimensional size together with its general stealth shaping indicates it is stealthy from at least L-Band upwards from most angles except the aft quarter. Obviously I can't provide exact technical details since public access to this classified project is..."classified", but you can tell from the airframe *SIZE*, alignment and continuous curvature shaping of the J-20 that its lambda figures would prevent EM signal returns and mostly disappate or guide EM away from the radar source for up to decimeter size waveforms. Same reasons why the huge B-2 is stealthy at lower-radar bands despite its size. If you understood what I just said, you would know this is *MORE THAN LIKELY*! Of course I fully expect you to request classified anaechoic chamber data anyways. 




gambit said:


> Any credible data to date that a small airborne L-band array will produce that 10dB difference? Do *YOU* know how much room is available under a figher's wing leading edge? Have you turned a wrench even on a prop job? Have you even touched an aircraft?


I never suggested detection would be at 100km or something along those lines. Here is a quote of what I actually said in message #432...



marshall said:


> True, but I see the F-35 being detected first a coup in itself. The L-Band AESA radars being developed do not have alot of power so detection probably wouldn't occur until within relatively close BVR range.


So, what was your point again? Speaking of the wing mounted L-Band radars, this doesn't mean it would be ineffective given the range because the sort of strategy used with this would be to "flash" the airspace after the F-35 were already detected from longer range by an L-Band AWACs datalinked with the fighters. The combined radar signatures from the ground installations, AWACs and fighters would be able to triangulate the general location of the F-35 and if a missile were launched in that direction, it could be guided with precision to the F-35 if they used either space radars or China's Beidou-II messaging to send guidance coordinates. If a missile were guided to within a few thousand feet of the F-35, pretty straight forward given the above scenario, it is unlikely the F-35 could break the lock before getting shot down.




gambit said:


> On post 454 I asked: Why not use the meters length HF/VHF/UHF bands?
> 
> Care to give it a try? After all, a meter length pulsed waveform will definitely


I never suggested using these ultra-low frequencies, this is another red herring you're pulling suggesting unusable radar frequencies for the purposes we're talking about. These frequencies are tactically useless against fighter sized objects given their extremely poor resolution. You can Google explanations of these radar frequencies to help you better understand.




gambit said:


> Gee whizzz...I did not know that ground stations with their much larger antennas uses longer wavelengths to create tight beams and longer reach...
> 
> For any desired beamwidth to discriminate targets in a multiple target environment, longer than X-band wavelengths have been used *FOR DECADES*. This is due to the relationships between wavelength, physical antenna dimensions and physical antenna shape.
> 
> The downside to this is that the attacker can use his detection of this scan to evade. This was practiced often during the Cold War.


First of all, ground stations are not forced to have larger antenna and longer wavelengths simply because they are on the ground. LOL Obviously, a stealth detecting ground radar installation along the lines of what I described for the reason I described would be L-Band based and would work in conjuction with AWACs and fighters...and space based guidance as I described. In the case of the ground based L-Band radar, the range would be limited. I'm assuming you are imagining something like an OTH (Over-The-Horizon) radar because otherwise what you just said makes no sense in the context of what I said unless you want to find a distant aircraft carrier at sea or something HUGE where you don't care about "usable" accuracy. L-Band cannot be used as a singular tracking solution, but in combination with other L-Band radars, it can triangulate location with enough resolution to provide a firing solution. Given this scenario, once a missile gets within a few miles of the target, the missile itself can rely on its own targeting to do the rest.




gambit said:


> Your ignorance in this matter is further revealed.
> 
> Technically speaking, there is no such thing as a 'passive radar'. Radar detection is a two-parts process: Transmission and Reception. It is usually a given that both parts are under the control of a single user. If the 'Transmission' part is not under that control, then we have only 'Reception' and this is where the misperception of a mythical creature called 'passive radar' occurred.
> 
> Here is where it gets very problematic for your argument:
> 
> The B-2, F-117, F-22, and F-35 can fly their entire mission without being an emitter of any EM radiation. The F-117 had no radar. It flew to its target and deliver its bombs using GPS assisted INS alone and it performed quite well. If an F-35 pilot detect any active search he will take evasive maneuvers to avoid his aircraft, not his radar, of becoming an emitter. This is where passive reception of any EM sources is a double-edged sword. The F-35 is *ALREADY IN* that passive receiver mode. So if he maneuvers outside the statistically effective reach of the seeking radar, there will be no dogfights.


Whatever you say. Anyways, the words I used is "Passive Radar Detection", I didn't say there is a radar type called "Passive Radar"....there is an obvious difference. lol Look up RWR _(Radar Warning Receiver)_, it is used for ....Passive Radar Detection and is claimed to be one of the primary strengths of the F-22. That's your style of semantics at play, once again. Besides wordplay, if a fighter always maneuvers outside the statistically effective reach of the seeking radar then *by your logic, all the opponent has to do to win airspace is occupy that airspace while blasting their radar. Hey, air dominance by default*! Like I said earlier, tactical thinking is not your forte. I'm sure there are situations where dogfights would occur, unless we accept your sort of logic and believe the LM propaganda that the F-35 can successfully engage everything from distant BVR ranges, even in the soon-to-be age of widespread stealth.




gambit said:


> You obviously are one of those who have no military experience but is grossly emotionally invested into a subject beyond your knowledge, technical and otherwise.


Whatever you say. I am invested in gold and silver though. Something that is intricately related to the future direction of the American economy and its military hegemony, arguably to a greater extent than any weapons platform.


----------



## DrSomnath999

*Supernal Hawk strategic high Altitude and Long Endurance (HAE) Anti-Stealth UAV*




In the red circle it reads 'high altitude, long endurance anti-stealth UAV'
SAC admitted the superiority of U.S F-22 and F-35, so it is carrying a Sino-Russia joint-project: &#8220;Supernal Hawk&#8221; strategic high Altitude and Long Endurance (HAE) Anti-Stealth UAV. The so-called anti-stealth UAV actually is an air-based bistatic radar warning system. &#8220;Supernal Hawk&#8221; UAV will probably coordinate with PLA &#8220;KJ-2000&#8221; AWACS or establish a warning network by 2-3 UAVs. The typical deployment method is to place one UAV forward on the high altitude above the west pacific to supervise the directions of Japan and Guam. The UAV can hold the height advantage to search F-22 or F-35. The location information of objects will passively transferred to rear AWACS or other UAV and then guide missile attack.
China SAC is researching anti-stealth UAV | China Military Power Mashup


----------



## gambit

marshall said:


> Whatever you say, but I'm sure most people can differentiate somebody saying a weakness can be countered without removing other beneficial elements...aka...adding L-Band radar as an addition to the main radar (X-Band)...which is the exact example I used....aka the Russian developed wing mounted L-Band radars...which are *intrinsically an ADDITION* to an existing main radar *since they are wing mounted*. Did that register? Probably not since this is now the 4th time I'm repeating this. Instead of getting defensive, you should admit when you are simply wrong instead of throwing out unrelated minutiae in vain attempts to divert attention from the context, something I have noticed you do very often.


I do not have to 'admit' to being wrong since you have yet to prove where I am wrong. Your argument here is that LM was 'shortsighted' in focusing on the X-band. In order for the 'shortsighted' charge to stick, you have to prove that LM did not know about the fact that wavelength employed is a factor of RCS. But since you so far have been unable to prove that, and consistently also proved unable to understand the fact that an aircraft is a compromised product of competing demands, we can conclude that you did not understand my technical explanations as to why the X-band has been the focus, is the focus, and will continue to be the focus.



marshall said:


> The narrowband stealth of the F-35 was a bad idea due to the short-sightedness of LM. They never expected this could be exploited so easily.



This is nothing more than a great leap of faith on your own flawed assumption: Lockheed's focused on the X-band is proof of their ignorance that wavelength is part of the RCS creation.



marshall said:


> I don't need to dispute that X-Band is the preferred region since I never claimed it was not, that was a red herring you brought up out of the blue to divert attention away from the L-Band weakness of the F-35. This is one of the achilles heels of the F-35 and among the many problems with its poor design. I haven't gotten into its other major design flaws that make it a sitting duck in any non BVR battle. Maybe that's why it tries to overcompensate with an overly powerful radar that ironically would alert opponents of its presence 200km out. I do agree that LM did all of this rotten design on purpose though. lol


That is funny considering the Russians are still struggling and the Chinese have merely dabbled in 'stealth' but here you are proclaiming the world's leader in 'stealth' is making a 'mistake'.



marshall said:


> This is incorrect. The F-35 is supposed to be the 5th gen fighter replacement for the F-16 and some ground attack and naval fighters. The main rationale is to replace the F-16s. The F-16 is considered a front line fighter in most foreign air forces and we all know the F-22 is not going to be sold to anybody, including the British...which I already noted earlier. That means, the F-35 was meant to be *THE FRONT LINE* fighter of the future for American allies and customers. By the 2020s, stealth fighters will start to be sold to air forces en masse by either Russia or China, probably Russia. How is the F-35 going to measure up to that scenario given that it has inferior stealth characteristics that allow detection of the F-35 before it could detect its stealth opponents? Mind you, I said that L-Band radars would be used on fighters as well as AWACs and ground installations.


No, what I said was very correct. This is not about the F-35 as a replacement for the current generation of 'jack-of-all-trades' fighters. Of course it is intended to be. Your entire argument so far is based upon the failure to understand that any product, from ships to tanks to aircrafts, are compromised products of competing demands. Your focus on the F-35 is not based upon rational thoughts but from an emotional investment in downplaying an American product. I do not expect anyone to heap praises upon our 'stuff', but if they are going to put forth criticisms, especially when the subject is technically loaded, I expect the criticisms to contain credible technical support. I have yet to see any from you. You have presented no credible technical arguments that such a 'band-aid' solution by the Russians is of any efficacy. You do know the meaning of 'efficacy', no? And there are only speculations that the Chinese will use their version of the same 'band-aid' solution.



marshall said:


> I'm surprised you could not figure this out. The PAK FA and J-20 are the front line air dominance fighters of their respective countries. In any battle for air dominance, the F-22s would be the primary opponents of these planes. Therefore, if air dominance could not be achieved, it either means more than a few PAK FAs and/or J-20s survived or a large number of F-22s were destroyed. In either case, the F-35s being the next front-line fighter would be forced to step in. In the case of every allied air force, they wouldn't even have the F-22 so the F-35 would be their front-line from the get-go. It's obvious.


That is not what I asked. Both the J-20 and the T-50 are still more in the proof-of-concepts and developmental stages than they are of production ready. The T-50 is less so than the J-20. But if we grant the latitude that you are correct, by the time both aircrafts are ready for production, how do you know that tomorrow they will be as capable as they are hyped today?



marshall said:


> I never claimed anything about the J-20 or PAK FA "specifically" concerning their L-Band stealth performance.


You do not need to. Everyone understand how insinuations works: Let the readers' imagination take their course. All you have to do is point out the 'weakness' of one item without conceding that the same 'weakness' can exist in the comparables.



marshall said:


> I mentioned the publically declared "narrowband" stealth weakness of the F-35 which Lockheed admitted.


Please...I understand that I would be treading the 'appeal to authority' style of debating, but the works of Skolnik, Knott, Jenn, Stone, and many others advocated the rule of targeting the threat frequency and not, in your vagueness, 'be stealthy against your opponent'.



marshall said:


> Your skepticism over J-20 stealth was concerning its overall stealth RCS figure which you doubted was under ~1 meter square, a figure that I find laughable considering all of your self proclaimed expertise.


Why is it laughable? Is not doubt a reasonable part of investigation?



marshall said:


> The J-20s dimensional size together with its general stealth shaping indicates it is stealthy from at least L-Band upwards from most angles except the aft quarter.


Then you must be a mutant endowed with a biologically based radar system. Convenient that only you have this power so far.



marshall said:


> Obviously I can't provide exact technical details since public access to this classified project is..."classified", but you can tell from the airframe *SIZE*, alignment and continuous curvature shaping of the J-20 that its lambda figures would prevent EM signal returns and mostly disappate or guide EM away from the radar source for up to decimeter size waveforms. Same reasons why the huge B-2 is stealthy at lower-radar bands despite its size. If you understood what I just said, you would know this is *MORE THAN LIKELY*! Of course I fully expect you to request classified anaechoic chamber data anyways.


More convenient evasions when pressed for details. Am willing to bet that you have never heard of the 10-lambda rule or such a thing as an anechoic chamber until now.

But I have no problems educating you further, of course I do not expect you to admit your ignorance and false perceptions, your pride will not allow you to put yourself at the same level as an American, but the more objective readers will make their own judgement...

There is a difference between regularity and symmetry. The human face is symmetrical and irregular. There is only one nose, one mouth, then one ear, one cheek, basically just one item of a pair on either symmetrical side. An aircraft is the same thing: A complex body that is irregular and symmetrical.

What this mean is that...






...Irregularity equals to irregular RCS contributorship by diverse smaller complex structures on the final body. The EM interactions between these smaller radiators make modeling and estimation a supercomputer level effort. In the above illustration, the single vertical stabilator is an example of such irregular contributorships when compared against other structures on the airliner.

There is no way for any one with any degree of intellectual honesty to say that based upon visuals alone he can say that an aircraft is more or less effective in so-and-such an EM region.

Not even inverse scattering analysis...

IEEE Xplore - Inverse Scattering and Radar Cross Section of Heterogeneous Hydrometeor Ensemble


> Inverse Scattering and Radar Cross Section of Heterogeneous Hydrometeor Ensemble
> 
> ABSTRACT
> 
> The models of microwave scattering on atmospheric particles are presented. Hydrometeor distribution on shape, size, material, and other parameters of scatterers are taken into account at different wave polarizations. Integration over resolution volume takes into account features of the antenna pattern. The novelty of the approach is also related with consideration of a situation when the ensemble of scatterers contains different types of hydrometeors. Results are important for remote recognition of hydrometeor types, radar and telecommunications.



...Can give the investigator that kind of information. What 'inverse scattering analysis' does is to examine the scattering fields created by a complex body to determine its shape or its material composition, but not both, and certainly not if said complex body is more effective on one wavelength than others. Inverse scatterin analysis works best on simple shapes like spheres as in hydrometeors (raindrops). Inverse scattering analysis is the EM equivalent of mechanical 'reverse engineering' attempts. Diverse freqs are used to correlate the results to see if the target's scattering fields are consistent from one freq to another but they cannot tell if an aircraft is specifically targeted against the X or L band or not.

Inverse scattering analysis is next best thing to direct measurements inside an anechoic chamber but it still put the investigator at the mercy of the complex body. In other words, if there is no cooperation by the aircraft, inverse scattering analysis can be as problematic as APA Physical Optics alone so called 'study' that everyone so eagerly jumped upon. If anechoic chamber measurement is the goal, then inverse scattering fields detection and analysis is a mile away from that goal. A mile behind that is APA's joke of a 'study'.

But here you are telling us that based upon looks alone, *YOU* can tell the world that an aircraft is better at one wavelength or another within a few centimeters.



marshall said:


> I never suggested detection would be at 100km or something along those lines. Here is a quote of what I actually said in message #432...


What I said was an example of how different -- in dB -- that two complex bodies must be when one of them effected RCS control measures. The physical wavelengths between the X and L bands are of a few cm. I want to see credible data that showed that if a complex body, under radar bombardment, is changed from X to L band, there is a 10 dB difference. Without this data, your entirement argument that the F-35 has a 'weakness' in the L-band is shot.



marshall said:


> So, what was your point again? Speaking of the wing mounted L-Band radars, this doesn't mean it would be ineffective given the range because the sort of strategy used with this would be to "flash" the airspace after the F-35 were already detected from longer range by an L-Band AWACs datalinked with the fighters. The combined radar signatures from the ground installations, AWACs and fighters would be able to triangulate the general location of the F-35 and if a missile were launched in that direction, it could be guided with precision to the F-35 if they used either space radars or China's Beidou-II messaging to send guidance coordinates. If a missile were guided to within a few thousand feet of the F-35, pretty straight forward given the above scenario, it is unlikely the F-35 could break the lock before getting shot down.


Ah...A different tack. Now you are stacking the deck against the F-35 by giving its opposition all sorts of supporting elements. Funny how the F-35 is denied the same privilege. But hey...We know by now this subject is filled with intellectual dishonesty.



marshall said:


> *I never suggested using these ultra-low frequencies*, this is another red herring you're pulling suggesting unusable radar frequencies for the purposes we're talking about. These frequencies are tactically useless against fighter sized objects given their extremely poor resolution.


That was not what I asked. If an increase of a few cm is supposed to be a 'stealth killer', then certainly an increase to one meter wavelength is no longer speculative but assured, no? So what if they have poor target resolutions? As long as the 'stealth' aircraft is at least revealed in the general direction, why not use these meters length wavelengths?



marshall said:


> You can Google explanations of these radar frequencies to help you better understand.


I think people here know I am versed enough about this subject.



marshall said:


> First of all, ground stations are not forced to have larger antenna and longer wavelengths simply because they are on the ground. LOL


The laugh is on you. Ground air defense radars are usually meters in dimensions, not because of the freqs but because of the wavelength versus antenna shape versus antenna dimensions *IF* they want to reach out as far as possible. So by the need for distance, yes, ground stations are quite forced by this need.



marshall said:


> Obviously, a stealth detecting ground radar installation along the lines of what I described for the reason I described would be L-Band based and would work in conjuction with AWACs and fighters...and space based guidance as I described. In the case of the ground based L-Band radar, the range would be limited. I'm assuming you are imagining something like an OTH (Over-The-Horizon) radar because otherwise what you just said makes no sense in the context of what I said unless you want to find a distant aircraft carrier at sea or something HUGE where you don't care about "usable" accuracy. L-Band cannot be used as a singular tracking solution, but in combination with other L-Band radars, it can triangulate location with enough resolution to provide a firing solution. Given this scenario, once a missile gets within a few miles of the target, the missile itself can rely on its own targeting to do the rest.


But ground radars are *ALREADY* operating in wavelengths longer than the L-band. Why are they not touted as 'stealth killers' now? Air traffic control radars operate in the S-band, which is next to the L-band, and yet US 'stealth' aircrafts must fly with enhancers to assist civilian controllers. I would think that if the L-band is so effective, the Internet would be filled with civilian controllers, US and Europeans, chattering away at how they were able to detect US 'stealth' aircrafts.

If the Russians wanted, they could use those meters length HF/UHF/VHF bands but the beam quality would be so poor that it would be worthless due to a characteristic called 'resolution cell'...






Definition: radar resolution cell


> The volume of space that is occupied by a radar pulse and that is determined by the pulse duration and the horizontal and vertical beamwidths of the transmitting radar. Note: The radar cannot distinguish between two separate objects that lie within the same resolution cell.



You are making the same mistake as everyone did when they so eagerly latched on that APA 'analysis' about the L-band. The reason why the L-band was used by the Russians is not because they have any credible data to back up their claim, but because the L-band was the best compromise they can come up with given the wavelength versus antenna shape versus antenna size demands. For the antenna, those demands came from the best locations the Russians can think of: Wing leading edges.



marshall said:


> Whatever you say. Anyways, the words I used is "Passive Radar Detection", I didn't say there is a radar type called "Passive Radar"....there is an obvious difference. lol Look up RWR _(Radar Warning Receiver)_, it is used for ....Passive Radar Detection and is claimed to be one of the primary strengths of the F-22. That's your style of semantics at play, once again. Besides wordplay, if a fighter always maneuvers outside the statistically effective reach of the seeking radar then *by your logic, all the opponent has to do to win airspace is occupy that airspace while blasting their radar. Hey, air dominance by default*! Like I said earlier, tactical thinking is not your forte. I'm sure there are situations where dogfights would occur, unless we accept your sort of logic and believe the LM propaganda that the F-35 can successfully engage everything from distant BVR ranges, even in the soon-to-be age of widespread stealth.


And you are telling me that tactical thinking is not my forte?  With the speed and accuracy of today's air-air missiles, especially the radar guided type, an F-35 would down several enemy fighters blasting away with their radars in trying to think like you. That is the weakness of 'non-stealth' fighters trying to go up against 'stealth' fighters. They have to use their radars to attempt to acquire a target they know is extremely difficult to locate. In doing so they give themselves away. But if they do not transmit, they run a very high risk of letting the F-35 get by.

Soon-to-be widespread use of 'stealth'? Try another 20 yrs or so. And you can be confident that we are well on the way on how to deal with 'stealth', if not already.



marshall said:


> Whatever you say. I am invested in gold and silver though. Something that is intricately related to the future direction of the American economy and its military hegemony, arguably to a greater extent than any weapons platform.


No wars have ever been won by financial speculators.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> You are making the same mistake as everyone did when they so eagerly latched on that APA 'analysis' about the L-band. *The reason why the L-band was used by the Russians is not because they have any credible data to back up their claim, but because the L-band was the best compromise they can come up with given the wavelength versus antenna shape versus antenna size demands. For the antenna, those demands came from the best locations the Russians can think of: Wing leading edges*.



Exactemundo !!! 

They do not have credible recent data. The *F-117 paradigm* has been studied. But no one has the F-22 or the F-35 one yet. It will be many years before one has those. 

the L-band radar addition by the russians is another addition. It's not a panacea. As for most Air-traffic systems being in the L-band and the S-band. Yes they are, but they do not operate the same way. 

Some of these can't pick up F-16s. 

The Russians initially were fairly relaxed about the stealth bombers (B-1,B-2) because they knew the long wavelength radars of their air defence would allow them to know when these planes would have infiltrated their airspace. They then hoped they can hunt for them and find them up close. 

You can't do the same with fighters though! 

But what Gambit says, is very different. Knowing a plane is somewhere out there and knowing were it is, put a lock on it, mid course direct a missile to, and then let the missile turn on its little radar on to lock on the VLO target, *are two vastly different things!*

There are no credible evidence that the russians can direct missiles using an L-band radar. There is no evidence that such a missile capable of using such data for terminal phase lock on yet exists. 

in a previous post I did kind of explain how the L-band is another measure taken by the russians to additionally equip their planes.

However Gambit has thrown a bluff on the poker table. The russians do not just add an L band radar. They say they will add an *AESA L-band radar*.  


Tactics and usage dictate how the equipment on a system will respond, and perform in battle space.


----------



## DrSomnath999

j20blackdragon said:


> So the J-20 has canards instead of stabilators, so what?



oh really then see the comparision between j20 & su 30 mki
*j20*





*su 30 mki*




now what have u to say


----------



## Zabaniyah

DrSomnath999 said:


> oh really then see the comparision between j20 & su 30 mki
> *j20*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *su 30 mki*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> now what have u to say



Guys, posting pictures to prove a point is so lame

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

Thanks for confirming that the lower fuselage of the PAK FA looks almost identical to a regular Flanker.

Thanks for the picture my friend.


----------



## DrSomnath999

Zabanya said:


> Guys, posting pictures to prove a point is so lame


Well then what do u want i should write a novel to prove canards are useless,common man be practical .Do u think i am Ma%%%n,?having lots of time

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

j20blackdragon said:


> Thanks for confirming that the lower fuselage of the PAK FA looks almost identical to a regular Flanker.
> 
> Thanks for the picture my friend.



i insist u to go to any eye specialist to check ur eyes or any psychiatrist specialist to check ur brain?




now see & compare this 2 two
*PAK-FA*





*SU 30 mki*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rcrmj

DrSomnath999 said:


> Well then what do u want i should write a novel to prove canards are useless,common man be practical .Do u think i am Ma%%%n,?having lots of time



thats why people respect martin's work and knowledge about aviation field``but you```as i said earlier next to nothing knowledge but a funny dimw1t`lol````all european fighters have canards yet a country cant make a mig-21 upgrate (LCA) operation keeps laughing at canards``lol


----------



## Zabaniyah

DrSomnath999 said:


> Well then what do u want i should write a novel to prove canards are useless,common man be practical .Do u think i am Ma%%%n,?having lots of time



Why yes please, we would love to see your 'novels' about how bad canards are. Especially considering India is going to choose between the Rafale and the EFT during the MMRCA competition. Even the SU-30 have canards. 

What's so bad about canards? Yes, having canards on a 5th generation fighter is a novelty which I do find a bit surprising. 

Both the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Rafale have canards. Typically, the junction between the canards and the fuselage is hard to hide on radar. So, they use special materials, angles and software to control them, and thus reducing their overall RCS. And no doubt, the canard/delta config does give the aircraft superior aerodynamic characteristics. This shows that the European designers do try to best balance that factor during the design process.

I suspect this would similarly apply to the J-20, but then questions can arise. Whatever design a maker comes up with, it just depends what they focus on, and the end-user's doctrine. And of-course, compromises along with the intentions are to be balanced during the overall design. 

Although, we can't really jump to conclusions now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## j20blackdragon

And what's stopping China from making a more "conventional" stealth fighter without canards? 

Is China incapable of making an airplane without canards?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## marshall

gambit said:


> I do not have to 'admit' to being wrong since you have yet to prove where I am wrong. Your argument here is that LM was 'shortsighted' in focusing on the X-band. In order for the 'shortsighted' charge to stick, you have to prove that LM did not know about the fact that wavelength employed is a factor of RCS. But since you so far have been unable to prove that, and consistently also proved unable to understand the fact that an aircraft is a compromised product of competing demands, we can conclude that you did not understand my technical explanations as to why the X-band has been the focus, is the focus, and will continue to be the focus.


Again, I never said the problem was with X-Band, you're use of this false accusation is irritating. Review my messages, I said it like 10 times, it's the "narrowband" stealth weakness of the F-35 which is its weakness to the upper S-Band, L-Band, UHF...etc. You're continued wordplay is expected though.




gambit said:


> This is nothing more than a great leap of faith on your own flawed assumption: Lockheed's focused on the X-band is proof of their ignorance that wavelength is part of the RCS creation.


Sigh! LOL




gambit said:


> That is funny considering the Russians are still struggling and the Chinese have merely dabbled in 'stealth' but here you are proclaiming the world's leader in 'stealth' is making a 'mistake'.


Absolutely! LM blundered not because they didn't understand that they were creating an inferior "front line", jack-of-all-trades master of none, stealth fighter. Where they screwed up is that they didn't foresee the current military situation as it stands now and in the near future. LM analysts assumed foreign opponents were so far behind them that they could create the high-low fighter mix not with the same quality relationship as F-15/F-16 but of the widely disparaged F-35 and the prize winning F-22. Need I remind you again that the F-22 will not be sold to any allies, not even the British. Any allies buying into the F-35 fiasco will be in a precarious situation everytime they come up against non-American stealth jets.




gambit said:


> No, what I said was very correct. This is not about the F-35 as a replacement for the current generation of 'jack-of-all-trades' fighters. Of course it is intended to be. Your entire argument so far is based upon the failure to understand that any product, from ships to tanks to aircrafts, are compromised products of competing demands. Your focus on the F-35 is not based upon rational thoughts but from an emotional investment in downplaying an American product. I do not expect anyone to heap praises upon our 'stuff', but if they are going to put forth criticisms, especially when the subject is technically loaded, I expect the criticisms to contain credible technical support. I have yet to see any from you. You have presented no credible technical arguments that such a 'band-aid' solution by the Russians is of any efficacy. You do know the meaning of 'efficacy', no? And there are only speculations that the Chinese will use their version of the same 'band-aid' solution.


We can agree with one thing here, as the wing-mounted L-Band radar stands now, it is a band-aid solution but it is a solution. The fact is, L-Band is the sweet spot weakness of the F-35, and that band-aid solutions exist for it NOW, means that when the F-35 is actually in full production and being sold to the allies, band-aid solutions will have likely evolved into full scale interlinked systems AEGIS style as I mentioned previously. Targeting is not as big a problem as you make it out to be because you're concentrating on singular L-Band radar systems working alone whereas we know that such radars when working together can have missiles guided close enough for the missiles to do the rest themselves even when LPI modes are used.




gambit said:


> That is not what I asked. Both the J-20 and the T-50 are still more in the proof-of-concepts and developmental stages than they are of production ready. The T-50 is less so than the J-20. But if we grant the latitude that you are correct, by the time both aircrafts are ready for production, how do you know that tomorrow they will be as capable as they are hyped today?


Since when have I "hyped" either of these fighters? LOL I never claimed the PAK FA or J-20 had stealth performance on par with the F-22. The information required for that sort of analysis is far too detailed without more data. My contention concerning this topic has generally focused on your contention that the J-20 is not even a stealthy aircraft. You actually questioned whether it had an RCS of ~1 meter square when 4+ gen delta canard fighters like the Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen which are known to have RCS of less than this in clean configuration. Seriously, you have some balls to claim that repeatedly with a straight face.




gambit said:


> You do not need to. Everyone understand how insinuations works: Let the readers' imagination take their course. All you have to do is point out the 'weakness' of one item without conceding that the same 'weakness' can exist in the comparables.


I already answered this, but you simply ignored it and replied exactly as I predicted, with a request for classified fighter data and analysis based on said classified data....clearly impossible at this time.



marshall said:


> I never claimed anything about the J-20 or PAK FA "specifically" concerning their L-Band stealth performance. I mentioned the publically declared "narrowband" stealth weakness of the F-35 which Lockheed admitted. Your skepticism over J-20 stealth was concerning its overall stealth RCS figure which you doubted was under ~1 meter square, a figure that I find laughable considering all of your self proclaimed expertise. The J-20s dimensional size together with its general stealth shaping indicates it is stealthy from at least L-Band upwards from most angles except the aft quarter. Obviously I can't provide exact technical details since public access to this classified project is..."classified", but you can tell from the airframe *SIZE*, alignment and continuous curvature shaping of the J-20 that its lambda figures would prevent EM signal returns and mostly disappate or guide EM away from the radar source for up to decimeter size waveforms.  Same reasons why the huge B-2 is stealthy at lower-radar bands despite its size. If you understood what I just said, you would know this is *MORE THAN LIKELY*! Of course I fully expect you to request classified anaechoic chamber data anyways.



I don't need to write a thesis or expand more than this, nor do I have the time or inclination to do so. Anybody with basic radar stealth knowledge would understand what I said here explains how specular reflections and EM wave propagation will be directed away from the radar source. You have claimed before that you are some sort of radar expert and worked in the business no? The only unknown is the required size of the aircraft which is obviously large enough to bleed EM away before some had a chance to return back to the radar source. Early on there was even speculation that the J-20 was a stealth bomber. Pictures alone can never give the full "picture", but claiming they are useless is wrong. Your desire for detailed anechoic chamber data is akin to wanting to know Pi to 100 decimal places, whereas I deem it necessary to only provide Pi to 1 decimal place since that is enough to prove the point.




gambit said:


> Please...I understand that I would be treading the 'appeal to authority' style of debating, but the works of Skolnik, Knott, Jenn, Stone, and many others advocated the rule of targeting the threat frequency and not, in your vagueness, 'be stealthy against your opponent'.


If your opponent has the capability to detect you, you are not stealthy to that opponent. Thus...."Stealthy to your opponent". As I've said several times, out of context, using unrelated but factual minutiae.




gambit said:


> More convenient evasions when pressed for details. Am willing to bet that you have never heard of the 10-lambda rule or such a thing as an anechoic chamber until now.


Next we're going to have a wind tunnel described to us. lol Radar has been a major topic on military forums for many years, think back to the 1990s. Radar at different wavelengths has always been a major discussion concerning stealth since the 1990s when it was mostly about optimal lambda against RAM coatings. You can't even decipher some of my English sentences without getting confused and using your misinterpretations of said sentences as part of your arguments. LOL




gambit said:


> But I have no problems educating you further, of course I do not expect you to admit your ignorance and false perceptions, your pride *will not allow you to put yourself at the same level as an American*, but the more objective readers will make their own judgement...


All hail, all hail! I bow before your godly Americaness.... 




gambit said:


> ...Irregularity equals to irregular RCS contributorship by diverse smaller complex structures on the final body. The EM interactions between these smaller radiators make modeling and estimation a supercomputer level effort. In the above illustration, the single vertical stabilator is an example of such irregular contributorships when compared against other structures on the airliner.
> 
> There is no way for any one with any degree of intellectual honesty to say that based upon visuals alone he can say that an aircraft is more or less effective in so-and-such an EM region.


Well, first of all I said wayyyy back that there is no way to have a 100% accurate analysis without anechoic chamber data analyzed by a supercomputer. So thank you for finally admitting that, you are making progress. Your request for detailed J-20 technical details as I also said way back is a rhetorical question because it is still classified information. Here's what I said in message #441...


marshall said:


> No analysis on appearance alone can be complete regardless of methodology unless you have every minute detail of the aircraft on hand as well full knowledge of the materials composition of the aircraft. *Only with unfettered access to the aircraft could any complete study be performed using a supercomputer. If this is the track you are following, then your question has been rhetorical all along because it cannot be answered since the J-20 is a publicly known but still classified project.* The whole point of military forums like this one are to discuss these issues, the what-ifs, new developments, tactical/strategic implications, etc....not rhetoric to shut down discussions until projects are *completely* declassified.


Concerning radar vulnerability estimation via visuals, irregular shaping will have detrimental stealth effects at all frequencies but relatively more so the higher the frequency. The L-Band weakness is mostly the result of the F-35 size. L-Band radar illumination on the sides could exploit this and allows some EM to creep around the body before it is all bled off, that is something you can visually see if the aircraft dimensions can be reasonably estimated. In the case of the F-35, nothing was ever solely based on visuals, it was publicly declared by LM and had already been visually speculated from its size. In the case of both the J-20 and PAK FA, their size coupled with their shaping gives a "preliminary" speculation of having no such L-Band weakness. Although there are questions concerning the PAK FA irregularities, these are not specifically related to L-Band alone and will probably be addressed eventually since it's obvious the stealth aspect is not the main part of the current PAK FA flight test regime.




gambit said:


> But here you are telling us that based upon looks alone, *YOU* can tell the world that an aircraft is better at one wavelength or another within a few centimeters.


Your exaggerations continue unabated. No, it is not by centimeters, it is gradual because EM is gradually bled off curved surfaces when creeping around the surface and no I never said anything about visuals "ALONE" are enough for analysis. That does not mean visual inspection is "useless" as you so badly want to proclaim. An EODAS like system is speculated from the visuals, LOAN nozzles are speculated from visuals, serpentine inlets are "confirmed" from visuals, planform alignment "confirmed" from visuals, continuous curvature "speculated" from visuals, titanium-oxide coated canopy speculated by visuals, glass cockpit "confirmed" by visuals, internal weapons bays "confirmed" by visuals, etc, etc....almost everything we know to date has been either directly or indirectly from the visuals. This merry go-round logic of yours is disingenuous.




gambit said:


> What I said was an example of how different -- in dB -- that two complex bodies must be when one of them effected RCS control measures. The physical wavelengths between the X and L bands are of a few cm. I want to see credible data that showed that if a complex body, under radar bombardment, is changed from X to L band, there is a 10 dB difference. Without this data, your entirement argument that the F-35 has a 'weakness' in the L-band is shot.


The conditions that you created here is not an apples to apples study because the complex bodies you are trying to use as examples are not stealth bodies of the type we are talking about....stealth fighters...which minimize irregular structures as much as possible except where they destructively interfere with radar returns to the source. Irregular structures on non-stealth aircraft are the main contributor of radar, irregular structures on aircraft considered stealth are minor contributors of radar. The L-Band weaknesses of the sort we are talking about here, related to stealth fighters, are mainly a creeping wave phenomenon and less effective RAM performance. Your example is completely biased. You know, it's easy to jerry-rig a biased example. Here's one of my own...if a stealth fighter were under radar bombardment and the bands changed from X to HF, would there be a greater than 10dB difference. LOL




gambit said:


> That was not what I asked. If an increase of a few cm is supposed to be a 'stealth killer', then certainly an increase to one meter wavelength is no longer speculative but assured, no? So what if they have poor target resolutions? As long as the 'stealth' aircraft is at least revealed in the general direction, why not use these meters length wavelengths?


Maybe you should propose your idea to the US Air Force. Then America can use your superior meter wave radars idea against everybody else inferior X-Band and L-Band radars. This is your chance to get back in the business!!! Godspeed!




gambit said:


> The laugh is on you. Ground air defense radars are usually meters in dimensions, not because of the freqs but because of the wavelength versus antenna shape versus antenna dimensions *IF* they want to reach out as far as possible. So by the need for distance, yes, ground stations are quite forced by this need.


Whatever you say...

*Millimeter Radars* _(ground based)_
* Raytheon Awards More Contracts for Mobile Centurion Subsystems | Defense Update
* LD-2000 Close-In Weapons System (CIWS) - SinoDefence.com

*Centimeter Radars* _(ground based)_
* MissileThreat :: Forward-Based X-Band Radar-Transportable

*Decimeter Radars* _(ground based)_
* 76N6 Clam Shell Low Altitude Acquisition Radar / 5N66/5N66M/76N6/76N6E/40V6M/MD Clam Shell




gambit said:


> The reason why the L-band was used by the Russians is not because they have any credible data to back up their claim, but because the L-band was the best compromise they can come up with given the wavelength versus antenna shape versus antenna size demands. For the antenna, those demands came from the best locations the Russians can think of: Wing leading edges.


Unbelievable, something we finally agree on.




gambit said:


> And you are telling me that tactical thinking is not my forte?  With the speed and accuracy of today's air-air missiles, especially the radar guided type, an F-35 would down several enemy fighters blasting away with their radars in trying to think like you. That is the weakness of 'non-stealth' fighters trying to go up against 'stealth' fighters. They have to use their radars to attempt to acquire a target they know is extremely difficult to locate. In doing so they give themselves away. But if they do not transmit, they run a very high risk of letting the F-35 get by.


No tactician would assume their opponent would make themselves easy targets like you nonchalantly assume. As I said earlier and have always maintained, the L-Band radar on fighters are supplements. They would and should only be used to do the final "flash" scan LPI style of an already detected F-35 found by the more distant L-Band AWACs and use the multiple L-Band signatures to triangulate target location to within a reasonable distance, say less than a mile. That is accurate enough for a firing solution because the missile could be guided via satellite and then do the rest once within that close range. Btw, Beidou-II, China's GPS system, has a unique feature that allows 2-way messaging. In other words, Beidou-II could do missile guidance by messaging real-time coordinates to missiles transmitted to it from datalink'ed military aircraft L-Band radars. Like I said....not your forte.




gambit said:


> No wars have ever been won by financial speculators.


Financial speculation and financial abuse will bring down the American Empire once the USD$ loses world reserve currency status. If you know what happens next, then the collapse of the American Empire is the least you should worry about.


----------



## DrSomnath999

rcrmj said:


> thats why people respect martin's work and knowledge about aviation field``but you```as i said earlier next to nothing knowledge but a funny dimw1t`lol````all european fighters have canards yet a country cant make a mig-21 upgrate (LCA) operation keeps laughing at canards``lol


oh really




well only biased chinese member , people & china friendly people respect martin's work.All i can say he is a big egoistical fraud & nothing else .U r talking of respect ,tell u what man ,to get respect u must give respect to others ,he insulted & abused not only me but also a great professional like Gambit sir .So P%%s off, i dont give a damn, do what ever u want.


----------



## marshall

amalakas said:


> The Russians initially were fairly relaxed about the stealth bombers (B-1,B-2) because they knew the long wavelength radars of their air defence would allow them to know when these planes would have infiltrated their airspace. The then hoped they can hunt for them and find them up close.
> 
> You can' do the same with fighters though!
> 
> But what Gambit says, is very different. Knowing a plane is somewhere out there and knowing were it is, put a lock on it, mid course direct a missile to, and then let the missile turn on its little radar on to lock on the VLO target, *are two vastly different things!*
> 
> There are no credible evidence that the russians can direct missiles using an L-band radar. There is no evidence that such a missile capable of using such data for terminal phase lock on yet exists.


Agreed, we're pretty much of the same mind on this. I think L-Band is a good compromise for stealth detection and with some tactical ingenuity can be engineered to provide enough reliable and accurate guidance to provide firing solutions. I mentioned a few such possible developments already concerning triangulation using multiple L-Band radars and space satellite guidance. Something I did not mention, since it would probably be less effective, is the use of multistatic L-Band radars. The main point is, it is very possible and likely that by the time the F-35 is mass produced, that these systems will be operational.




amalakas said:


> However Gambit has thrown a bluff on the poker table. The russians do not just add an L band radar. They say they will add an *AESA L-band radar*


I wonder if the Russians have considered replacing some of the X-Band T/R modules in the nose with L-Band modules as part of their wing-mounted L-Band radar system. This would increase the power and extend the frequency range when using LPI modes. Considering the way their squadrons datalink together, it would sort of make sense to have some fighters for this purpose depending on the tactical situation. The way you have to jiggle the Sukhoi's when scanning with those wing-mounted L-Band radars is clumsy to say the least.


----------



## rcrmj

DrSomnath999 said:


> oh really
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well only biased chinese member , people & china friendly people respect martin's work.All i can say he is a big egoistical fraud & nothing else .U r talking of respect ,tell u what man ,to get respect u must give respect to others ,he insulted & abused not only me but also a great professional like Gambit sir .So P%%s off, i dont give a damn, do what ever u want.



he only insults kids``the whole point of argument is agree and disagree, guess you are very sensitive taking everything as insult, you must be a very insecure guy in real life.

if not wirte a 'novel' to prove your part of bais?


----------



## DrSomnath999

Zabanya said:


> Why yes please, we would love to see your 'novels' about how bad canards are.


No Thanks mate ! Tell u what i would rather prefer to quit the forum ,rather than wasting my time on writing novels on canards


Zabanya said:


> Especially considering India is going to choose between the Rafale and the EFT during the MMRCA competition. Even the SU-30 have canards.
> 
> What's so bad about canards? Yes, having canards on a 5th generation fighter is a novelty which I do find a bit surprising.
> 
> Both the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Rafale have canards. Typically, the junction between the canards and the fuselage is hard to hide on radar. So, they use special materials, angles and software to control them, and thus reducing their overall RCS. And no doubt, the canard/delta config does give the aircraft superior aerodynamic characteristics. This shows that the European designers do try to best balance that factor during the design process.
> 
> I suspect this would similarly apply to the J-20, but then questions can arise. Whatever design a maker comes up with, it just depends what they focus on, and the end-user's doctrine. And of-course, compromises along with the intentions are to be balanced during the overall design.
> 
> Although, we can't really jump to conclusions now.


well 1st of all tell me are Eurofighter Typhoon , the Rafale & SU-30 5th gen fighters ? NO .
we r talking of 5th gen fighters am i right?
and already i had told about a lot about how canards are unnecessary in 5th gen fighter ,
http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-defence/128212-top-10-future-weapons-china-17.html
infact i am not mistaken u were also saying the same thing in this thread am i right or wrong ? god knows what happened to u now .why have change ur views.


----------



## DrSomnath999

rcrmj said:


> he only insults kids``the whole point of argument is agree and disagree, guess you are very sensitive taking everything as insult, you must be a very insecure guy in real life.


u better see the whole thread ,u would see how he insults everyone ,


rcrmj said:


> if not wirte a 'novel' to prove your part of bais?


i would rather post a thread in this forum top 10 morrons of worlds where he would be no1 & you would be nO-2




well now dont reply me that i would be no-3


----------



## amalakas

marshall said:


> Agreed, we're pretty much of the same mind on this. I think L-Band is a good compromise for stealth detection and with some tactical ingenuity can be engineered to provide enough reliable and accurate guidance to provide firing solutions. I mentioned a few such possible developments already concerning triangulation using multiple L-Band radars and space satellite guidance. Something I did not mention, since it would probably be less effective, is the use of multistatic L-Band radars. The main point is, it is very possible and likely that by the time the F-35 is mass produced, that these systems will be operational.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the Russians have considered replacing some of the X-Band T/R modules in the nose with L-Band modules as part of their wing-mounted L-Band radar system. This would increase the power and extend the frequency range when using LPI modes. Considering the way their squadrons datalink together, it would sort of make sense to have some fighters for this purpose depending on the tactical situation. *The way you have to jiggle the Sukhoi's when scanning with those wing-mounted L-Band radars is clumsy to say the least.*




The modules are AESA, they really don't need to be moved from side to side to get a scan. A blind spot may exist, considering the positioning of the modules, but they are AESA, they can electronically direct their beams - supposedly-


----------



## j20blackdragon

Hey look, no canards. Is this stealthy enough for you?


----------



## Obambam

j20blackdragon said:


> Hey look, no canards. Is this stealthy enough for you?



"Hey it looks like the mighty B-2 Spirit, of course it is stealthy! Problem is, it is a copy and it must be stolen technology!"

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DrSomnath999

Obambam said:


> "Hey it looks like the mighty B-2 Spirit, of course it is stealthy! Problem is, it is a copy and it must be stolen technology!"


 Hey thanks man ,I really appreciate ur honesty ,well nothing wrong in copying & stealing technology, but u should nt boast & humilate other countries who cant do that.
REGARDS


----------



## DrSomnath999

j20blackdragon said:


> And what's stopping China from making a more "conventional" stealth fighter without canards?
> 
> Is China incapable of making an airplane without canards?


really nice pics man ,It must be J-XX i think .TEll u what it looks more futuristic & stealthy than j20 SERIOUSLY & china should concentrate more on it.
No trolling i swear .


----------



## rcrmj

deleted````


----------



## gambit

marshall said:


> Again, *I never said the problem was with X-Band*, you're use of this false accusation is irritating.


Then your entire argument to date falls apart. The issue is not if there is something 'wrong' with the X-band -- there is not -- but whether or not *THE WORLD* is in error for using it in this manner the first place.



marshall said:


> Review my messages, I said it like 10 times, it's the *"narrowband" stealth weakness* of the F-35 which is its weakness to the upper S-Band, L-Band, UHF...etc. You're continued wordplay is expected though.


This same argument can be applied against *EVERYTHING* flying out there. In light of the current technology level in active cancellation, or rather the lack thereof, this cannot be construed as a 'weakness' because it implies there is a viable alternative, which there is not. So I will say it again that this is nothing more than a great leap of faith on your own flawed assumption: Lockheed's focused on the X-band is 'proof' of their ignorance that wavelength is part of the RCS creation.



marshall said:


> Absolutely! LM blundered not because they didn't understand that they were creating an inferior "front line", jack-of-all-trades master of none, stealth fighter.


And absolutely you are *WRONG*. Lockheed is the provider. It was the US military that sets the criteria and if those criteria demands compromises in designs, both parties understood and accept them. Take the SR-71 for an extreme example of highly specified criteria. The A-10 is the opposite. The F-16 is somewhere in between. An aircraft is an exercise in working compromises between competing demands. No one 'blundered' anything here.



marshall said:


> Where they screwed up is that they didn't foresee the current military situation as it stands now and in the near future. LM analysts assumed foreign opponents were so far behind them that they could create the high-low fighter mix not with the same quality relationship as F-15/F-16 but of the widely disparaged F-35 and the prize winning F-22. Need I remind you again that the F-22 will not be sold to any allies, not even the British. Any allies buying into the F-35 fiasco will be in a precarious situation everytime they come up against non-American stealth jets.


Wrong. There are no credible arguments that the F-22/F-35 mix is any less effective than the F-15/F-16 combo, especially when the F-35 is still under development. Your argument reminisces of the F-16 when it was widely disparaged. Yet now every military want the F-16 or at least its standards.



marshall said:


> We can agree with one thing here, as the wing-mounted L-Band radar stands now, it is a band-aid solution but it is a solution. The fact is, L-Band is the sweet spot weakness of the F-35, and that band-aid solutions exist for it NOW, means that when the F-35 is actually in full production and being sold to the allies, band-aid solutions will have likely evolved into full scale interlinked systems AEGIS style as I mentioned previously. *Targeting is not as big a problem* as you make it out to be because you're concentrating on singular L-Band radar systems working alone whereas we know that such radars when working together can have missiles guided close enough for the missiles to do the rest themselves even when LPI modes are used.


Wrong. Targeting is a big problem and apparently we must review some basic principles of radar detection, specifically behaviors.






In the above illustration, with the 10-lambda rule in effect, the only way to have assured detection of the sphere is if the signal's wavelength is 10 times the diameter of the sphere (or cylinder). Even that tiny amount of specular reflection does not guaranteed detection within a certain statistical range, and radar detection is essentially a stochastical process. The only region that can give assured detection is in the meters length HF/VHF/UHF bands. The difference between the X and L bands is only a few cm. Throw a much more complex body than a sphere into the mix and the L-band's efficacy against 'stealth' severely decreases, except in the minds of the gullible.

The so-called 'solution' provided by the Russians have no supporting data for that few cm difference in a highly dynamic stochastical process. If you want another visual aid, look at the meter stick and see how tiny a few cm are compared to the meter. That is the range of the statistical uncertainty you are looking at when comparing the HF/VHF/UHF bands against the more common centimetric bands used in radar guided weaponry.



marshall said:


> *Since when have I "hyped" either of these fighters?* LOL I never claimed the PAK FA or J-20 had stealth performance on par with the F-22. The information required for that sort of analysis is far too detailed without more data.


Here...



marshall said:


> Given a GREATER weakness to L-Band than J-20s and PAK FA, the F-35 would have a weakness that they do not have.



In effect, you are saying that the J-20 and the PAK-FA is on the same level as the F-22. There are several others but there is no need.



marshall said:


> My contention concerning this topic has generally focused on your contention that the J-20 is not even a stealthy aircraft. You actually questioned whether it had an RCS of ~1 meter square when 4+ gen delta canard fighters like *the Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen which are known to have RCS of less than this in clean configuration.* Seriously, you have some balls to claim that repeatedly with a straight face.


Sorry, these are not simple shapes but very complex bodies. Going by your simplistic arguments, these aircrafts have common flight control surfaces so therefore they should have similar RCS. If they have these RCS figures then we can say they are because of measured efforts, not because they 'looked' alike in some respects. I can grab my balls and say so because I have the laws of physics on my side. We have nothing on the J-20 so the default should be doubt, not generosity. If anything, putting the J-20 into the same RCS figures as the Typhoon _et al_ is being generous enough.



marshall said:


> I already answered this, but you simply ignored it and replied exactly as I predicted, with a request for classified fighter data and analysis based on said classified data....clearly impossible at this time.
> 
> I don't need to write a thesis or expand more than this, nor do I have the time or inclination to do so. Anybody with basic radar stealth knowledge would understand what I said here explains how specular reflections and EM wave propagation will be directed away from the radar source. You have claimed before that you are some sort of radar expert and worked in the business no? *The only unknown is the required size of the aircraft which is obviously large enough to bleed EM away before some had a chance to return back to the radar source. * Early on there was even speculation that the J-20 was a stealth bomber. Pictures alone can never give the full "picture", but claiming they are useless is wrong. Your desire for detailed anechoic chamber data is akin to wanting to know Pi to 100 decimal places, whereas I deem it necessary to only provide Pi to 1 decimal place since that is enough to prove the point.


Good, then we say the J-20 may have the same vulnerability to the L-band as the F-35 is alleged to have.



marshall said:


> If your opponent has the capability to detect you, you are not stealthy to that opponent. Thus...."Stealthy to your opponent". As I've said several times, out of context, using unrelated but factual minutiae.


It depends on the opponent. To date, the fighter class airborne radars have been limited to the X-band and this has been the rule for RCS control: Target the threat freq. You have yet to show the readers any working, let alone workable, alternatives in the same class.



marshall said:


> Next we're going to have a wind tunnel described to us. lol Radar has been a major topic on military forums for many years, think back to the 1990s. *Radar at different wavelengths has always been a major discussion concerning stealth since the 1990s* when it was mostly about optimal lambda against RAM coatings. You can't even decipher some of my English sentences without getting confused and using your misinterpretations of said sentences as part of your arguments.


And from what I have seen so far, you have not been paying attention, especially here where the basics of radar detection presented but you ignored them.



marshall said:


> All hail, all hail! I bow before your godly Americaness....


In this particular area, it would be wise to bow to what is proven.



marshall said:


> Well, first of all I said wayyyy back *that there is no way to have a 100% accurate analysis without anechoic chamber data analyzed by a supercomputer.* So thank you for finally admitting that, you are making progress. Your request for detailed J-20 technical details as I also said way back is a rhetorical question because it is still classified information. Here's what I said in message #441...


Then how can you say that the F-35 can be defeated by the L-band? Because the Russians and APA said so? Remember, we are talking about the difference of only a few cm of wavelength.

Take a look at this...






If we have a flat plate that is perpendicular to the impinging signal, if there is an increase of X percent of incident power we would have a reasonably matching corresponding increase in reflected power between the lower and higher wavelengths.

But the moment we depart from perpendicular...






Surface wave behaviors -- flat and/or curvatures -- and edge diffractions from surface discontinuities of all sizes begins to break down any estimation, leaving only direct measurements as the best way to know a body's RCS. The closer the two wavelengths are to each other, the greater the need for those measurements. And when we deal with highly dynamic targets, the differences of only a few cm in wavelengths can be negated by atmospheric attenuations and/or assorted clutter types.

What this mean is that there is *NO WAY* for both the Russians and the Australians to definitively say that the L-band is the definitive 'stealth killer' in the absence of credible measurement data.



marshall said:


> Concerning radar vulnerability estimation via visuals, irregular shaping will have detrimental stealth effects at all frequencies but relatively more so the higher the frequency. *The L-Band weakness is mostly the result of the F-35 size. L-Band radar illumination on the sides could exploit this and allows some EM to creep around the body before it is all bled off*, that is something you can visually see if the aircraft dimensions can be reasonably estimated.


 Go back to the simple sphere example and review my explanation of the 10-lambda rule again. In radar detection, the sphere is the only body where the larger it is compared to the impinging signal, the lower its RCS to the point where only a tiny amount of specular reflection matters. The L-band is about 10-12 cm in wavelength.

When we are dealing with large surface expanse that are clearly greater than when the 10-lambda rule would apply, the surface expanse, as in the sphere or the wingspan, becomes the 'electrical path' and the longer this path, the greater the 'leaky' wave behavior, leaving nothing for the creeping wave behavior to occur. The F-35's wing span is meters across. Its fuselage is shaped with a 'pinch' on the opposite side of the impinging signal to create edge diffractions to prevent *ANY* creeping wave behavior, which would occur only the meters length freqs.

I explained the fuselage shaping, most notably the nose, here => http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/20908-rcs-different-fighters-7.html#post2104567

The only location on the F-35's fuselage where there might be a creeping wave behavior is on the radome tip and even that is questionable at best, X or L band, due to that 'pinch', like how the SR-71 has it. Side aspect RCS in the centimetric bands and upon complex bodies with meters length electrical paths comes mostly from specular reflections, like how they would be created when the F-35 momentarily present a perpendicular 'flat plate' style aspect to the incident angle,*NOT* from creeping wave contributorship. But then this would apply to *ALL* aircrafts, 'stealth' or not. So when you said this: '...allows some EM to creep around the body before it is all bled off...' *YOU ARE WRONG.*



marshall said:


> In the case of the F-35, nothing was ever solely based on visuals, it was publicly declared by LM and had already been visually speculated from its size. In the case of both the J-20 and PAK FA, their size coupled with their shaping gives a "preliminary" speculation of having no such L-Band weakness. Although there are questions concerning the PAK FA irregularities, these are not specifically related to L-Band alone and will probably be addressed eventually since it's obvious the stealth aspect is not the main part of the current PAK FA flight test regime.


This is ridiculous. When asked for data to support your claim, you said there are none and that I am unreasonable to ask for them. But now you have no problems making the same baseless claims all over again. You denied hyping up the J-20 and the T-50, but here you are making the same baseless claim that their RCS has no L-band weakness, like the F-22. Be consistent. Be intellectually honest and take in what I explained so far about radar detection and apply them against your hope, the J-20.



marshall said:


> Your exaggerations continue unabated. *No, it is not by centimeters*, it is gradual because EM is gradually bled off curved surfaces when creeping around the surface and no I never said anything about visuals "ALONE" are enough for analysis.


Buddy, when I said 'centimeters' I meant *YOU* claimed *YOU* are able to tell, from visuals alone, that an aircraft has so-and-so performance between wavelength differences of centimeters. There is no way for any human to tell, even with as simple a body like the sphere, that said sphere has performance of so-and-so RCS between wavelengths of 5 and 10 cm. But of course you are a mutant with radar vision. 

Your ignorance and pretense of knowledge continue to amuse the readers.



marshall said:


> That does not mean visual inspection is "useless" as you so badly want to proclaim. An EODAS like system is speculated from the visuals, LOAN nozzles are speculated from visuals, serpentine inlets are "confirmed" from visuals, planform alignment "confirmed" from visuals, continuous curvature "speculated" from visuals, titanium-oxide coated canopy speculated by visuals, glass cockpit "confirmed" by visuals, internal weapons bays "confirmed" by visuals, etc, etc....almost everything we know to date has been either directly or indirectly from the visuals. This merry go-round logic of yours is disingenuous.


No, speculations based upon visual inspections, near or far, are not useless. But when we are dealing with performance details down to the level where the human eye could not discern the differences, then those speculations are baseless. Everything you cited can only tell us that an aircraft is deliberately designed, and shaping fall under design, for RCS control. But not to what degree. Serrated (sawtoothed) panels are obvious enough, but what is not obvious is whether or not those serrations create 90 deg corner reflector structures. Can you tell if it is 90 or 89 or 91 just from looking? There are different types of absorber and each type has strengths and weaknesses. Can you tell which just from looking?



marshall said:


> The conditions that you created here is not an apples to apples study because the complex bodies you are trying to use as examples are not stealth bodies of the type we are talking about....stealth fighters...which minimize irregular structures as much as possible except where they destructively interfere with radar returns to the source. Irregular structures on non-stealth aircraft are the main contributor of radar, irregular structures on aircraft considered stealth are minor contributors of radar.


What make a complex and irregularily structured body a 'stealth' body is how they are arranged, not because the body is 'stealthed' from the start. In RCS control measures, *ALL* non-spheroid shapes are complex bodies. Even a string is considered a complex body. You have a false understanding of the context of the word 'irregular' here. The F-117 is no less irregular than the F-16. Both aircrafts have flight control surfaces in the same locations. Do you see a vertical stab anywhere else on either aircrafts' bodies? Do you see landing gear panels on their upper sides? Do you see an aft radome? If no to all questions, then the F-117 is just as irregular a body as the F-16. Or the F-22 is just as irregular a body as the A-10. Or the C-5 is just as irregular a body as the B-52. Or the Sopwith Camel is just as irregular a body as the 747 airliner. Get it?

There are two measures of RCS: mono-static and bi-static. It is the mono-static configuration that 'stealth' irregular bodies differs from 'non-stealth' irregular bodies and I suspect this is where you got your misunderstanding. I do not expect you to admit it. Your pride and emotional investments into the J-20 will not allow you to a confession of ignorance, especially to a lowly American. 

But there is something else. Even though I have said it before here that a bi-static configuration is the greatest threat to 'stealth', how much of that degree of threat of bi-static radars to the current generation of US 'stealth' aircrafts you and the rest here will never know.



marshall said:


> The L-Band weaknesses of the sort we are talking about here, related to stealth fighters, are mainly a creeping wave phenomenon and less effective RAM performance. Your example is completely biased. You know, it's easy to jerry-rig a biased example. Here's one of my own...*if a stealth fighter were under radar bombardment and the bands changed from X to HF, would there be a greater than 10dB difference.*


Of course there would be. But this is like comparing the meter to the centimeter. Not applicable to your criticisms of the F-35. Could the Russians make the T-50 transmit in the HF? Yes. Then why not? But here is where *YOU* continually make a fool out of yourself: I could call the Russians and the Chinese 'shortsighted' or 'blundered' *IF* they install the L-band wing leading edge radars in the absence of credible data that a difference of a few cm of wavelengths can produce a 10dB difference in detection. And I could call you and every such gullible people 'fools' for believing it _sans_ data.



marshall said:


> Maybe you should propose your idea to the US Air Force. Then America can use your superior meter wave radars idea against everybody else inferior X-Band and L-Band radars. This is your chance to get back in the business!!! Godspeed!


What make you think Lockheed have not thought so and decided to follow the rule that you cavalierly dismissed: Target the threat freq.



marshall said:


> Whatever you say...
> 
> *Millimeter Radars* _(ground based)_
> * Raytheon Awards More Contracts for Mobile Centurion Subsystems | Defense Update
> * LD-2000 Close-In Weapons System (CIWS) - SinoDefence.com
> 
> *Centimeter Radars* _(ground based)_
> * MissileThreat :: Forward-Based X-Band Radar-Transportable
> 
> *Decimeter Radars* _(ground based)_
> * 76N6 Clam Shell Low Altitude Acquisition Radar / 5N66/5N66M/76N6/76N6E/40V6M/MD Clam Shell


What freqs do they uses? Ground air defense radars usually have multiple antennas with different sizes and shapes transmitting different freqs. Look at the 'Clam Shell' APA source and see how large the antenna is compared to the truck carrying it. So what freqs does missile guidance radars uses? Do you even read your own sources before posting them? Your sources actually supported my argument that it is better to target the highest threat freq, which is the shorter X-bands, than the longer wavelengths search radars. The freq and antenna combination requirement truly escaped you.



marshall said:


> Unbelievable, something we finally agree on.


Nonsense. I have 'agreed' nothing with you. Instead, I continually proved you wrong.



marshall said:


> No tactician would assume their opponent would make themselves easy targets like you nonchalantly assume. As I said earlier and have always maintained, the L-Band radar on fighters are supplements. They would and should only be used to do the final "flash" scan LPI style of an already detected F-35 found by the more distant L-Band AWACs and use the multiple L-Band signatures to triangulate target location to within a reasonable distance, say less than a mile. That is accurate enough for a firing solution because the missile could be guided via satellite and then do the rest once within that close range. Btw, Beidou-II, China's GPS system, has a unique feature that allows 2-way messaging. In other words, Beidou-II could do missile guidance by messaging real-time coordinates to missiles transmitted to it from datalink'ed military aircraft L-Band radars. Like I said....not your forte.


And no tactician would array his forces on hope and speculations as you have. I have consistently found that the less relevant experience the claimant has, the greater the emphasis on ideal situations and perfect equipments run by perfect operators. The US did not achieve the spectacular technical successes of Desert Storm by speculations but through years of training and of trials and errors. What have the Russians and the Chinese done since the collapse of the USSR? The proposed wing leading edge L-band radars create vertical fan beams more appropriate for volume search, so did either the Russians or the Chinese have F-117 class bodies to test out their speculations? The only possibility that we can entertain is by using physically smaller sized bodies to approximate the RCS of an F-117 class body and even then, unless there is at least a 10dB difference produced from a few cm difference in wavelengths, the endeavor is pointless. No amount of data tweeting between aircrafts and satellites is going to help.

AWACS using L-band radars? This tells me that everything I said about basic radar detection regarding the freq and antenna combination is lost upon you. An AWACS can be large enough that it *MAY NOT* use the L-band at all but would use longer wavelengths to have increased odds -- if not assurance -- of detection. According to Northrop Grumman, the American E-3 Sentry AWACS uses the S-band, which is right next door to the L-band. But in using these wavelengths, any AWACS would advertise its presence and the F-35 pilot would avoid the AWACS's radar field of view. At low altitude, ground clutter would eat up most specular reflections produced by 'stealth'. You really think the USAF have not practiced these scenarios? So for you to think that what I said mean I can only think of the L-band from the fighter aircrafts is to be delusional.

You are less the 'tactician' than you are a dreamer casting bones and reading entrails.



marshall said:


> Financial speculation and financial abuse will bring down the American Empire once the USD$ loses world reserve currency status. If you know what happens next, then the collapse of the American Empire is the least you should worry about.


Your beloved and hoped for China will collapse long before US. We are not the country with *TENS OF THOUSANDS* of citizen protests *PER YEAR*, villages with no women, built but empty cities, unrestrained environmental disasters, foreign oil dependency that is greater than US and increasing, and many more problems...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Obambam

DrSomnath999 said:


> Hey thanks man ,I really appreciate ur honesty ,well nothing wrong in copying & stealing technology, but u should nt boast & humilate other countries who cant do that.
> REGARDS



No problem and thanks for supporting the copying and stealing of technology. I've always believed the ones in possession of technologies is equally responsible in doing its best to secure it. Having said that, the above is not exactly my opinion, it's more of a western opinion and ones who has been eating too many sour grapes.


----------



## DrSomnath999

> "Hey it looks like the mighty B-2 Spirit, of course it is stealthy! Problem is, it is a copy and it must be stolen technology!"





Obambam said:


> No problem and thanks for supporting the copying and stealing of technology. I've always believed the ones in possession of technologies is equally responsible in doing its best to secure it. Having said that, the above is not exactly my opinion, it's more of a western opinion and ones who has been eating too many sour grapes.


ok mr manipulator ,i can really understand it's not ur opinion , but what to do ,fact is after all fact?
Well our indian grapes are very sweet to taste ,well i l love to know from u how chinese grapes taste

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Firemaster

lamlap said:


> India is very poor country, a lot of slums,



again all the discussion went wooooooooooooooooooozzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz over ur head

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

*China Shenyang corporation J16*




Possible J-16: This image appeared in mid-2011 and may represent a version of what is expected to be the &#8220;J-16,&#8221; a modified and upgraded attack version of the J-11. Source: Chinese Internet

Shenyang is also reported to be developing two more fighter programs. The first may be a development of the J-11BS with possible modifications to the airframe and the incorporation of a modern AESA radar called the &#8220;J-16.&#8221; As such, it is possible that Shenyang is trying to develop a supersonic strike fighter competitive with advanced versions of the Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle and the Su-30. A second program, a subject of copious speculation on Chinese military web pages, may be a 4+ or 5th generation program to build a stealthy twin-engine fighter, sometimes called &#8220;J-18&#8221; or &#8220;Snowy Owl.&#8221; Nevertheless, one partial image of what may be a model of this fighter appeared in mid-2011, prominently featuring former General Armaments Director General Cao Gangchuan, perhaps dating from when he was Director of the General Armaments Department from 1998 to 2002. This model shows the use planform alignment and internal weapon carriage to produce low observability. It also likely uses a conventional stabilizer-behind-the-wing configuration. It is possible that both aircraft could be developed into carrier-capable versions.


----------



## DrSomnath999

*WZ-19 ATTACK HELICOPTER*








The new Harbin/AVIC WZ-19 attack helicopter is based on the Z-9W anti-armor attack helicopter, which itself was derived from the license-built AS-365N. The WZ-19 used the engines (WoZhou WZ8A?), rotor, aft fuselage and tail section (including Fenestron tailrotor) with minor modifications from H425 [one of the recent upgraded variants of the Z-9] swhich speeds up the development. Unlike the the Z-9W, which was basically an wide-body armed utility helicopter, the WZ-19 features a new narrow forwarded fuselage with tandem compact layout similar to that of the other gunship helicopters like Z-10, TAI/Agusta Westland T-129, AH-1Z Viper, AH-64 Apache, Eurocopter Tiger, Mil Mi-28 and HAL Light Combat Helicopter.

The WZ-19 features a narrow forward fuselage and a tandem cockpit layout similar to those of Z-10, but with reversed seating - the pilot sitting in the front seat and gunner in the back seat. Both crew are protected by armor plates, crash-resist seats and non-retractable front landing gears. It also features a Z-9WA style nose mounted EO turret (FLIR, TV and laser range finder), with armament consisting of on 30mm canon in chin turret. The helicopter can also carry the air-to-air and air-to-ground weapon package similar to that of Z-9WA under a pair of stub wings, including KD-8 ATGMs, PL-90 AAMs as well as 23mm gun pods and rocket lanchers.

The WZ-19 helicopter has a toke off weight of 4,500kg, empty weight 2,350kg, max cruising speed 245km/h [about 150 mph], max climb rate 9m/s [over 1,500 ft/minute], range 700km [450 miles], ceiling (out of ground effect) 2,400m, endurance of over 3hours. The exhaust ports help reduce the use of the infrared signal design.

The WZ-19 isn't really an "Attack helicopter", but is rather more like an armed scout. The WZ-19 is a light (4 ton) reconnaissance & attack helicopter akin to Japan's OH-1 or the American AH-1 Cobra, while the WZ-10 is a mid-weight (6 tons) dedicated attack helicopter. The Z-19 project is expected to support the heavier Z-10 attack helicopter from Changhe which was delayed by engine problems [aren't they all??]. The WZ-19 is a light scout/attack helicopter, rather smaller and lighter than the WZ-10.


----------



## DrSomnath999

*China&#8217;s OICW: Type 05 Strategy Rifle (ZH-05 5.8mm + 20mm)*












Photos have appeared online showing a new combination rifle from China. Like the XM-29 OICW, it combines an assault rifle (chambered in China's standard 5.8mm round) with a semi-automatic 20mm airburst grenade launcher. The below weapon appears to have be built upon a Type-03 rifle.
At the heart of China's kit is a new combined assault rifle, ZH-05. It represents-automatic grenade launcher similar to the XM-29 OICW. In developing the ZH-05 provides for the conjugation of the complex with the infantryman combat systems, in particular the presence of a data channel video information with an eye on the helmet-mounted display, a soldier or a commander.

Weight of the rifle is about 5 kg, slightly less than 6.1 kg Daewoo K11 and 6.8 kg of the American XM-29. ZH-2005 allows firing with two kinds of different caliber ammunition intended for use in primary and secondary weapons systems. In the primary weapon ammo is shot with a 20-mm air fragmentation grenade explosion. In the ammunition support weapons systems include standard cartridges 5.8 mm.

The measured range-finder range to the target displayed on sight and entered automatically into the fire control system to calculate corrections for the shooting conditions and determine the number of revolutions grenades on the trajectory. Programming grenades carried in the arms, at the stage of loading, and provides an introduction to the original data and amendments issued by the ballistic computer, to solve the problem of combining non-contact point with the contour of a grenade explosion goal.

Also in the equipment includes: protective clothing with the elements of moisture and plamezaschity and NBC protection, as well as personal body armor (the basis of this subsystem is to vest and unloading of the new modification, which is hinged on personal body armor, the so-called "e-vest" - system optoelectronics and other electronic equipment as part of a personal computer, communications, interface, human-machine, satellite navigation receiver, etc.; knapsack with a capacity for drinking water as well as spare magazines for assault rifles and hand grenades).

"Manpack electronic platform, which is the foundation," heart "of the kit includes including those optoelectronic and radio equipment, are included in the e-vest." Hardware platform is built on the digital interface and has an open architecture to include, as appropriate, and new or additional samples of electronic equipment.

Judging by the photos and reports from China, this complex "digital equipment" field trials will be accepted for service in late 2011 or early 2012.


----------



## DrSomnath999

*China develops another Cornershot clone*
The Cornershot, a device that allows users to shoot pistols around corners while behind cover, was developed by Lt. Col. Amos Golan of the IDF in the early 2000s and has since become one of the worlds most copied weapon systems. Pakistan, Iran, South Korea and China all market copies of the original. China originally developed two system, the high-tech camera-equipped HD66 and the low-tech CF06. Photos have surfaced of yet another Chinese-made Cornershot clone.




The new system, name unknown, is simple, low-tech and lightweight. Like the CF06 it utilizes a Norinco QSZ-92 (5.8x21mm or 9x19mm) pistol. A top mounted scope, possible recticle-less and low-powered, is connected to a forward scope or red dot sight. A rotatable mirror system connects the two scopes and allows the pistol to rotate independently of the main scope. The foregrip can be twisted to rotate the pistol. Pins can be removed to detach the scope mount and butt stock, allowing for easy transportation.




Unlike the other Cornershot clones, this weapon could be produced cheaply. It should be relatively simple to develop an export version for the Glock or S&W M&P pistols that would be popular with law enforcement departments worldwide who cannot afford the expensive original and clones.


----------



## GHOST RIDER

good work doc


----------



## mohib1970

Hi everyone! 
Everyone seems anxious about stealth 5th generation fighter. Also anxious why all of those design resembles same.
One important information to inform you, the designer of F-22 is an parsi from India (I forgot his name), he is in USA jail for 43 years punishment, because of leaking information of F-22 to China and several other countries.

May be thats why T-50, J-20, MCA and other 5th generation resembles the same design. On the contrary Eurofighter does not resemlbes F-22, because it is unique.


----------



## DALAI LAMA 4477

mohib1970 said:


> Hi everyone!
> Everyone seems anxious about stealth 5th generation fighter. Also anxious why all of those design resembles same.
> One important information to inform you, the designer of F-22 is an parsi from India (I forgot his name), he is in USA jail for 43 years punishment, because of leaking information of F-22 to China and several other countries.
> 
> May be thats why T-50, J-20, MCA and other 5th generation resembles the same design. On the contrary Eurofighter does not resemlbes F-22, because it is unique.


is this anything related to thread ? 
& what a hopeless analysis on resemblances of all 5th gen fighters & how could all 5th gen fighters look alike tell me .Go to any eye specialist buddy


----------



## Sin Pateh

gambit said:


> When I am done with two coming particular posts, we will all see that he is that high school kid.



Ii is so ironic when someone is too proud of himself but acting like a kid in this forum! 

Yes, I am referring about *YOU*!

So stop that lame clownish accusation, old is not mean everything!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DrSomnath999

*China is developing 'smart' ammunitions for threatening armored vehicles*






2012-04-10 (China Military News cited from taipeitimes.com) -- The Chinese military is making steady progress in the development of smart ammunition technology, the PLA Daily reported yesterday, which could prove especially threatening to Taiwans armored vehicles.
The Baicheng Weapon Test Center announced on Friday that it had made a significant breakthrough in the development of technology known as terminal sensing ammunition, adding that the Peoples Liberation Army had completed the theoretical work, including design, analysis, simulation, tests and evaluation of the new projectile.

Terminal-sensing ammunition, also known as sensor-detonated ammunition or smart ammunition, are projectiles that can identify the presence of a target at the end of its ballistic trajectory and automatically direct submunitions, similar to cluster bomblets, to explode in the targets direction.
During a recent demonstration at the test center, a terminal-sensing projectile flew over the target site and discharged a series of terminal-sensing submunitions, which deployed mini-parachutes and searched for their target.
Terminal-sensing projectiles, which are relatively cheap to produce, can be fired or launched from cannons, long-range surface-to-surface missiles, air-to-ground missiles and bombs.
They are regarded as an especially promising weapon to attack the roof section of vehicles such as tanks and armored personnel carriers.
China is developing 'smart' ammunitions for threatening armored vehicles | China Military Power Mashup


----------



## lordwedggie

[/COLOR]
Does not matter if you read it or not. Others will and in their objective minds, you will be that laughing stock. They will see my explanation as logical and technically valid based upon certain principles I posted here before.[/QUOTE]

I can't resist anymore. I have been reading here for two years and clearly remember you did indeed say the J-20 couldn't fly because of some software issue non-sense, and then refused to admit your mistake after the J-20 flew in a couple of days. The laughing stock had been and is still, you, Gambit. 
Martian2 please keep up your gallant effort fending off these trolls. Because for a less knowledgeable readers such as myself, Gambit there did get me worried that the J-20 could not fly at the time. I have learned much from you over the years reading your debate against Gambit and the other, lesser trolls.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DrSomnath999

lordwedggie said:


> *I can't resist anymore. I have been reading here for two years * and clearly remember you did indeed say the J-20 couldn't fly because of some software issue non-sense, and then refused to admit your mistake after the J-20 flew in a couple of days. The laughing stock had been and is still, you, Gambit.
> Martian2 please keep up your gallant effort fending off these trolls. Because for a less knowledgeable readers such as myself, Gambit there did get me worried that the J-20 could not fly at the time. I have learned much from you over the years reading your debate against Gambit and the other, lesser trolls.




U have been reading from 2 & half years ,but now u have got the time to be a member here just to tell this


----------



## Martian2

lordwedggie said:


> Does not matter if you read it or not. Others will and in their objective minds, you will be that laughing stock. They will see my explanation as logical and technically valid based upon certain principles I posted here before.
> 
> I can't resist anymore. I have been reading here for two years and clearly remember you did indeed say the J-20 couldn't fly because of some software issue non-sense, and then refused to admit your mistake after the J-20 flew in a couple of days. The laughing stock had been and is still, you, Gambit.
> Martian2 please keep up your gallant effort fending off these trolls. Because for a less knowledgeable readers such as myself, Gambit there did get me worried that the J-20 could not fly at the time. I have learned much from you over the years reading your debate against Gambit and the other, lesser trolls.



Thank you for the vote of confidence. I believe a multiple-warhead DF-21D ASBM is one of the "top ten future weapons of China" (see below). Please take a look.

----------

*Multiple-warhead DF-21D ASBM*

An efficient method to attack an aircraft carrier or a destroyer is to use an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) with multiple MARV (maneuverable re-entry vehicle) warheads.

With multiple MARV warheads, a ballistic missile will have reduced range. This can be fixed by building a larger missile to accommodate the larger number of warheads.

My original proposal was to use a simultaneous attack on each capital ship with ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, torpedoes, stealth cruise missiles if available, and mix of subsonic (with supersonic terminal phase if available) and supersonic sea-skimming anti-ship missiles.

I want to elaborate on the anti-ship ballistic missile discussion. It is more efficient and effective to arm each ASBM with multiple MARVs. Let's say each DF-21D ASBM is armed with three MARVs. Firing 25 ASBMs at each destroyer within a five-minute window would total 75 MARV warheads or an incoming warhead every four seconds.

I had proposed launching 50 ASBMs at each aircraft carrier. That is a total of 150 MARV warheads within a five-minute window. This means an incoming warhead will attempt to strike the carrier every two seconds for five minutes non-stop.

We would have to run computer simulations, but another option is to time the arrival of all 50 ASBMs within a ten-second window by using computerized coordination. Basically, the sky will drop down on the carrier with 150 warheads in ten seconds.

With an intense ballistic missile bombardment coupled to an equally intense simultaneous cruise missile and torpedo attack, I don't think an aircraft carrier battle group will survive in Chinese waters.

Feel free to create your own attack plan, such as an initial EMP warhead to fry the carrier group's electronics and a follow-up of 150 MARV warheads in a short time-frame.






It is logical to equip Chinese DF-21D ASBMs with multiple MARV warheads by reducing the range or building a larger ballistic missile.





A MARV (maneuverable re-entry vehicle) is basically a warhead with thrusters.





Multiple warheads (MIRVs) can be placed on top of a ballistic missile. Similarly, multiple warheads with thrusters (e.g. MARVs) can be placed on top of a ballistic missile.

[Note: Thank you to Dr. Somnath999 for the composite images of China's ASBM.]

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lordwedggie

​


DrSomnath999 said:


> U have been reading from 2 & half years ,but now u have got the time to be a member here just to tell this


 
Yep, solely to support martian2, although I've came to the conclusion that the only way to deal with the likes of you is probably just to ignore u'al

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## sweetgrape

DrSomnath999 said:


> U have been reading from 2 & half years ,but now u have got the time to be a member here just to tell this


Many chinese like listen and read, then do action, we don't like talking more than doing action!! we don't like you, who do less, talk more!! And in fact, in this forum, india defence forum also have much more threads than china, also many are "future" weapons that are ivory tower!!!
You can easily get the difference through comparing "chinese defence" and "indian defence", especially the content of sticky thread!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## lordwedggie

Backup plan in case the carrier BG somehow survived the DF-21D attack:

UAV attack. Use a couple of stealth UAVs (darksword?) each acting as leader to control and coordinate squadrons of less expensive less smart drones, perhaps modified J-5/6/7s, as missile launching suicide bombing platforms. This in combination with normal missile attacks...

Martian, with all the current platforms such as J-20, DF-21D, UAVs, new missiles and new subs in development, when they are all in service, how close do you suppose an US carrier group would dare to venture near China?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

lordwedggie said:


> Backup plan in case the carrier BG somehow survived the DF-21D attack:
> 
> UAV attack. Use a couple of stealth UAVs (darksword?) each acting as leader to control and coordinate squadrons of less expensive less smart drones, perhaps modified J-5/6/7s, as missile launching suicide bombing platforms. This in combination with normal missile attacks...
> 
> Martian, with all the current platforms such as J-20, DF-21D, UAVs, new missiles and new subs in development, when they are all in service, how close do you suppose an US carrier group would dare to venture near China?



The U.S. is all bark and no bite.

Aside from words, did the U.S. support Vietnam against China? No. Vietnam receives zero military aid from the United States.

Aside from words, did the U.S. support the Philippines against China? The U.S. gave the Philippines a measly $30 million in military aid for 2012, which cannot buy a single $35 million Chinook helicopter.

Action speaks louder than words. As I see it, here's the compromise between China and the United States. You don't flatten the U.S. military bases in South Korea and Japan and we leave your transport ships alone. That's the understanding.

Regarding some 1,000-year-old Chinese islands in the South China Sea, the U.S. will cheer Vietnam and the Philippines from the sidelines. Once the shooting starts, the U.S. Navy will be a thousand miles from the war zone and nowhere to be seen.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## iamopenminded2

J20 is a stolen copy of the F22.


----------



## Martian2

iamopenminded2 said:


> J20 is a stolen copy of the F22.



The J-20 follows the design principles (e.g. chine line, continuous curvature, faceting, smooth underside, etc.) of the F-22. In that sense, it does bear some resemblance to the F-22.

Due to the constraints of physics, fifth-generation stealth fighters will look similar. By the same principle of "form follows function," all rockets look similar (e.g. long fuselage, engines at bottom, fairing at the top, bullet-shaped capsule, multiple stages to minimize weight during transit, etc.).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DrSomnath999

Martian2 said:


> *Multiple-warhead DF-21D ASBM*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is logical to equip Chinese DF-21D ASBMs with multiple MARV warheads by reducing the range or building a larger ballistic missile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A MARV (maneuverable re-entry vehicle) is basically a warhead with thrusters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


MY DEAR MARTIAN
U never forgot to give credits to those members from whom u copy the pics but why have u not given credit to that guy from 
which u have got these pics


----------



## Martian2

DrSomnath999 said:


> MY DEAR MARTIAN
> U never forgot to give credits to those members from whom u copy the pics but why have u not given credit to that guy from
> which u have got these pics



I can't remember where I clipped it from. You made a good point. Let me go look.


----------



## DrSomnath999

lordwedggie said:


> ​
> Yep, solely to support martian2, although I've came to the conclusion that the only way to deal with the likes of you is probably just to ignore u'al


Lollz

really but ur great martian is so great he copy pasted my pics & doent even bother to give credit to me while posting those pics 
check this thread from where he copied my pics
http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian...mos-2-hypersonic-ascm-layman-comparision.html


----------



## Martian2

DrSomnath999 said:


> Lollz
> 
> really but ur great martian is so great he copy pasted my pics & doent even bother to give credit to me while posting those pics
> check this thread from where he copied my pics
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian...mos-2-hypersonic-ascm-layman-comparision.html



Oh crap, I clipped them from you. :-(

Okay, let me go fix my posts and give you proper credit. It's my bad luck that it was you. I can't believe it. How embarrassing.

I had originally grabbed the pictures off of Google Images when I passed through.

Sorry about that.


----------



## DrSomnath999

sweetgrape said:


> Many chinese like listen and read, then do action, we don't like talking more than doing action!! we don't like you, who do less, talk more!! And in fact, in this forum, india defence forum also have much more threads than china, also many are "future" weapons that are ivory tower!!!
> You can easily get the difference through comparing "chinese defence" and "indian defence", especially the content of sticky thread!



Atleast i am not a egoistical fraud like someone who pretends to be stealth specialist
& I dont give a damn whether u like me or not .GO & join chinesedefence .com & post ur hatred post about india there ,their they would appreciate ur views,not here



sweetgrape said:


> Many chinese like listen and read, then do action, we don't like talking more than doing action!! we don't like you, who do less, talk more!! And in fact, in this forum, india defence forum also have much more threads than china, also many are "future" weapons that are ivory tower!!!
> You can easily get the difference through comparing "chinese defence" and "indian defence", especially the content of sticky thread!



Atleast i am not a egoistical fraud like someone who pretends to be stealth specialist
& I dont give a damn whether u like me or not .GO & join chinesedefence .com & post ur hatred post about india there ,their they would appreciate ur views,not here



Martian2 said:


> Oh crap, I clipped them from you. :-(
> 
> Okay, let me go fix my posts and give you proper credit. It's my bad luck that it was you. *I can't believe it. How embarrassing.*
> 
> I had originally grabbed the pictures off of Google Images when I passed through.


hhaaa.haaa


----------



## Martian2

You could have given me a free pass. But no...you couldn't do that. 

By the way, let me commend you on your excellent illustrations.

I'll be more vigilant next time to ensure there is no repeat. I did look kinda silly there.


----------



## DrSomnath999

Martian2 said:


> You could have given me a free pass. But no...you couldn't do that.


well yes if u hadnt posted in this thread & that too when if i hadnt logged on
BTW i found it little hypocritical as u have seen me posting that thread in chinese defence.com .If any other forum i wouldnt have bothered to point out that thing


Martian2 said:


> By the way, let me commend you on your excellent illustrations.


MY pleasure


Martian2 said:


> I'll be more vigilant next time to ensure there is no repeat. I did look kinda silly there.


no need for that ,dont worry next time even if u copy & paste my pics without giving me credit also ,i wont mind
After all my created pics are indeed one of a kind ,any man would notice that this kind of pics can only be made by one man,&
u know who's that man


----------



## Martian2

I read your post one or two years ago. I've read thousands of posts. It's not realistic to expect me to remember everything. Actually, I can only remember about a couple of weeks. After that, things get fuzzy.

Don't worry, next time I'll definitely credit you. This is too bitter a pill to swallow.

I've noticed your style is composite pictures. I'll remember that.


----------



## DrSomnath999

Martian2 said:


> This is too bitter a pill to swallow.
> 
> .


well i posted that thing in a lighter note ,Why r you taking it so seriously ,i found it funny so i posted .No need to be so insecure


----------



## Martian2

DrSomnath999 said:


> well i posted that thing in a lighter note ,Why r you taking it so seriously ,i found it funny so i posted .No need to be so insecure



Oh, I'm kidding with you. If it really bothered me, I would just replace your illustrations with something else. You did a great job and you deserve credit for it.

I messed up. My fault, not yours.

I'm glad you pointed it out. PDF won't let members edit their posts after one day. That would really be annoying to have an uncredited post.

The fact is that I got lost in the train of thought in the ASBM post and completely forgot about attributing credit for any of the illustrations. It happens once in a while and I should be more careful.

Anyway, you're a superb advocate for the Indian side. Keep up the good work.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## qingshuicun

the pic of J10A is so cute

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sweetgrape

DrSomnath999 said:


> Atleast i am not a egoistical fraud like someone who pretends to be stealth specialist
> & I dont give a damn whether u like me or not .GO & join chinesedefence .com & post ur hatred post about india there ,their they would appreciate ur views,not here
> 
> 
> 
> Atleast i am not a egoistical fraud like someone who pretends to be stealth specialist
> & I dont give a damn whether u like me or not .GO & join chinesedefence .com & post ur hatred post about india there ,their they would appreciate ur views,not here
> 
> 
> hhaaa.haaa


Specialist! In here, we are military amateur, some know more knowledge about weapon is not surprised, Pretending to specailist? Look at you indian first. And we chinese is actually better than you in military, of course we know better than you!!
And I don't hate India, I don't know why I should hate indian, they have never beated us, now, you lag behind us much, I don't know why we should hate you!!
In fact, Without indian big mouth, Indian are cute. BTW I like indian dance!!


----------



## BordoEnes

MBT 3000







June 27, 2012: China is now offering a new tank, the MBT 3000, for export. The manufacturer says the Chinese Army will begin receiving the MBT 3000 in two years. The 3000 appears to be a 2000 with a slightly more powerful engine, more armor, improved suspension and running gear and better electronics. While none of the individual changes is radical or greatly improved over MBT 2000, the total number of improvements is substantial. 

The Chinese MBT 2000 (also known as the VT1A) tank is an export model of the Chinese Type 98/99. The MBT 2000 also looks similar to the Type 90/Al Khalid (a Type 90 variant developed by China and Pakistan for Pakistani service). The Type 98/99/90/MBT-2000 vehicles are all "improved T-72s." There were lots of improvements, though, many of them similar to what's found in the Russian T-80UM2. The workmanship on these vehicles is a little better than on the T-80UM2 but the Chinese don't have as much experience building tanks. This has shown itself in the numerous technical glitches that have shown up. The basic T-72 design has been around for over 30 years and has proved reliable, although not particularly effective on the battlefield. That was mostly due to poor crews. The Chinese have moved to volunteer crews and more intensive training, which make any tank more effective. The MBT 2000 is a 49 ton tank with a 125mm gun and a three man crew (plus an autoloader). The MBT 3000 weight only goes up to 51 tons, but overall performance and reliability is greatly improved. 

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

This one should belong insted of Type 99A2 IMO

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Psyops

Anymore updates to this?


----------



## Sanchez

Future weapons before 2020:
No 10. Y-20 (heavy lifter plane for transport, fueler and AWACS)
No 9. H-10 stealthy bomber
No 8. 055 class destroyers with laser air defence guns
No 7. Anti-missile defence systems on land (HQ-19) and sea (HQ-26)
No 6. 095 sub
No 5. J-20 with PL-10\PL-13\PL-21
No 4. Nuclear powered aircraft carrier
No 3. New ICBM DF41A
No 2. Hypersonic fighter bomber SL-xx
No 1. Space-based missile launcher


----------



## rcrmj

Sanchez said:


> Future weapons before 2020:


No 10. Y-20 (heavy lifter plane for transport, fueler and AWACS) *possible*
No 9. H-10 stealthy bomber *prototype maybe*
No 8. 055 class destroyers with laser air defence guns, *055 is on the building list, but laser gun is too much of sci-fis*
No 7. Anti-missile defence systems on land (HQ-19) and sea (HQ-26), *yes possible*
No 6. 095 sub, possible
No 5. J-20 with PL-10\PL-13\PL-21, *possible``but pl-13?? never heard of it*
No 4. Nuclear powered aircraft carrier, *a bit early (two conventional will be built before that)*
No 3. New ICBM DF41A, *most prossible*
No 2. Hypersonic fighter bomber SL-xx, *hehe, dont even want to comment*
No 1. Space-based missile launcher


----------



## J-30

Can somebody give me more info on the ac PLAN 83 Shi Lang


----------



## applesauce

J-30 said:


> Can somebody give me more info on the ac PLAN 83 Shi Lang



have you been living under a rock?

the AC is numbered 16 and named Liaoning

there is no "PLAN 83 Shi Lang"


----------



## AsianLion




----------

