# Russian Fifth-Generation Fighter to Exceed Rivals



## SBD-3

The Russian fifth-generation T-50 fighter, currently being developed by Sukhoi, will exceed all rivals, according to Russian Air Force commander Colonel General Alexander Zelin.

*The Russian Air Force will acquire 60 T-50s, which will be delivered from 2015 onwards.*

The T-50 will feature low visibility, supersonic cruising speed and highly integrated control systems.

It will have a take-off weight of over 30t and have similar dimensions to the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker.

The Sukhoi Design Bureau designed the current prototype of the T-50 and developed it at a plant in Komsomolsk-on-Amur in Russia's Far East.


----------



## Thomas

hasnain0099 said:


> The Russian fifth-generation T-50 fighter, currently being developed by Sukhoi, will exceed all rivals, according to Russian Air Force commander Colonel General Alexander Zelin.
> 
> *The Russian Air Force will acquire 60 T-50s, which will be delivered from 2015 onwards.*
> 
> The T-50 will feature low visibility, supersonic cruising speed and highly integrated control systems.
> 
> It will have a take-off weight of over 30t and have similar dimensions to the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker.
> 
> The Sukhoi Design Bureau designed the current prototype of the T-50 and developed it at a plant in Komsomolsk-on-Amur in Russia's Far East.



post a link please.....


----------



## inddef

the russians like to live in their own bubble


----------



## somebozo

Better feature set has been offered on F35 and there is a lot of skeptism over calling T50 a fifth generation figher. It lacks a lot compared to western capability. Russians are notrious for such wet dreams..relics of communism when they dreamed about beating the west.


----------



## Jigs

Russians are still stuck in the past they are trying to do ultra maneuverability for a 5 gen environment. What they need to focus on is advanced avionics and stealth. Something tells me besides the more stealthy design alot of stuff will be a improved transfer from the SU-35BM.

We will see how it all turns out.


----------



## inddef

i think backing the t50 will turn out to be a major mistake for india when we easily have enough money to buy a 100+ jsf over the next 10 years.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## True_Pakistan_Zindabad

I didn't see anything special at all from the T-50 prototypes.


----------



## Devianz

True_Pakistan_Zindabad said:


> I didn't see anything special at all from the T-50 prototypes.



It just made it's first flight 7 months ago and you are already expecting special stuffs from a prototype that's just doing its flight test.
Amazing...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## True_Pakistan_Zindabad

Devianz said:


> It just made it's first flight 7 months ago and you are already expecting special stuffs from a prototype that's just doing its flight test.
> Amazing...



Yeah so what if it flew 7 months ago? It displays nothing close to having stealth characteristics. I'm also not the one having wet dreams only 7 months after a test flight.


> The Russian fifth-generation T-50 fighter, currently being developed by Sukhoi, *will exceed all rivals*, according to Russian Air Force commander Colonel General Alexander Zelin.


----------



## Devianz

inddef said:


> i think backing the t50 will turn out to be a major mistake for india when we easily have enough money to buy a 100+ jsf over the next 10 years.



Yeah we have the money.. but who is going to supply JSF to us before T-50? The waiting list is way too long buddy. 
And our requirements are for a two-seater twin engined air-superiority fighter with considerable range and internal payload capability.


----------



## Devianz

True_Pakistan_Zindabad said:


> Yeah so what if it flew 7 months ago? It was a tin can with paper abilities. I'm also not the one having wet dreams only 7 months after a test flight.



That is so common. Everyone boasts about their machine. But still the Russians are no where near LM when it comes to boasting.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indiarox

inddef said:


> i think backing the t50 will turn out to be a major mistake for india when we easily have enough money to buy a 100+ jsf over the next 10 years.



Buddy you need a reality check USA wont sell JSF to us even they did it would be too late to be of any effect.
I suggest you do a little research into Russian planes and Russian military equipment before criticizing Russian equipment.

I think you are the one in a bubble If you honestly believe that Russian equipment are trash and Russian live in bubble.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## inddef

russian equiment isn't trash. but its not going to allow us to match china in my opinion.

if you think about 2020-25 timeframe, if pak-fa doesn't deliver good enough stealth but j-xx does, that won't be good news for us.

maneuverability, which is the russian strength doesn't mean much anymore. plus american / euro bvraams are going to be much better than russian ones too.

the jsf program is looking for more commitment of orders afaik.


----------



## Devianz

inddef said:


> russian equiment isn't trash. but its not going to allow us to match china in my opinion.



So you think China makes better aircrafts than Russia?


----------



## Markus

Jigs said:


> Russians are still stuck in the past they are trying to do ultra maneuverability for a 5 gen environment. *What they need to focus on is advanced avionics and stealth.* Something tells me besides the more stealthy design alot of stuff will be a improved transfer from the SU-35BM.
> 
> We will see how it all turns out.



FGFA (PAK-FA's twin seater version) will focus on more advanced avionics with sub systems from Israel and several European countries integrated into a single machine much like what's been done with the Su-30 MKI.


----------



## True_Pakistan_Zindabad

Devianz said:


> So you think China makes better aircrafts than Russia?



Just wait for FC-20. J-10 in itself is a big slap to Russia. Usually China is so dependent on them, yet they produced an Asian F-16 all on their own.


----------



## inddef

Devianz said:


> So you think China makes better aircrafts than Russia?



the chinese defense budget is already 2x russia and will get to 3x or more within 5 years.

russia is the wrong bet in the long term.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Markus

inddef said:


> the chinese defense budget is already 2x russia and will get to 3x or more within 5 years.
> 
> russia is the wrong bet in the long term.



China is not an alternative to Russia when it comes to being India's military supplier.

The only viable substitutes are Israel + Europe OR USA.


----------



## inddef

thats not what i am saying. i am saying that chinese aircraft will almost certainly be qualitatively superior to russians within the next 10-15 years because of the huge funding gap.

the only way to counter this is to buy into top end western r&d by paying top $ with preferably offsets to spur domestic industry and jobs. indo-russian JVs will be underfunded compared to chinese projects in this period.


----------



## Markus

inddef said:


> thats not what i am saying. i am saying that chinese aircraft will almost certainly be qualitatively superior to russians within the next 10-15 years because of the huge funding gap.
> 
> the only way to counter this is to buy into top end western r&d by paying top $ with preferably offsets to spur domestic industry and jobs. *indo-russian JVs will be underfunded compared to chinese projects in this period*.



Difficult to believe the thing in bold.

Anyways, if u look at the options in front of us, the best way to move forward is to go with PAK-FA. Even though this is Russia's first attempt in developing a 5th gen jet, we cannot discard the fact that Russia is in the fighter manufacturing business for a long time now and it's experience is nothing but useful.

And as for china, let JXX fly first, then we can discuss where we all stand.


----------



## Devianz

True_Pakistan_Zindabad said:


> Just wait for FC-20. J-10 in itself is a big slap to Russia. Usually China is so dependent on them, yet they produced an Asian F-16 all on their own.



Yeah they made an asian F-16A, so what? Does that undermine Russian superiority in aircraft manufacturing?. J-10 is by no means a slap to Russia. But J-11 is.


----------



## Frankenstein

This Russian Fifth-Generation Fighter program seems so dead unlike Raptor or JSF, we are talking about 5 gen program and Russia happens to be second country to come up with, but still....


----------



## Devianz

inddef said:


> thats not what i am saying. i am saying that chinese aircraft will almost certainly be qualitatively superior to russians within the next 10-15 years because of the huge funding gap.
> 
> the only way to counter this is to buy into top end western r&d by paying top $ with preferably offsets to spur domestic industry and jobs. indo-russian JVs will be underfunded compared to chinese projects in this period.



Russians have always delivered top products comparable to the west with considerably lower budgets. Besides we are not entirely depended on Russia in case of FGFA. If we feel that some of the avionics are not up to our requirements (highly unlikely looking at Su-35S) we will simply go with an Israeli or French alternative.


----------



## Devianz

Frankenstein said:


> This Russian Fifth-Generation Fighter program seems so dead unlike Raptor or JSF, we are talking about 5 gen program and Russia happens to be second country to come up with, but still....



Dead? It will be highly helpful for you to check out the PAK-FA threads in keypublishing and militaryphotos forums.


----------



## inddef

Devianz said:


> Russians have always delivered top products comparable to the west with considerably lower budgets. Besides we are not entirely depended on Russia in case of FGFA. If we feel that some of the avionics are not up to our requirements (highly unlikely looking at Su-35S) we will simply go with an Israeli or French alternative.



i am more concerned about stealth and bvraams which are the parameters on which i fear russia might fall behind both the west and china within 10-15 years. russians are no longer delivering stuff on low budgets anyway.


----------



## Markus

inddef said:


> i am more concerned about stealth and bvraams. russians are no longer delivering stuff on low budgets anyway.



Man - we are talking of stealth fighter planes - it cannot survive on low budgets. Money has to be poured like water if we are to come up with a satisfactory product.


----------



## inddef

Markus said:


> Man - we are talking of stealth fighter planes - it cannot survive on low budgets. Money has to be poured like water if we are to come up with a satisfactory product.



exactly the reason i think china might beat russia to the post on stealth. their budget gap to russia will keep increasing every year.


----------



## Devianz

inddef said:


> i am more concerned about stealth and bvraams which are the parameters on which i fear russia might fall behind both the west and china within 10-15 years. russians are no longer delivering stuff on low budgets anyway.



Go through the PAK-FA threads mentioned in my previous post. 
BTW, we don't have to go for Russian bvraams. We can buy anything from Europe and Israel.


----------



## Markus

inddef said:


> exactly the reason i think china might beat russia to the post on stealth. their budget gap to russia will keep increasing every year.



Dont focus only on budget gap, anyways Russia is not alone, India will also provide the funds. India + Russia combined is enough to sponsor PAK-FA.

Also, don't forget that China will have to spend more money on research whereas Russia will save over there because of existing systems and sub systems.

Remember this China's first 5th gen project and they will have to work a lot on the engine of JXX also. Russian tech in manufacturing jet engines is well known.


----------



## inddef

Markus said:


> Dont focus only on budget gap, anyways Russia is not alone, India will also provide the funds. India + Russia combined is enough to sponsor PAK-FA.
> 
> Also, don't forget that China will have to spend more money on research whereas Russia will save over there because of existing systems and sub systems.
> 
> Remember this China's first 5th gen project and they will have to work a lot on the engine of JXX also. Russian tech in manufacturing jet engines is well known.



all valid points. my only quip is that with the amount of funding we'll put into pak-fa would get us easily into the jsf program. money talks.

and my fear is that the pak-fa is not going to be anywhere near as stealthy as the jsf.

and i just hope the chinese fighter isn't anywhere near as good as the jsf


----------



## Markus

inddef said:


> all valid points. my only quip is that with the amount of funding we'll put into pak-fa would get us easily into the jsf program. money talks.
> 
> and my fear is that the pak-fa is not going to be anywhere near as stealthy as the jsf.
> 
> and i just hope the chinese fighter isn't anywhere near as good as the jsf



Some reports suggest JSF has been offered to Indian navy but no official word yet.

On PAK-FA, we must wait for the final model to get ready, we are still testing the prototypes and too early to say anything.


----------



## Tshering22

Too early to tell. Since when did Chinese become superior to Russians in aircraft technology? Just because they have thrice the budget is not going to increase their knowledge overnight without trials and errors. PAK-FA was started during the last of Soviet era as a programme rivalling F-22. 

So there's been considerable time and money put into it and we cannot say anything just because of 1 prototype. There might be 4-5 prototypes more developed for tests on internal payload, weapons integration, stealth etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Devianz

inddef said:


> all valid points. my only quip is that with the amount of funding we'll put into pak-fa would get us easily into the jsf program. money talks.
> 
> and my fear is that the pak-fa is not going to be anywhere near as stealthy as the jsf.
> 
> and i just hope the chinese fighter isn't anywhere near as good as the jsf



Unfortunately money doesn't talk in the JSF program. UK has pumped in a considerable amount of money into JSF program and they don't have much say in the JSF project. Compare that to T-50 which will be tailor made according to our needs including some Indian inputs.

You don't need to be as stealthy as JSF. A VLO design is enough, T-50 would have bigger and more powerful radars, more weapons on internal pylons than JSF, larger range without the use of external fuel tanks and super-maneuverability. And no, maneuverability is not obsolete as you believe it to be.

And Russians are not making PAK-FA keeping JSF in mind. They are clearly making it as a counter to F-22 even though the chances of them meeting in a battle is very slim. The present prototype is just in its initial stages of testing. It will be highly naive to say that it lacks stealth at this point of time. The airframe will undergo considerable amount of changes. 

Looks at the difference between YF-22(F-22 prototype) and F-22A.






Also the difference between T-10(Su-27 prototype) and Su-27

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## inddef

the thing is that with the pak-fa we're choosing to reinvent the wheel instead of joining a robust program.

i know that we have a different a/f dotrcine preferring twin engines and higher ranges, but yet stealth is priceless.


----------



## inddef

Devianz said:


> Unfortunately money doesn't talk in the JSF program. UK has pumped in a considerable amount of money into JSF program and they don't have much say in the JSF project. Compare that to T-50 which will be tailor made according to our needs including some Indian inputs.
> 
> You don't need to be as stealthy as JSF. A VLO design is enough, T-50 would bigger and more powerful radars, more weapons on internal pylons than JSF, larger range without the use of external fuel tanks and super-maneuverability. And no, maneuverability is not obsolete as you believe it to be.



yep, i understand all this and i understand the jsf shortcomings, but i think it would've worked for all of our purposes except a long range bombing mission into china.

i have a different opinion on stealth. i think stealth is very important, especially in an attacking role, where you'd want to evade SAMs and not be seen on the radars till the last few seconds.

for defensive doctrine, stealth isn't that important.


----------



## Indiarox

@inddef
* Prove how the JSF,J-XX is better than the Pak-Fa
*about BVRAAMS a little expansion on their advantage it would have against the Pakfa would be helpful.
Il go in to the details on how the Pak-Fa is better for India when compared to the JSF in thee morning im too sleepy to rite up long post now(sorry for that)

J-XX is still shrouded in mystery and speculation we shall discuss about that when relevant (reliable not fanboyish)info comes out on the J-xx

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Devianz

inddef said:


> yep, i understand all this and i understand the jsf shortcomings, but i think it would've worked for all of our purposes except a long range bombing mission into china.
> 
> i have a different opinion on stealth. i think stealth is very important, especially in an attacking role, where you'd want to evade SAMs and not be seen on the radars till the last few seconds.
> 
> for defensive doctrine, stealth isn't that important.



That's why Russians have made long range A to G missiles that will take out any radar base long before they can detect the presence of PAK-FA.


----------



## inddef

jsf would've been a better bet than pak-fa for india because :

1) lockheed martin has made f22 !
2) the development is mostly done. will enter production a good 4 years before pak-fa.
3) its a true stealth aircraft.
4) american bvraams will probably maintain lead over russian ones (maybe asraam / mbda ones will be an option the hal-fgfa but the su30s run russian bvraams)
5) we could've bought our way into jsf program with the same money commitment we've made to russia.
6) it works for most indian needs and we have enough su-30s for deep strike.
7) it'll almost certainly be superior to the j-xx, which is china's first attempt.

now i am a naive outsider but thats how i see it. maybe pak-fa will surprise by being better than jsf and/or f22, but i am skeptical.


----------



## Tshering22

inddef said:


> the thing is that with the pak-fa we're choosing to reinvent the wheel instead of joining a robust program.
> 
> i know that we have a different a/f dotrcine preferring twin engines and higher ranges, but yet stealth is priceless.


Buddy, joining PAKFA programme was the best thing we have done till this date. I myself was surprised that our dumb government finally listened to IAF's concerns for once when I heard the joining. Let's see some facts:

1) We are not going to be facing either F-22 or JSF anytime in the future as none of its wielders are our enemies.

2) China might have an impressive manufacturing capabilities coupled with massive money but if Russians who are ages ahead in aeronautics despite the setback they had in 90s, are facing issues, so will the Chinese. Stealth tech is new to Asia and Eurasia and there will be trials and errors from both of them and even us with our AMCA.

3) As Devianz said, UK pumped billions in the JSF still what did it get out of it? A customer-supplier relationship even then. In Pak Fa.. we aren't getting the same situation.

4) Ignore F-35 and F-22 for now and look at our surroundings. Pakistan isn't going to get JSF for free anytime soon since the program itself is in trouble with money issues despite the tech it promises. China is a skilled country in manufacturing and has rapidly climbed the ladder of success in defense but an impressive economy with manufacturing skills and killer defense budget doesn't essentially translate to a raptor equivalent.

We didn't even know about J-10's existence till 2007-8! Therefore no matter what, we aren't going to be knowing what the Chinese have until they wish to show us. Therefore over-estimating them is a big mistake. Like underestimating is wrong, so is over-estimating.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## inddef

Tshering22 said:


> Buddy, joining PAKFA programme was the best thing we have done till this date. I myself was surprised that our dumb government finally listened to IAF's concerns for once when I heard the joining. Let's see some facts:
> 
> 1) We are not going to be facing either F-22 or JSF anytime in the future as none of its wielders are our enemies.
> 
> 2) China might have an impressive manufacturing capabilities coupled with massive money but if Russians who are ages ahead in aeronautics despite the setback they had in 90s, are facing issues, so will the Chinese. Stealth tech is new to Asia and Eurasia and there will be trials and errors from both of them and even us with our AMCA.
> 
> 3) As Devianz said, UK pumped billions in the JSF still what did it get out of it? A customer-supplier relationship even then. In Pak Fa.. we aren't getting the same situation.
> 
> 4) Ignore F-35 and F-22 for now and look at our surroundings. Pakistan isn't going to get JSF for free anytime soon since the program itself is in trouble with money issues despite the tech it promises. China is a skilled country in manufacturing and has rapidly climbed the ladder of success in defense but an impressive economy with manufacturing skills and killer defense budget doesn't essentially translate to a raptor equivalent.
> 
> We didn't even know about J-10's existence till 2007-8! Therefore no matter what, we aren't going to be knowing what the Chinese have until they wish to show us. Therefore over-estimating them is a big mistake. Like underestimating is wrong, so is over-estimating.



1. we won't face jsf / f22 but we will face j-xx. in my opinion jsf is a better bet on being superior to j-xx than pak-fa. AMCA is a joke, we just don't have the industrial capability nor are we going to have it within the next 15 years.

2. the chinese have a strong base in almost everything needed to build a 5th gen plane. 

3. this is the most compelling point for the fgfa but i don't think our curstomization comes for free in terms of time or money. we'll learn quite a bit on the fgfa. the value of that learning is a big plus for the pak fa no doubt.

4. i think its a realistic expectation to think that china will produce something which won't be as good as jsf but close by 2020.


----------



## &#20013;&#22269;&#19975;&#23681;-ProsperThroughCo-

I have little knowledge in this field, but I do know that China now possesses things like "5 axis laser welder" and supercomputers. Things that only mostly Western countries possessed.

Surely, such things must help the J-XX program. 

Actually, I'd like to see the Russians/Indians succeed in this. That'll shut the American arrogance up..

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## inddef

&#20013;&#22269;&#19975;&#23681;-ProsperThroughCo-op;1077727 said:


> I have little knowledge in this field, but I do know that China now possesses things like "5 axis laser welder" and supercomputers. Things that only mostly Western countries possessed.
> 
> Surely, such things must help the J-XX program.
> 
> Actually, I'd like to see the Russians/Indians succeed in this. That'll shut the American arrogance up..



that last line was epic. you hope russia and india succeed and then pakistani and chinese flags.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sunny001

inddef said:


> 1. we won't face jsf / f22 but we will face j-xx. in my opinion jsf is a better bet on being superior to j-xx than pak-fa. AMCA is a joke, we just don't have the industrial capability nor are we going to have it within the next 15 years.
> 
> 2. the chinese have a strong base in almost everything needed to build a 5th gen plane.
> 
> 3. this is the most compelling point for the fgfa but i don't think our curstomization comes for free in terms of time or money. we'll learn quite a bit on the fgfa. the value of that learning is a big plus for the pak fa no doubt.
> 
> 4. i think its a realistic expectation to think that china will produce something which won't be as good as jsf but close by 2020.



Are you kidding me here? You expect China to succeed with J-xx program because they have money but you ignore Russian experience with aeronautics. Buddy, Russia had been super power for about 50 years, you know how? they just kept coming out with new toys. 

You keep repeating China would spend more. But India - Russia could spend more as well, as we develop. If we cannot match them, we could add other partners. I highly doubt Chinese could come up with a great fighter just because they have money considering no other developed country assisting them.

India could at least garner avionics and bvraams from Israel or France. But no one is helping China in this regard.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Luftwaffe

*prosperthroughco-op... Actually, I'd like to see the Russians/Indians succeed in this. That'll shut the American arrogance up*

I smell jealously. 

What does F-22/F-35 and top technologies have to do with arrogancey, If russians are competent enough they're welcome to develop and succeed in respective fields. 

americans have all the rights to be "proud", they did hard work and spent alot of time and money to come to this stage to become the technological masters.


----------



## ambidex

Though i am not optimistic about PAKFA cause its still a distant adventure for India. In Punjabi we say ''vekh begani chopree mat lalchaiyea jeeb''. Its still not ours.
But i have found a very good read specially for those who are distrusting its capabilities. Please note Russians are Pitching it as an evolutionary design. It speaks every thing 

Assessing the Sukhoi PAK-FA / ????????????? ??????????? ???????? ????????? ???????

Enjoy.


----------



## inddef

sunny001 said:


> Are you kidding me here? You expect China to succeed with J-xx program because they have money but you ignore Russian experience with aeronautics. Buddy, Russia had been super power for about 50 years, you know how? they just kept coming out with new toys.
> 
> You keep repeating China would spend more. But India - Russia could spend more as well, as we develop. If we cannot match them, we could add other partners. I highly doubt Chinese could come up with a great fighter just because they have money considering no other developed country assisting them.
> 
> India could at least garner avionics and bvraams from Israel or France. But no one is helping China in this regard.



my point is that largely irrespective of what china does, we'd have been better served to go with jsf.


----------



## sunny001

inddef said:


> my point is that largely irrespective of what china does, we'd have been better served to go with jsf.



Actually we are far worse if we had gone for JSF. It would just be Client-Owner relationship. We wouldn't have learn a single thing out of it. Also, we don't need JSF to counter China or Pakistan. With PAK FA, you get to work on the project, may be on avionics or on two seat version. Because it's a joint venture, you could tweak with the machine to fit your needs. you can gain lot of knowledge on fighter jets which could ultimately be useful for our own AMCA.

By the way, How do you know JSF would be better than PAK-FA? Did you read a report that we didn't? Were there any tests conducted? Can you absolutely guarantee that Russians would come up with an inferior fighter to JSF.


----------



## ptldM3

somebozo said:


> Better feature set has been offered on F35 and there is a lot of skeptism over calling T50 a fifth generation figher. It lacks a lot compared to western capability. Russians are notrious for such wet dreams..relics of communism when they dreamed about beating the west.



Jesus, what are those better featrures? When did you get access to clasified information about both fighters?

And be more specific when using vague words such as "lacks a lot". There has been many myths about Russia lagging in this and that, but at the end of the day its fan boy with their vague claims.



Jigs said:


> Russians are still stuck in the past they are trying to do ultra maneuverability for a 5 gen environment. *What they need to focus on is advanced avionics and stealth. Something tells me besides the more stealthy design alot of stuff will be a improved transfer from the SU-35BM.*
> We will see how it all turns out.



The pak-fa has all new avionics, some avionics are based off of the BM but the BM was only a platform for new technology, in any case the BM has only recently been comming into service.



True_Pakistan_Zindabad said:


> I didn't see anything special at all from the T-50 prototypes.



And what constitutes as "special"?



True_Pakistan_Zindabad said:


> Yeah so what if it flew 7 months ago? *It displays nothing close to having stealth characteristics*. I'm also not the one having wet dreams only 7 months after a test flight.



So you are an expert on 'stealth'? Interesting....but back to the real world, the pak-fa has nearly all of the requirments or basic features of a 'stealth' aircraft, sloped nose, angled fusalage, vertical stabalizers and internal weapons bays, the only feature that needs refinment is the lower fusalage. And a friendly reminder, what you seen flying in January will not be the same pak-fa that will go into production.



True_Pakistan_Zindabad said:


> Just wait for FC-20. *J-10 in itself is a big slap to Russia. Usually China is so dependent on them, yet they produced an Asian F-16 all on their own*.



First off all, the J-10 still uses engines imported from Russia, which makes your analogy of a slap in the face mute and utterly laughable. second of all according to Janes Russian engineers helped develope the J-10.

Lastly, what makes the J-10 an Asian F-16? Better yet what on earth is that suppost to mean? Is it as capable as the F-16? Is it produced and exported in large numbers like the F-16?



inddef said:


> the chinese defense budget is already 2x russia and will get to 3x or more within 5 years.
> 
> russia is the wrong bet in the long term.



Firstly, change your flag, secondly have you ever factored in the Chinese man power and all of the funds it requires? Have you ever factored in the fact that Russia has a well esstablished military complex which has decades of expirience? Have you ever considered Russia's growing economy and increasing military spending? What about the fact that Russia plans to raise its GDP military spending from 2.6 to 3.5.



inddef said:


> thats not what i am saying. *i am saying that chinese aircraft will almost certainly be qualitatively superior to russians within the next 10-15 years because of the huge funding gap.*
> 
> the only way to counter this is to buy into top end western r&d by paying top $ with preferably offsets to spur domestic industry and jobs. indo-russian JVs will be underfunded compared to chinese projects in this period.



Not to be disrespeceful to China but the WS-10 has been full of problems and even now it's is questionable weather it is 100&#37; completed, even if it is, it's reliability and service life is also questionable. In any case, the WS-10 is still behind Russian engines, so now the question is, how does China surpass Russia when it still strugles with the basics such as engines?

Remember even in the 1990's when money was scarce Russia still managed to stay competitive, but now, there is money. Moreover, all the money in the world will not guarantee that your technology will be superior let alone equivelant, look at *Israel*, Israel has a very small budget, yet it manages to create some of the finest equipment on earth, but why? The reason is because many of Israel's scientists came from Russia, Europe oand the USA, thus they brought their invaluble experience. 

Moral of the story, Israel relied on brains and not money.



Frankenstein said:


> *This Russian Fifth-Generation Fighter program seems so dead *unlike Raptor or JSF, we are talking about 5 gen program and Russia happens to be second country to come up with, but still....





And it would be dead how......? 

Lets review, the first test flight was earlier this year, by now there has been atleast 16 know test flights, another prototype is expected by the end of the year and many systems such as AESA X and L band radars are in the testing phases.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## SBD-3

The way I see it that what most of us dont understand is that 5t gen is not merely designing a stealth shape and advanced avionics....lemme tell you what raptor has 
1-Its AC systems are completely monitored by computer, all pilot has to do is to focus on combat. for example, if raptor pilot fires at his target, the computer automatically adjusts the speed and hight and bay open and close time etc of aircraft to optimize the stealth profile.
2- TVC is managed by Computer which automatically adjusts the TVC nozzles to improve maneuverability.
3- plane is stuffed with sensors all around even the skin of plane is a sensor which captures all the available data,automatically process it and all pilot has to do is to take decision.( Russians have Used radars all around to address this but I wonder it will severly hamper the stealth profile as you're less stealthy if you have 5 beacons (raders) on you as compared to one)
4- System controls the maneuverability to sustain in order to prevent AC from going into over G position and thus ensures the long term health of AC.

these are only few things that i witnessed during a documentary on F-22. there is a lot of classified stuff which should not less that marvelous.


----------



## Chinaownseverything

sunny001 said:


> Are you kidding me here? You expect China to succeed with J-xx program because they have money but you ignore Russian experience with aeronautics. Buddy, Russia had been super power for about 50 years, you know how? they just kept coming out with new toys.
> 
> You keep repeating China would spend more. But India - Russia could spend more as well, as we develop. If we cannot match them, we could add other partners. I highly doubt Chinese could come up with a great fighter just because they have money considering no other developed country assisting them.
> 
> India could at least garner avionics and bvraams from Israel or France. But no one is helping China in this regard.




Just because they have experience about airframes and jet engines does not translate into the ability to produce a stealth fighter. 

The T-50 will be Russia's first test plane as well as China's first stealth plane.

China has also been a military developer for many years, they were technically awake since 1950 and have been trailing Russia being around 9 years behind in everything.

Red China: Fire Arrow - TIME

China's military budget is also deceptive, they can hire chinese engineers more cheaply (1.3 billion people also means a larger number of top percentile engineers) and produce development supplies more cheaply.


----------



## sunny001

Chinaownseverything said:


> Just because they have experience about airframes and jet engines does not translate into the ability to produce a stealth fighter.
> 
> The T-50 will be Russia's first test plane as well as China's first stealth plane.
> 
> China has also been a military developer for many years, they were technically awake since 1950 and have been trailing Russia being around 9 years behind in everything.
> 
> Red China: Fire Arrow - TIME
> 
> China's military budget is also deceptive, they can hire chinese engineers more cheaply (1.3 billion people also means a larger number of top percentile engineers) and produce development supplies more cheaply.




We know buddy, we are not demeaning China, but that doesn't mean that Russia would come up with inferior jet. 

Even with a huge population, you need to learn high technology from some where. If it has to be built indigenously, there would be a lot of research, trial and error developments. That's where Russia is ahead of you guys.

China does have human capital because of huge population but same could be said about India with a similar strength in population. In theory, we should also produce lot of cheap engineers too. Finally, one advantage we have is India could garner support from western countries but China can't.


----------



## Materialistic

> That is so common. Everyone boasts about their machine. But still the Russians are no where near LM when it comes to boasting.



Boasting but day dreaming is still different. A thing that has hardly flown and a platform that is totally new to the world even America might find problems with their 5th gen later, then how can they say its a success !! Its nothing other than chest thumping.



> FGFA (PAK-FA's twin seater version) will focus on more advanced avionics with sub systems from Israel and several European countries integrated into a single machine much like what's been done with the Su-30 MKI.



So, it comes back to the point that we all mentioned, Russia can't match the west in tech, since it is going for their tech and this proves this aircraft isn't completely indigenous too if the above holds true. 

And also how can they challenge the USA when they themselves are relying on Israeli and European technology !!!


----------



## Jigs

Chinaownseverything said:


> Just because they have experience about airframes and jet engines does not translate into the ability to produce a stealth fighter.
> 
> The T-50 will be Russia's first test plane as well as China's first stealth plane.
> 
> China has also been a military developer for many years, they were technically awake since 1950 and have been trailing Russia being around 9 years behind in everything.
> 
> Red China: Fire Arrow - TIME
> 
> China's military budget is also deceptive, they can hire chinese engineers more cheaply (1.3 billion people also means a larger number of top percentile engineers) and produce development supplies more cheaply.



I always though Chinese policy was just to reverse engineer Russian equipment and gain knowledge. Is that not true ? Just look at the current fighter force. China is behind Russia in R&D by a large margin if they were not behind in this department they would not have turned to such heavy reverse engineering to have a credible fighter force. Which still lacks in the 4th gen department so jumping to 5th gen capability will be pretty difficult for the Chinese seeing as they for the most part have minimal development in a 4.5 gen environment. Which i am sure they will turn to Russians once again for some sort of tech. 

Su-27=Russian
J-11=SU-27
Su-30MKK=Russian
J-7=MiG-21
J-10=Lavi program=Israeli program with billions of U.S. investment into the program so the Chinese got the know how of western tech from Israelis which influenced this program.

J-8 was really the only aircraft that saw Chinese research and development but again was based on soviet MiG-21 tech transfer and a number of other factors. The aircraft itself did go into a good redesign phase and made more capable but again the soviet influence was there.


----------



## Chinaownseverything

sunny001 said:


> We know buddy, we are not demeaning China, but that doesn't mean that Russia would come up with inferior jet.
> 
> Even with a huge population, you need to learn high technology from some where. If it has to be built indigenously, there would be a lot of research, trial and error developments. That's where Russia is ahead of you guys.
> 
> China does have human capital because of huge population but same could be said about India with a similar strength in population. In theory, we should also produce lot of cheap engineers too. Finally, one advantage we have is India could garner support from western countries but China can't.




The USA doesn't share its stealth technology with Europe, why would they share it with India?

Stealth technology is a relatively new field

And russia has only been doing research into stealth technology when they started working on the T-50 during 2002.

Russia has an advantage in well established fields like Aerodynamics, guidance systems, propulsion systems.

But they are starting literally from scratch this time with stealth technology


----------



## inddef

well, thats kinda the crux of what i was trying to say. stealth is a new thing being attempted by both china and russia and for india jsf would've been a surer bet at fielding a 5th gen stealth aircraft.


----------



## sunny001

Chinaownseverything said:


> The USA doesn't share its stealth technology with Europe, why would they share it with India?
> 
> Stealth technology is a relatively new field
> 
> And russia has only been doing research into stealth technology when they started working on the T-50 during 2002.
> 
> Russia has an advantage in well established fields like Aerodynamics, guidance systems, propulsion systems.
> 
> But they are starting literally from scratch this time with stealth technology



I wasn't talking about US but of Israel, France, EADS etc. They have helped us with avionics before, they could do it again. 

Stealth technology is advanced but there is no reason to believe Russia can't do it yet China can do it. I would place my eggs on russian basket than chinese one. Sorry if that offends you.


----------



## sunny001

inddef said:


> well, thats kinda the crux of what i was trying to say. stealth is a new thing being attempted by both china and russia and for india jsf would've been a surer bet at fielding a 5th gen stealth aircraft.



I have already given you the advantages of JV with Russia. We need to worry when Chinese get stealth technology. But there is no reason to believe that China which hadn't build prototype yet would succeed but Russia wouldn't. Based on experience that Russia has, I would bet my buck on Russia than China. 

Also, we are only spending $4 billion on R&D. If we do succeed, there's going to be a lot of dividends. Even if we fail, we would have gained a lot of knowledge on fighter Jets which is invaluable in itself. Also that kind of money wouldn't bankrupt our country. And JSF isn't going anywhere, we could buy them whenever we need them.


----------



## inddef

sunny001 said:


> I have already given you the advantages of JV with Russia. We need to worry when Chinese get stealth technology. But there is no reason to believe that China which hadn't build prototype yet would succeed but Russia wouldn't. Based on experience that Russia has, I would bet my buck on Russia than China.
> 
> Also, we only spending $4 billion on R&D. If we succeed, there's going to be a lot of dividends. Even if we fail, we would have gained a lot of knowledge on fighter Jets which is invaluable in itself. Also that kind of money wouldn't bankrupt our country. And JSF isn't going anywhere, we could buy them whenever we need them.



india isn't rich enough to risk 4B on development cost and a few years of lag time in induction on a project that might not deliver.

'knowledge of fighter jets' is an abstract silly idea. hal will get mostly software related work on the project and its not going to learn anywhere near whats needed to do an indigenous 5th gen plane.

its much more important to be battle ready. that can't be compromised.

china already has prototypes flying around. we just won't hear about it till they are a couple of years or so from mass production.


----------



## sunny001

inddef said:


> india isn't rich enough to risk 4B on development cost and a few years of lag time in induction on a project that might not deliver.
> 
> 'knowledge of fighter jets' is an abstract silly idea. hal will get mostly software related work on the project and its not going to learn anywhere near whats needed to do an indigenous 5th gen plane.
> 
> its much more important to be battle ready. that can't be compromised.
> 
> china already has prototypes flying around. we just won't hear about it till they are a couple of years or so from mass production.




$4B are not for nothing. Like I said, there would be a lot of knowledge gain which would value more than what we are spending. You wouldn't get that with JSF. They wouldn't even let us to modify it to fit our needs and on top of that there would be inspections. Remember US is no one's friend. It makes friendship for need. When there won't be a need, they couldn't care less of India. Which is why we need our own Jet, something that could be built in our own country.

Also,4B is not todays money. They are meant for research *including Indian research*, for next 7-8 years. I am pretty sure, military budget could accommodate it. We don't need to draw special amount for it.

Considering how much they spent on LCA, Arjun etc, I think this is the most intelligent investment they have ever made.


----------



## inddef

sunny001 said:


> $4B are not for nothing. Like I said, there would be a lot of knowledge gain which would value more than what we are spending. You wouldn't get that with JSF. They wouldn't let us to modify it to fit our needs.
> 
> Also,4B is not todays money. They are meant for research including Indian research, for next 7-8 years. I am pretty sure, military budget could accommodate it. We don't need to draw special amount for it.



its not just about the 4B. its also about the added risk of not having a proper 5th gen fighter at the end of the process. this risk is a major risk because failure would be a big security compromise and a setback of 5+ years on plans to induct a true stealth fighter.

plus 4B is a big amount for india no matter what. there are lots of other projects that could be funded with that money.

we're not going to get much intellectual property with pak-fa either (we'll continue to heavily depend on russia after this).

i see your point, but i think i am risk averse in matters of defence.


----------



## sunny001

inddef said:


> its not just about the 4B. its also about the added risk of not having a proper 5th gen fighter at the end of the process. this risk is a major risk because failure would be a big security compromise and a setback of 5+ years on plans to induct a true stealth fighter.
> 
> plus 4B is a big amount for india no matter what. there are lots of other projects that could be funded with that money.
> 
> we're not going to get much intellectual property with pak-fa either (we'll continue to heavily depend on russia after this).
> 
> i see your point, but i think i am risk averse in matters of defence.



You know what, you are the most negative person I have come across in this forum. Most Indians in this forum are extremely positive or risk seeking as you put it. But we need both to succeed. Good Luck in the forum.


----------



## Devianz

inddef said:


> 1. we won't face jsf / f22 but we will face j-xx. in my opinion jsf is a better bet on being superior to j-xx than pak-fa. AMCA is a joke, we just don't have the industrial capability nor are we going to have it within the next 15 years.
> 
> 2. the chinese have a strong base in almost everything needed to build a 5th gen plane.
> 
> 3. this is the most compelling point for the fgfa but i don't think our curstomization comes for free in terms of time or money. we'll learn quite a bit on the fgfa. the value of that learning is a big plus for the pak fa no doubt.
> 
> 4. i think its a realistic expectation to think that china will produce something which won't be as good as jsf but close by 2020.



OK... here goes....
1) Yes JSF maybe better bet... But the bottom line is, it does not fit the bill as an air superiority fighter. JSF fits perfectly into the USAF infrastructure because they also have considerable amount of Raptors. Other countries who don't have a Raptor equivalent are already crying foul because the JSF is not meeting their expectations.

2) Care to ellaborate... You think they have a stronger base than Russians. Last time I checked they are way behind in radar, engines and avionics. JF-17 is looking for western avionics... something PAF can do, but PLAAF cannot.

3) Of course it doesn't come for free.. That's why we are investing billions on FGFA and not on PAK-FA. To this point PAK-FA is a 100&#37; Russian project.

4) I would like to see them produce something equal to an F-16 block50 first.


China is not to be underestimated but neither are the Russians.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Devianz

Materialistic said:


> Boasting but day dreaming is still different. A thing that has hardly flown and a platform that is totally new to the world even America might find problems with their 5th gen later, then how can they say its a success !! Its nothing other than chest thumping.
> 
> 
> 
> So, it comes back to the point that we all mentioned, Russia can't match the west in tech, since it is going for their tech and this proves this aircraft isn't completely indigenous too if the above holds true.
> 
> And also how can they challenge the USA when they themselves are relying on Israeli and European technology !!!



Please point to an era where Russians have been overly behind Americans in terms of Fighter aircraft manufacturing and then decide whether its day dreaming or not.


----------



## Devianz

inddef said:


> its not just about the 4B. its also about the added risk of not having a proper 5th gen fighter at the end of the process. this risk is a major risk because failure would be a big security compromise and a setback of 5+ years on plans to induct a true stealth fighter.
> 
> plus 4B is a big amount for india no matter what. there are lots of other projects that could be funded with that money.
> 
> we're not going to get much intellectual property with pak-fa either (we'll continue to heavily depend on russia after this).
> 
> i see your point, but i think i am risk averse in matters of defence.



I think we are spending upwards of $ 5B and its not a big amount if you look at some of our recent procurements. Heck we just order C-17s each costing $ 500M+. Each year our MOD is returning billions of dollars of unspent money back to the treasury. 

As for part which says the risk of not having a proper 5th gen fighter.
What according to you makes up a 5th gen fighter? And how many of those features are available on JSF?
You think that JSF is a true 5th gen and miles ahead of present 4.5gens... Well EADS/BAE and Dassault would disagree with you.


----------



## humanfirst

There is no question about the stealth comparable to f35 in pak fa.if it wasn't stealthy enough,india would have gone for f35 instead.Other than that pak-fa leads in payload(lol i've heard f35 can carry only 2 a2g weapons!),service ceiling,thrust,3d thrust vectoring,supercruise,radar range,ferry range and weapons of much longer range(ramjet powered bvr aams of 400 km range,radar guided missiles having range of 250 km!!)India getting this beast with tot is better than getting f35 with many strings attached,of which many partner countries are not satisfied either.


----------



## Stalker

inddef said:


> the chinese defense budget is already 2x russia and will get to 3x or more within 5 years.
> 
> russia is the wrong bet in the long term.


We have lots and lots of funds when compared to Israel...still we are unable to produce equipment of Israeli standard. We are buying from them. same would be the case with China..they might be having funds, but in no way they are going to buy decades of EXPERIENCE with it! They are still unable to produce fighter jet engine...and they are killing their innovativeness by reverse engineering!


----------



## Markus

Stalker said:


> We have lots and lots of funds when compared to Israel...still we are unable to produce equipment of Israeli standard. We are buying from them. same would be the case with China..they might be having funds, but in no way they are going to buy decades of EXPERIENCE with it! They are still unable to produce fighter jet engine...and they are killing their innovativeness by reverse engineering!



Reverse Engineering is an art that very few countries have. It's not a joke. I will give full marks to any country capable of manufacturing a better product by reverse engineering it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GMAIL

Markus said:


> Reverse Engineering is an art that very few countries have. It's not a joke. I will give full marks to any country capable of manufacturing a better product by reverse engineering it.



yes you are right but here we are talking about 5th gen fighter 

they are still strugling for j10b and how any expect that they can make batter 5th gen plan as compare to russia ????


----------



## your fear

sunny001 said:


> You know what, you are the most negative person I have come across in this forum. Most Indians in this forum are extremely positive or risk seeking as you put it. But we need both to succeed. Good Luck in the forum.



are you sure about his nationality


----------



## Markus

GMAIL said:


> yes you are right but here we are talking about 5th gen fighter
> 
> they are still strugling for j10b and how any expect that they can make batter 5th gen plan as compare to russia ????



Reverse engineering cannot and should not be applied to a machine as a whole. China may successfully reverse engineer the systems and sub systems of any existing product and use the same in their own projects. Mind you, even DRDO has come with their own versions of many electronic/electrical components of existing similar products.

But China, given their vast experience in reverse engineering can undertake it on larger scale.

Its not that any new plane will have all new components - it may share some systems from existing platforms which can be changed, customized or reverse engineered to fit ur requirements.


----------



## GMAIL

Markus said:


> Reverse engineering cannot and should not be applied to a machine as a whole. China may successfully reverse engineer the systems and sub systems of any existing product and use the same in their own projects. Mind you, even DRDO has come with their own versions of many electronic/electrical components of existing similar products.
> 
> But China, given their vast experience in reverse engineering can undertake it on larger scale.
> 
> Its not that any new plane will have all new components - it may share some systems from existing platforms which can be changed, customized or reverse engineered to fit ur requirements.



but still they are way way behind from russia in this field 

only chance for them to make 5gen ac is that they can join the PakFa program or can buy directly from russia cause India is Partner in FGFA not PAKFA 

its highly doubtful but still possible


----------



## Thomas

People should give Russia credit for having the ability to build the T-50 from scratch rather then simply rip off another design and reverse engineer it. For a first generation Russian design it may not be up to the same standards yet as the F-22. But I'm sure they will learn and upgrade future stealth designs, Just like the U.S. did in it's program. 

Where Russia and China are lacking right now is expertise and ability to manufacture in quantity many of the subsystems that go into a 5th generation fighter. That is what has slowed down production and testing.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## &#20013;&#22269;&#19975;&#23681;-ProsperThroughCo-

Luftwaffe said:


> *prosperthroughco-op... Actually, I'd like to see the Russians/Indians succeed in this. That'll shut the American arrogance up*
> 
> I smell jealously.
> 
> What does F-22/F-35 and top technologies have to do with arrogancey, If russians are competent enough they're welcome to develop and succeed in respective fields.
> 
> americans have all the rights to be "proud", they did hard work and spent alot of time and money to come to this stage to become the technological masters.



Actually, they have bragging rights yes, but maybe they will think again next time they say "China is at least 10 years behind..", "No way the Chinese can make it", "the time the J-XX is finished, we will have something better" etc. So they'll think twice before critisising China and having exercises close to China. Best would be if China could have naval exercises with Cuba..

And to the flag issues.. there were no Indian or Russian flag here


----------



## inddef

lol. why is my concern about india's national interest under question. i am just concerned that we might've made the wrong choice.

maybe the alarmism over china turns out to be false, but i am inclined to think the the US is the right way to go for sourcing fighter a/c in the future. thats all.


----------



## Devianz

inddef said:


> maybe the alarmism over china turns out to be false, but* i am inclined to think the the US is the right way to go for sourcing fighter a/c in the future.* thats all.



Most Indians will disagree with you.


----------



## Chinaownseverything

What people here don't seem to understand is that the F-22 Raptor is an ENTIRELY NEW BEAST.

What makes the F-22 so powerful is the it is made from new technology, the meat and potatoes of the F-22 are the super light metal that makes up the plane, the radiation absorbing paint, the control system that automates the F-22 for maximum stealth, and the computer system.

The F-22 is something that is built by combining EMERGING technologies in the fields of Nanotechnology, Metamaterials, Composite materials, computing.

Russia is probably around 20-30 years behind in these fields, the Flankers while impressive are nothing more than a demonstration that they have completely mastered the technology in the 1970's. They can engineer a plane perfectly using 1970 technology but will they be able to do this in 2010?

Not only does China have a BIGGER BUDGET but China has demonstrated mastery of these fields that surpasses even that of the United States.

*China is the world leader in nanotechnology*



> Nanotechnology Now - Press Release: "Nanotechnology In China Is Focusing On Innovations And New Products. Strong Growth"
> 
> China is now one of the world leaders in terms of its number of newly registered nanotechnology firms, nanotechnology publications and nanotech related patents. Over the past three years, the number of companies in the field of nanotechnology in China has grown and reached over 800. This growth rate is very rapid and it has yet to show signs of slowing down.





> Nanotechnology research papers: The world?s most prolific authors
> *
> Nanotechnology research papers:
> The worlds most prolific authors*


*
China has demonstrated mastery of meta materials*



> Chinese scientists create metamaterial black hole
> 
> Chinese scientists create metamaterial black hole



*China leads in composite materials, polymer science, and metallurgical engineering (this will be needed to create the metal used)*



> EducationNews.org - Get ready for China&#039;s domination of science
> 
> It now also produces 20 per cent of global output in materials sciences, with a leading position in composites, ceramics and polymer science and a strong presence in crystallography and metallurgical engineering.



*China has demonstrated mastery of control systems, by designing the Shanghai Maglev control system*



> Shanghai Maglev Development Transportation Company uses MapleSim in their Modeling Projects - Maplesoft


*
China has demonstrated mastery of advanced computing using self developed loongson chip*



> Loongson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> On December 26, 2007, China revealed its first Loongson based supercomputer with performance 1 teraflops of peak performance, and about 350 GFLOPS measured by linpack in Hefei, designated as KD-50-I[23]. This supercomputer was designed by a joint team led by Professor Chen Guoliang (&#38472;&#22269;&#33391 at the computer science technology department of the University of Science and Technology of China and ICT (the secondary contractor). KD-50-I is the first Chinese built supercomputer to utilize domestic Chinese CPUs, with a total of more than 330 Loongson-2F CPUs, and nodes are interconnected by ethernet. The size of the computer was roughly equivalent to a household refrigerator and the cost was less than RMB 800,000 (approximately USD $120,000, EURO 80.000 ).



Russia may be able to develop the airframe and the engine but will they be able to develop the paint? or the metal used to construct the airframe to make it light but strong and heat resistant? Or the control system that makes it operate at perfect stealth?

And there is no shame in "importing" parts needed to build planes from other countries. Even the USA imports parts that they need for their military planes and ships from China.



> Dangerous Fakes - BusinessWeek
> 
> Dangerous Fakes
> How counterfeit, defective computer components from China are getting into U.S. warplanes and ships

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SBD-3

GMAIL said:


> yes you are right but here we are talking about 5th gen fighter
> 
> they are still strugling for j10b and how any expect that they can make batter 5th gen plan as compare to russia ????



struugling for J-10?.....J-10B is about to be inducted in PLAAF this year boy....and you call it struggling??? do visit J-10/FC-20 MRCA thread


----------



## ptldM3

Chinaownseverything said:


> Russia is probably around 20-30 years behind in these fields, the Flankers while impressive are nothing more than a demonstration that they have completely mastered the technology in the 1970's. They can engineer a plane perfectly using 1970 technology but will they be able to do this in 2010?



You are very wrong about the Flanker using technology from the 1970's. Firstly, todays Flankers have nothing in common with the Flankers of the 1970's....absolutely nothing. Radars, fire and controle system, EW system, engines, OLS and fly-by-wire system are radically different from anything in the 70's, 80's, and even 90's. Today's Flanker, the SU-35BM, can be programed to complete a mission, it also has an accident ovoidence system which will prevent the pilot from performing a maneuver that will lead to an accident. 

So yes they are doing it in 2010.







Chinaownseverything said:


> Russia may be able to develop the airframe and the engine but will they be able to develop the paint?



We have been working on RAM for decades, infact, it's nothing fantastic, Radar absorbent material has been around since WWII.





Chinaownseverything said:


> or the metal used to construct the airframe to make it light but strong and heat resistant?



The F-22's airframe is made up of titanium and aluminum, in fact, it's 67&#37; titanium and 22% aluminum, both metals have been used in Russian aircraft for decades. For instance, the Mig-15 had aluminum parts and the Mig-25 had titanium parts, this was the 50's and 70's respectively. Clearly the pak-fa's airframe is light and strong because it uses the above metals, but it is also made up of other composite materials such as a new plastic honeycomb material that is extremely light, strong and able to absorb radar waves.


Next time be careful when throwing around vague statements such as Russia is 20-30 years behind.



Chinaownseverything said:


> Or the control system that makes it operate at perfect stealth?




Expalin this "control system"?



As for the pak-fa being Russia's first attempt at stealth, that's true, but the F-117 was America's first attempt at stealth too, and this was during the 1970's, and as we all know the F-117 was a great LO platform.

As for people saying the pak-fa doesn't look very stealthy, well any aircraft looks poor when it's covered in primer.

Here is a painted pak-fa:





Stealthy enough?




Russia also has several other stealth programs, a bomber which little is know about, and several UCAV's.

Here is one of them.





This is important becuase now a sysytem of trial and error can be used.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## syntax_error

ptldM3 said:


> Russia also has several other stealth programs, a bomber which little is know about, and several UCAV's.
> 
> Here is one of them.



hey is this the Mig Skat ???
wats its current status .


----------



## Chinaownseverything

> You are very wrong about the Flanker using technology from the 1970's. Firstly, todays Flankers have nothing in common with the Flankers of the 1970's....absolutely nothing. Radars, fire and controle system, EW system, engines, OLS and fly-by-wire system are radically different from anything in the 70's, 80's, and even 90's. Today's Flanker, the SU-35BM, can be programed to complete a mission, it also has an accident ovoidence system which will prevent the pilot from performing a maneuver that will lead to an accident.
> 
> So yes they are doing it in 2010.



The since of all of this is from the 1970's its just a 1970's plane with better engine, radar, avionics etc...








> We have been working on RAM for decades, infact, it's nothing fantastic, Radar absorbent material has been around since WWII.



The creation of RAM paint is done on the nano scale. It is not whether it is new or not but the quality of the paint that can be created.

Using a RAM paint that is publicly available will most likely be inferior to the ones the USA and China are going to be using. China has the worlds largest nanotechnology industry followed by the USA while Russia's industry is behind countries like Italy. Most of the major scientific breakthroughs in nanotechnology are coming from China and the USA. 




> The F-22's airframe is made up of titanium and aluminum, in fact, it's 67% titanium and 22% aluminum, both metals have been used in Russian aircraft for decades. For instance, the Mig-15 had aluminum parts and the Mig-25 had titanium parts, this was the 50's and 70's respectively. Clearly the pak-fa's airframe is light and strong because it uses the above metals, but it is also made up of other composite materials such as a new plastic honeycomb material that is extremely light, strong and able to absorb radar waves.



Nobody knows what the F-22 airframe is made out of, a quick google search brings up many different sites all giving a different percentage of its composition. But it is well known that the F-22 uses many exotic materials in its airframe. 

Again my post is mostly saying that I have doubts that Russia can produce exotic materials on the same level. Especially since the Industry of things like composite materials, thermo plastics, nano materials etc... are practically non existent in Russia. Its like claiming that Russia can build the best car on earth yet Russia has no car industry and everybody is buying Japanese cars instead. The key to the F-22's power is these exotic materials and powerful computer (microprocessor design industry is almost non existent in Russia) systems so far all Russia has shown is that they can make a plane out of metal.



> Next time be careful when throwing around vague statements such as Russia is 20-30 years behind.



This may be only go up to 2003, but if you look at the numbers behind it the Russian decline in science is speeding up.






Russia's lack of high tech industries only confirms my suspicions 




> Expalin this "control system"?


Depending on how the F-22 moves depending on the orientation and the speed of the plane at different angles and different speeds will effect the visibility on radar. The control system is designed so that the F-22 stays in the best orientation at all times

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jigs

^^^^^
So the F-16 Block 60 is just a 1970s plane with some bells and whistles ? Seeing as it isn't even classified as a 4th gen fighter i would think otherwise.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Devianz

Chinaownseverything said:


> The since of all of this is from the 1970's its just a 1970's plane with better engine, radar, avionics etc...


Ahem.... so the latest flankers, falcons, eagles, fulcrums all have better engines, radar, avionics jammers and what ever. The airframes are built with latest tech and materials, they are stronger and lighter than they were in the 70s or 80s right? So now the question is doesn't that make them a brand new aircraft altogether. The only thing they share from the 80s are the names and the airframes designs which however as we all know are excellent in terms of aerodynamic performance and we are yet to see many modern fighters that are aerodynamically better than the above mentioned fighters. 



> The creation of RAM paint is done on the nano scale. It is not whether it is new or not but the quality of the paint that can be created.
> 
> Using a RAM paint that is publicly available will most likely be inferior to the ones the USA and China are going to be using. China has the worlds largest nanotechnology industry followed by the USA while Russia's industry is behind countries like Italy. Most of the major scientific breakthroughs in nanotechnology are coming from China and the USA.



Do you have any idea on how much maintenance is required to maintain the stealthiness of F-22. Russia has been working on RAM for a long time. 
Now lets consider your hypothesis and say that ok so you guys got advanced stealth... But what about other more important parts like engines, radars, avionics, jammers and not to forget aerodynamics of an aircrafts. 
You still have to make a stealthy enough airframe that doesn't compromise on aerodynamic performance. There have been reports of Russians developing RAM paints that can reduce RCS by 10-15 times (sorry can't find source now, maybe Russian members can help). India has huge expertise in composite materials from their experience on LCA... most of the outer skin is made up of composites. 



> Nobody knows what the F-22 airframe is made out of, a quick google search brings up many different sites all giving a different percentage of its composition. But it is well known that the F-22 uses many exotic materials in its airframe.
> 
> Again my post is mostly saying that I have doubts that Russia can produce exotic materials on the same level. Especially since the Industry of things like composite materials, thermo plastics, nano materials etc... are practically non existent in Russia. Its like claiming that Russia can build the best car on earth yet Russia has no car industry and everybody is buying Japanese cars instead. The key to the F-22's power is these exotic materials and powerful computer (microprocessor design industry is almost non existent in Russia) systems so far all Russia has shown is that they can make a plane out of metal.



And what is purpose of these exotic materials? Will it allow Raptors to perform sustained 11G maneuvers? PAK-FA is already said to make use of a lot of composite materials and alloys making it as light as F-22. Maybe the materials may not be as good as Raptors but it doesn't make any significant difference either. 



> This may be only go up to 2003, but if you look at the numbers behind it the Russian decline in science is speeding up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia's lack of high tech industries only confirms my suspicions



Ohh brother.. this is utter BS. You are comparing decreasing percentage share of published articles to declining in science. First understand what that chart is about. It doesn't show the number of articles released by a country, what it shows is how much percentage of articles released throughout the world is from a particular country. Russian % share are on the decline because of improvements made by other countries. Russians might have released twice or thrice the number of articles in 2003 as compared to 1993.



> Depending on how the F-22 moves depending on the orientation and the speed of the plane at different angles and different speeds will effect the visibility on radar. The control system is designed so that the F-22 stays in the best orientation at all times


In other words, pilots are just puppets.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

Chinaownseverything said:


> The since of all of this is from the 1970's its just a 1970's plane with better engine, radar, avionics etc...





The airframe is a 1970's design with new new avionics, Just like the F-15 and F-16 are 1970's designs with new avionics, that doesn't change the fact that the above aircraft are the still the best legacy fighters on earth.





Chinaownseverything said:


> The creation of RAM paint is done on the nano scale. It is not whether it is new or not but the quality of the paint that can be created.



And you have had the chance to examine Russian nano ram? Clearly not, so i'm assuming your basing your argument on which country leads in patents and science, which is doesn't nessesarily translate into creating cutting edge military technology. Again, lets use Israel as an example, Israel is a nobody compaired to many contries. However, it continues to create some of the best systems on earth.

And don't forget India is invloved in the project too, meaning there scientists will share their knowledge.



Chinaownseverything said:


> *Using a RAM paint that is publicly available will most likely be inferior to the ones the USA and China are going to be using. *



Are you being serious because i just spit coffee all over my monitor. Who offers rams over the counter and when did Russia say it was going to use "publicly" available RAM? Whatever that is.

By your logic China should be light years ahead of Russia esspecially since the 1990' seen a decline in many scientific areas, yet to this day China has to rely on Russia to supply engines for the JF-17. 

There are many countries with big budgets and decent scientific backrounds that have failed miserably in creating a half decent platform weather it be a jet engine, a gas turbine engine, or radar. Russia still has a sizable scientific community, one of the most college graduates in Europe, very respectible institutions, and most importantly experienced and usualy well funded military firms.




Chinaownseverything said:


> China has the worlds largest nanotechnology industry followed by the USA while Russia's industry is behind countries like Italy. Most of the major scientific breakthroughs in nanotechnology are coming from China and the USA.


 

Nano technology is broad, thus being in 1st, 2nd, or 5th in a certain feild means little.

In other words there are hundreds of civilian products that derive from nano technology.

For instance, creating the best condom from nano research means squate.  and certainly has nothing t do with RAM.

The Russian military has both state owned and private companies that do reasearch and much of the time the their breakthrough do not make it to scientific journals, nor do they release their findings. I have mentioned this several time, but i will say it again, one of my realatives was in the KGB, very high in the KGB, and the KGB had a number of technologies that to this day are not officially acknowledged, and certainly will not be published in any journal.





Chinaownseverything said:


> *Nobody knows what the F-22 airframe is made out of*, a quick google search brings up many different sites all giving a different percentage of its composition. But it is well known that the F-22 uses many exotic materials in its airframe.




Boing, the people that manufacture parts for the F-22 say this:

Boeing: F-22 Raptor - F-22 Aft Fuselage Facts



> The aft fuselage is 67 percent titanium, 22 percent aluminum



Dissapointed?






Chinaownseverything said:


> Again my post is mostly saying that I have doubts that Russia can produce exotic materials on the same level. Especially since the Industry of things like composite materials, thermo plastics, nano materials etc... are practically non existent in Russia.



Like a mentioned earlier being a top thermo plastics producer or nano producer doesn't translate into into superior military technology (Israel--hint) (France--hint), infact it's a flawed argument because many of the new plastics or whatever else will not make it into military applications. And if you think the mentioned feilds are "practically non existent in Russia" then good for you but the Soviet Union and now Russia has had a long history with most of the feilds listed. Lastly, from first hand experience i know many scientific breakthroughs that come from Russia stay out of the public, so if it makes you feel better than, sure, those feilds are practically none existent.




Chinaownseverything said:


> Its like claiming that Russia can build the best car on earth yet Russia has no car industry and everybody is buying Japanese cars instead. The key to the F-22's power is these exotic materials and powerful computer (*microprocessor design industry is almost non existent in Russia)*


*




That's why Russia has microprocessors thiner than human hairs.




Chinaownseverything said:



systems so far all Russia has shown is that they can make a plane out of metal.

Click to expand...

*

Once again, Russia has used titanium, aluminum and carbon fiber for decades. In an interview an engineer spoke of a new plastic based honeycomb specifically to be used in the pak-fa, so your argumen or lack there of, is mute.

And again India is involved in the project and as we all know the Indians have extensive experience in composites.




Chinaownseverything said:


> This may be only go up to 2003, but if you look at the numbers behind it the Russian decline in science is speeding up.











Why didn't you post this:





It came from the same source you used, picking and choosing are we? Again India must aso be included since it's invloved in the project.

I said this in other forums but S&E articals mean nothing, countries such as Spain are ranked 9th and yet Spain can't produce anything meaningful. And once again, China has ranked higher than Russia for a while yet China is yet to catch up to Russia. And based on the way things are going with the pak-fa, AESA radars, stealth drones, S-400, S-500, SU-35bm, SU-34, KA-52 and literaly dozens of other programs i don't see any threat from China overtaking Russia, not now--not anytime soon.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Chinaownseverything

> Ahem.... so the latest flankers, falcons, eagles, fulcrums all have better engines, radar, avionics jammers and what ever. The airframes are built with latest tech and materials, they are stronger and lighter than they were in the 70s or 80s right? So now the question is doesn't that make them a brand new aircraft altogether. The only thing they share from the 80s are the names and the airframes designs which however as we all know are excellent in terms of aerodynamic performance and we are yet to see many modern fighters that are aerodynamically better than the above mentioned fighters.



A more logical comparison would be planes made in the 1970's = Toyota camry

Recently produced Flankers = Hummers

F-22 = Tesla roadster

Just because you have experience making cars that run on gasoline does not translate to success in making an all electric car.

So far Russia has just been making bigger and bigger Toyota Camry's






> Do you have any idea on how much maintenance is required to maintain the stealthiness of F-22. Russia has been working on RAM for a long time.
> Now lets consider your hypothesis and say that ok so you guys got advanced stealth... But what about other more important parts like engines, radars, avionics, jammers and not to forget aerodynamics of an aircrafts.
> You still have to make a stealthy enough airframe that doesn't compromise on aerodynamic performance. There have been reports of Russians developing RAM paints that can reduce RCS by 10-15 times (sorry can't find source now, maybe Russian members can help). India has huge expertise in composite materials from their experience on LCA... most of the outer skin is made up of composites.







> And what is purpose of these exotic materials? Will it allow Raptors to perform sustained 11G maneuvers? PAK-FA is already said to make use of a lot of composite materials and alloys making it as light as F-22. Maybe the materials may not be as good as Raptors but it doesn't make any significant difference either.



These materials are pretty much the equivalent of god, the applications of meta materials are so fast and the F-22 is chock full of them.



> Metamaterial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Metamaterials are artificial materials engineered to provide properties which may not be readily available in nature. These materials usually gain their properties from structure rather than composition, using the inclusion of small inhomogeneities to enact effective macroscopic behavior.



Now a demonstration of the power of Meta materials

Meta materials can deflect radiation



> Photonic metamaterials - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Meta materials can control noise


> Acoustic metamaterials - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Change magnetism



> Metamaterial antennas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



You can configure them



> Tunable metamaterials - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The possibilities are endless unless Russia is capable of breaking into this field, Russia has no hope of making something that can fight the F-22. 



> Ohh brother.. this is utter BS. You are comparing decreasing percentage share of published articles to declining in science. First understand what that chart is about. It doesn't show the number of articles released by a country, what it shows is how much percentage of articles released throughout the world is from a particular country. Russian % share are on the decline because of improvements made by other countries. Russians might have released twice or thrice the number of articles in 2003 as compared to 1993.



This means that the rest of the world is speeding up past Russia, a country as big and wealthy as Russia should not have such a small and declining percentage 



> In other words, pilots are just puppets.



Well my main point was that to make the control system possible you need many censors, censors that are extremely tiny and powerful computers to process them. The airframe of the F-22 is extremely light because it gets weighed down because so many electronics are packed into the F-22 in such high density.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chinaownseverything

ptldM3 said:


> The airframe is a 1970's design with new new avionics, Just like the F-15 and F-16 are 1970's designs with new avionics, that doesn't change the fact that the above aircraft are the still the best legacy fighters on earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you have had the chance to examine Russian nano ram? Clearly not, so i'm assuming your basing your argument on which country leads in patents and science, which is doesn't nessesarily translate into creating cutting edge military technology. Again, lets use Israel as an example, Israel is a nobody compaired to many contries. However, it continues to create some of the best systems on earth.
> 
> And don't forget India is invloved in the project too, meaning there scientists will share their knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you being serious because i just spit coffee all over my monitor. Who offers rams over the counter and when did Russia say it was going to use "publicly" available RAM? Whatever that is.
> 
> By your logic China should be light years ahead of Russia esspecially since the 1990' seen a decline in many scientific areas, yet to this day China has to rely on Russia to supply engines for the JF-17.
> 
> There are many countries with big budgets and decent scientific backrounds that have failed miserably in creating a half decent platform weather it be a jet engine, a gas turbine engine, or radar. Russia still has a sizable scientific community, one of the most college graduates in Europe, very respectible institutions, and most importantly experienced and usualy well funded military firms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nano technology is broad, thus being in 1st, 2nd, or 5th in a certain feild means little.
> 
> In other words there are hundreds of civilian products that derive from nano technology.
> 
> For instance, creating the best condom from nano research means squate.  and certainly has nothing t do with RAM.
> 
> The Russian military has both state owned and private companies that do reasearch and much of the time the their breakthrough do not make it to scientific journals, nor do they release their findings. I have mentioned this several time, but i will say it again, one of my realatives was in the KGB, very high in the KGB, and the KGB had a number of technologies that to this day are not officially acknowledged, and certainly will not be published in any journal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boing, the people that manufacture parts for the F-22 say this:
> 
> Boeing: F-22 Raptor - F-22 Aft Fuselage Facts
> 
> 
> 
> Dissapointed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like a mentioned earlier being a top thermo plastics producer or nano producer doesn't translate into into superior military technology (Israel--hint) (France--hint), infact it's a flawed argument because many of the new plastics or whatever else will not make it into military applications. And if you think the mentioned feilds are "practically non existent in Russia" then good for you but the Soviet Union and now Russia has had a long history with most of the feilds listed. Lastly, from first hand experience i know many scientific breakthroughs that come from Russia stay out of the public, so if it makes you feel better than, sure, those feilds are practically none existent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why Russia has microprocessors thiner than human hairs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, Russia has used titanium, aluminum and carbon fiber for decades. In an interview an engineer spoke of a new plastic based honeycomb specifically to be used in the pak-fa, so your argumen or lack there of, is mute.
> 
> And again India is involved in the project and as we all know the Indians have extensive experience in composites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't you post this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It came from the same source you used, picking and choosing are we? Again India must aso be included since it's invloved in the project.
> 
> I said this in other forums but S&E articals mean nothing, countries such as Spain are ranked 9th and yet Spain can't produce anything meaningful. And once again, China has ranked higher than Russia for a while yet China is yet to catch up to Russia. And based on the way things are going with the pak-fa, AESA radars, stealth drones, S-400, S-500, SU-35bm, SU-34, KA-52 and literaly dozens of other programs i don't see any threat from China overtaking Russia, not now--not anytime soon.



So basically your entire argument is that Russia is technologically advanced, but they just keep it a secret from the world. We just don't produce any scientific breakthroughs or have industries that utilize our technological advancements. 

Stealth technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Russia doesn't even field a single stealth ship

Sorry to break it to you, but Russia is not the USSR


----------



## challenger

Chinaownseverything said:


> So basically your entire argument is that Russia is technologically advanced, but they just keep it a secret from the world. We just don't produce any scientific breakthroughs or have industries that utilize our technological advancements.
> 
> Stealth technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Russia doesn't even field a single stealth ship
> 
> Sorry to break it to you, but Russia is not the USSR



Stealth tech is not only complicated, its expensive too (production and maintenance). Russia cannot afford such tech everywhere.


----------



## challenger

I see some countries whose domestic economies are not good become victims of arms race. They think only buying state of the art hardwares would make them powerful.


----------



## Devianz

Chinaownseverything said:


> These materials are pretty much the equivalent of god, the applications of meta materials are so fast and the F-22 is chock full of them.
> 
> 
> 
> Now a demonstration of the power of Meta materials
> 
> Meta materials can deflect radiation
> 
> 
> 
> Meta materials can control noise
> 
> Change magnetism
> 
> 
> 
> You can configure them
> 
> 
> 
> The possibilities are endless unless Russia is capable of breaking into this field, Russia has no hope of making something that can fight the F-22.



Metamaterials are nothing new and there are extensive studies going on it throughout the world over. Heck even I have worked on meta materials field in one of my projects. My friend has done extensive work on meta materials at IIT-K.


----------



## amalakas

The F22 is in a league of its own. 
But that does not mean anything. 

Warfare is a different thing. I argued before over and over and over again. 

there is a lot of people who put all their eggs in the stealth basket. 

this is a gamble that may not pay off. 

Some of our american friends are devotees of the F22 stealth capabilities, their prerogative, 
noone has yet answered however how exactly TWO stealth planes will engage eachother. 

EVERYONE in this forum keeps forgeting that the T 50 (pak fa) doesn't need to be as good as the F22 to be effective. 

One of the most leathal aspects of the F22 is not its stealth abilities, but its capacity to detect and track targets within an extremely long range and hence fire at them much much earlier. 

Russians are not stupid. The T-50 will be stealthy ( Far more so that the EF2000 or the silent Eagle and those two are formidable planes) and it is far more agile as well. The russian plane also enjoys IRST sensors . 

that means two things. 

1) The stealth aspects (even if not as good as the F22) will cut down drastically the range of detection. which means it is very very likely (i dare say calculated) that the F22 will be within the range of the IRST sensor by the time the T50 is picked up by the F22. 

So what someone will say.. 

2) well now the T-50 pilot knows where the F22 is and how many there are potentially 

The current weapons of the F22 are effective but their "no escape" zone is nothing that would be outside the capabilities of an Su27-35 plane, the T50 is expected to be far more agile and hence far more capable to evade the amraams fired at it. 

I think that is the key element of the T50, to deny first look first shoot

Also something many overlook is, that a plane with the advertised capabilities of the T50, will render the missions of all Air tankers and AWACS very very difficult and perhaps dangerous to the point of denial of space.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SBD-3

amalakas said:


> 1) The stealth aspects (even if not as good as the F22) will cut down drastically the range of detection. which means it is very very likely (i dare say calculated) that the F22 will be within the range of the IRST sensor by the time the T50 is picked up by the F22.


you should have provided the range for IRST cuz the expected range for AIM-120D is 120 Miles while AIM-120C7 is approx 120-130 KM so IRST need to be of this range to prevent Rap from a shot
having said this IRST is working best when there is a lot of heat signature coming out of AC i.e. it is moving out at your 12.


> Note that, like infra-red homing seekers, an *IRST is more likely to detect a target with its engine exhaust pointed towards the detector than away from it*. This means that many jet aircraft will be detected at longer ranges if they are flying away from the IRST-equipped aircraft rather than towards it. However, most IRST systems are sensitive enough to detect the heat of a jet from head-on as well, either infra-red energy generated from the hot air coming out of the engines, from air friction heating the airframe, or both.


and having said this look at the raptor's IR signature


> 3.0 Heat radiation reduction
> Infrared radiation (heat) should be minimized by a combination of temperature reduction and masking, although there is no point in doing these past the point where the hot parts are no longer the dominant terms in the radiation equation. The main body of the airplane has its own radiation, heavily dependent on speed and altitude, and the jet plume can be a most significant factor, particularly in afterburning operation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The jet-wake radiation follows the same laws as the engine hot parts. Various ways have been developed and tested to cool down the engine exhaust gasses. The ilustration above shows how the hot exhaust gasses can be surrounded by cooler air, significantly reducing the IR signature of the plane.
> 
> Air has a very low emissivity, carbon particles have a high broadband emissivity, and water vapor emits in very specific bands. Infrared seekers have mixed feelings about water-vapor wavelengths, because, while they help in locating jet plumes, they hinder in terms of the general attenuation due to moisture content in the atmosphere. There is no reason, however, why smart seekers shouldn't be able to make an instant decision about whether conditions were favorable for using water-vapor bands for detection.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## no_name

Even if T-50 is not as good as F-22, having some of and the capability to produce more if needed, is better than not having it.


----------



## inddef

changed post. decided not to rehash old wine in a new bottle


----------



## ptldM3

Chinaownseverything said:


> These materials are pretty much the equivalent of god, the applications of meta materials are so fast and the F-22 is chock full of them.




I'm interested in a link showing the meta materials in the F-22, post a link.

And stop ignoring the fact that most the the F-22 is made up of titanium, aluminum and even some steel . Of course there are other advanced composites but Russia also uses advanced composites in it's aircraft and has been for some time. Earlier you mentioned that the metals used in the F-22 make it light and strong, but conviniently you didn't mention the fact that Russian aircraft even such aircraft as the Mig-29 are also extremely light and extrememly strong they are also able to withstand 12+ G's, and the Mig-29's aircframe is primative compared to the pak-fa, in terms of composites.




Chinaownseverything said:


> Just because you have experience making cars that run on gasoline does not translate to success in making an all electric car.




What about the 1970's F-117, America didn't have any experience in 'stealth' yet they managed to build a very impressive LO platform, the equations used for the F-117 were actually Russian, the Americans got their hands on Peter Ufimtsev's equations.

And a little know fact; Russia was actually working on a 'stealth' program or low observability aircraft back in 1954 at Institute 108, one of the people working there was Peter Ufimtsev. Unfortunately Soviet anothorities rejected institute 108's findings, if they would have been permited to work the Soviet Union would have had a stealth aircraft. If you take anything away from me it should be that even the Soviet Union had done research into 'stealth', and by now Russia has constructed many 'stealthy' platforms including various UCAV's, ships, and of course aircraft.





Chinaownseverything said:


> Now a demonstration of the power of Meta materials
> 
> Meta materials can deflect radiation
> 
> Meta materials can control noise
> 
> Change magnetism
> 
> You can configure them
> 
> 
> 
> The possibilities are endless *unless Russia is capable of breaking into this field*, Russia has no hope of making something that can fight the F-22.






I'm shocked beyond words, now your are just making assumptions and blatently putting down Russia.

Do some research next time, here some abstracts of Russian metamaterials from a scientific database i subscribe to, no link since it's a private subscription:






> Metamaterials comprising lattices of small resonant scatterers and (optionally) infinite wires are considered. The crystal planes of these lattices contain magnetic dipoles and electric dipoles (or wires). The set of so-called Bloch material parameters is discussed. A class of lattices for which these parameters describe the transfer matrix of an individual monolayer is considered. These lattices are called as Bloch lattices. It is shown that for Bloch lattices and only for them the Bloch material parameters can be directly extracted from the S-parameters of a finite-thickness metamaterial slab. Material parameters retrieved in this way in the previous literature are either Bloch material parameters or senseless (not invariant with respect of the number of monolayers in the composite slab). Explicit examples of Bloch and non-Bloch lattices are presented. Some intermediate results (two definitions of the Bloch impedance, frequency bounds of the Lorentz&#8211;Lorenz formula for the local material parameters, etc.) having practical and theoretical importance are discussed.









> We describe novel physics of nonlinear magnetoinductive waves in left-handed composite metamaterials. We derive the coupled equations for describing the propagation of magnetoinductive waves, and show that in the nonlinear regime the magnetic response of a metamaterial may become bistable. We analyze modulational instability of different nonlinear states, and also demonstrate that nonlinear metamaterials may support the propagation of domain walls (kinks) connecting the regions with the positive and negative magnetization.









> We discuss a relationship between the traditional framework of the frequency-dependent dielectric permittivity (&#969 and magnetic permeability &#956;(&#969 in the electrodynamics of continuous media and the spatial dispersion framework utilizing the dielectric tensor depending both on the frequency &#969; and wavevector . For electromagnetic waves, the latter approach includes the former as a specific limiting case for small k within the k2 accuracy. While the dispersion of the transverse electromagnetic waves in this approximation is captured by the (&#969&#8211;&#956;(&#969 phenomenology, the dispersion of the longitudinal electric waves would be missed. The general framework also accommodates more complex situations such as excitonic resonances and additional electromagnetic waves. We also review the well-known Landau&#8211;Lifshitz arguments on the physical meaning of &#956;(&#969 at sufficiently high frequencies. In that context, the need is discussed for the effective medium response to include contributions from the spatial dispersion of the electric-dipole polarization and from the electric-quadrupole polarization on an equal footing with contributions from the magnetic-dipole resonances.










> In this work we consider a special case of the Perfectly Matched Layer (PML) divergence which is observed by the simulation of the planar periodic structures such as photonic crystal slabs or antenna arrays. This divergence is caused by an excitation of long-living artefact evanescent waves in these structures by an incident external pulse. We study the application of the known remedies to this problem: increasing the distance between the structure and PML, employing the &#954; parameter, employing non-PML absorbers. We also suggest a new simple and effective solution, where the usual PML is backed by an additional absorbing layer.










> Propagation and tunneling of light through subwavelength photonic barriers, formed by dielectric layers with continuous spatial variations of the dielectric susceptibility across the film are considered. Effects of giant heterogeneity-induced non-local dispersion, both normal and anomalous, are examined by means of a series of exact analytical solutions of the Maxwell equations for gradient media. Generalized Fresnel formulae, showing a profound influence of the gradient and curvature of dielectric susceptibility profiles on the reflectance/transmittance of periodic photonic heterostructures, are presented. Depending on the cutoff frequency of the barrier, governed by the technologically managed spatial profile of its refractive index, propagation or tunneling of light through it is examined. Non-attenuative transfer of electromagnetic energy by evanescent waves, tunneling through dielectric gradient barriers characterized by real values of the refractive index decreasing into the interior of the medium, is shown. Scaling of the results obtained for different spectral ranges of visible, IR and THz waves is illustrated. The potential of gradient optical structures for the design of miniaturized filters, polarizers and frequency&#8211;selective interfaces of subwavelength thickness is considered.










> In allowed photonic bands of one-dimensional photonic crystals (Bragg mirrors) light modes propagate with negative effective masses at certain frequencies. We demonstrate theoretically that this effect allows for the negative refraction of the visible light. We propose a structure made of two porous silicon Bragg mirrors with one rotated by 90&#176; with respect to the other. This structure that may serve as a Veselago lens with a focal distance of the order of 10&#8722;5 m.




I don't car for public patents, or civilian toys, material science to an axtent, but if you want to looks at all of those feilds than you better count all of India's contribution since it's a joint project, so now it's not just Russia's materials science or Russia's patents, but an Indian/Russian material sciences and Russia's/India's patents. 







Chinaownseverything said:


> *This means that the rest of the world is speeding up past Russia*, a country as big and wealthy as Russia should not have such a small and declining percentage



Like who China? The same country that still has to import Russian engines for the JF-17, why isn't China able to make a better engine if they are so renound in material science, after all engine are made up of extremely advanced alloys, and alloys dictate how long the engine will last, how long it can stay in afterburner, the T/W ration among other things, so why is it that Russia can make engines last 4000 hours? How's that possible? According to you, Russia can not acheive such a thing becaue according to you they lag in composite materials. 

Better yet how did Russia create an AESA radar small enough to fit into the nose of a mig-29? How is Russia only the second other country to put a fighter size AESA into serial production? Shouldn't have someone else beat us to it? Afterall AESA radars contain exotic composites as well as alloys and extremely powerful microprocessors, and all of those feilds fit into material science.






Chinaownseverything said:


> So basically your entire argument is that Russia is technologically advanced, but they just keep it a secret from the world. We just don't produce any scientific breakthroughs or have industries that utilize our technological advancements.



Russia has plenty of technological advancements, but from inside information i know much of their advancements do not get published, much like tank armour is classified. The same holds true for most countries. Much of the scientific "breakthroughs" and "patents" can be anything from condoms, to toothpast, or even eye drops, thus much of it can be totally disregarded as useless when talking in the context of military applications, do not get me wrong, much of the time civilian advances can be applied to the military world, but when a government (any governement) sets a requirnment it's up to the head contractor or contractors to begin research and development.

Again think Israel.



Stealth technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Chinaownseverything said:


> *Russia doesn't even field a single stealth ship*





Wrong, next time do some research intead of looking at Wekipidia.


Project 2038.0 / Project 20381 Steregushchy Corvette



> The design of this 2,000 ton (Steregushchy) *stealthy corvette *was developed by the Almaz Central Marine Design bureau. Almaz was chosen over six other competitors to develop the Project 2038.0 class.






And like i mentioned earlier Russia has created many different 'stealth' platforms.





syntax_error said:


> hey is this the Mig Skat ???
> wats its current status .



Yes it is, current status, not revealed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Chinaownseverything

> Do some research next time, here some abstracts of Russian metamaterials from a scientific database i subscribe to, no link since it's a private subscription:



The reports for China, Russia and India are all up to 2007


Take a look at this, basically a report on China's science

China's Science Surge Rolls On - ScienceWatch.com

And compare it with this, basically a report on Russia's science

02.22.2009 - Russian Science, 2003-07 - ScienceWatch.com

Russia's percentage of materials science papers = 2.62

China's percentage of materials science papers = 16.01

Also India's percentage of materials science papers = 6.13

India's New Millennium in Science - ScienceWatch.com

Relative citations are also of note, Chinese papers in materials science by 2007 are .85

India papers are are .75

Russia papers are .49

And this is composite by weight, it doesn't tell how much of the airframe is advanced materials (metamaterials, nano materials all fall under composites)

The F-22 isn't some junk that was meant to be exported to other countries, its a super fighter stuffed with the most expensive and cutting edge stuff that they could find.



> Boeing: F-22 Raptor - F-22 Aft Fuselage Facts
> 
> The aft fuselage is 67 percent titanium, 22 percent aluminum and 11 percent composite by weight.



And for comparison purposes the United States up to 2007

http://sciencewatch.com/ana/fea/09janfebFea/

Materials science = 18.10
Relative citations = 1.47


----------



## Jigs

^^^^What exactly is your point man ? Why are you degrading Russian tech when the majority of your own tech is either Russian or tech transferred from Russia ? Your whole Air Force is pretty much Russian or Russian influenced technology. 

Seems pretty hypocritical to me.


----------



## Chinaownseverything

Jigs said:


> ^^^^What exactly is your point man ? Why are you degrading Russian tech when the majority of your own tech is either Russian or tech transferred from Russia ? Your whole Air Force is pretty much Russian or Russian influenced technology.
> 
> Seems pretty hypocritical to me.



The topic of the thread is can the T-50 exceed the F-22. I am just voicing my beliefs.

While the Russians have made some very fine flankers, most of the technology are upgrades of 1970's technology. 












You wouldn't say that the hummer 21st century car is incorporates technology that wasn't in the Gran torino a 1970's car. Just like you wouldn't say that the technology of a Mig 29 was radically different from a flanker.

In the year 2010 

Many fields such as nanotechnology, metamaterials, Quantum physics, nanomaterials, Quantum physics, High energy physics, advanced composites are fields that were not considered separate fields of science. Many of the major advancements and the creation of these fields only occurred 1990-2010.

The F-22 was constructed using advancements from all these fields.

China's inability to create a Jet engine is just more evidence supporting that there is a clear split between modern science and 1970's science. While China may be able to build supercomputers and teleport atoms they still can't build a 1980's-1990's jet engine.

Saying that Russia can build a F-22 because they can build jet engines, is like saying that China can build a F-22 because they can teleport atoms.


----------



## ptldM3

Chinaownseverything said:


> The reports for China, Russia and India are all up to 2007
> 
> 
> Take a look at this, basically a report on China's science
> 
> China's Science Surge Rolls On - ScienceWatch.com
> 
> And compare it with this, basically a report on Russia's science
> 
> 02.22.2009 - Russian Science, 2003-07 - ScienceWatch.com
> 
> Russia's percentage of materials science papers = 2.62
> 
> China's percentage of materials science papers = 16.01
> 
> Also India's percentage of materials science papers = 6.13
> 
> India's New Millennium in Science - ScienceWatch.com
> 
> Relative citations are also of note, Chinese papers in materials science by 2007 are .85
> 
> India papers are are .75
> 
> Russia papers are .49




I could care less if China rights more scientific papers than Russia, clearly all the scientific papers arn't helping China develope better engines.

And to stop straying from the subject, you claimed Russia has not broken into the metamaterials feild. However, i gave sources proving otherwise, clear you made a epic blunder, and thus far i have not heard you admit that your're wrong, same thing goes for your comment about Russia not having 'stealth' ships, among other claims.

By the way you still havn't provided a source showing that the F-22 is full of meta materials. Having an AESA radar and RAM doesn't constitute as "chock full" since AESA is also available in Russia; the same for RAM, if anything the pak-fa is also "chock full" of meta materials since it has multiple X-band radars as well as L-band radars, instead of just one.





Chinaownseverything said:


> And this is composite by weight, it doesn't tell how much of the airframe is advanced materials (metamaterials, nano materials all fall under composites)



The figures i gave are from the fusalage manufactured by Boing, the intire airframe is as followed:


F-22 Materials and Processes



Chinaownseverything said:


> Titanium 64 (Ti-64) 36%
> Thermoset Composites 24%
> Aluminum (Al) 16%
> Other Materials* 15%
> Steel 6%
> Titanium 62222 (Ti-62222) 3%
> Thermoplastic Composites >1%




Over 60% of the airframe is made up of commonly used alloys, be it the use of titanium is impressive and by far the most important alloy, in my opinion. Thermoset composites are nothing more than common resin based products such as carbon fiber, or honeycomb. 15% of the airframe is unknow, this could likely include a variation of thermoset composites, RAM, or even avionics equipment.


And in case you didn't know, the geometry of an aircraft is the most importand aspect of LO since it diffracts radar waves, if the surfaces are sloped at atleast 30 degrees than most radar waves will scatter off of the aircraft.



Chinaownseverything said:


> The F-22 isn't some junk that was meant to be exported to other countries, its a super fighter stuffed with the most expensive and cutting edge stuff that they could find.



Who said the F-22 was junk? Certainly not me. It's you that started the provications by boasting that China will surpass the pak-fa. And ironically it is you that is implying that the pak-fa is junk.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jigs

@Chinaownseverything

Has the U.S. not taken a similar route just faster though? Think about it F-15 and F-16 was 4th gen tech they both evolved into 4.5 gen platforms with the F-16 Block 60 and the F-15SE so you can make the argument they were both 1970s tech planes (in 1970. But Soviets at the time had the Su-27 and MiG-29 to counter this. Eventually the Su-27 family was evolved into the SU-35BM and the MiG family evolved in the MiG-35 both these aircraft are a far cry from 1970s technology they are radically different as not only did both specific variants see substantial upgrades but both lines saw consistent upgrades (Like the American counterparts) Now the U.S. once again ahead has moved into the 5th gen market with the F-22(nothing to do with 1970s tech) which is an amazing aircraft which was a totally new design and the Russians have answered it with a totally new design of their own PAK-FA(Nothing to do with 1970s). Plz explain where the 1970 lays at this point with Russia ? A F-16A Block 5 is 1970s tech and a MiG-29 (Product 9.12) is 1970s tech. Both these aircraft are not even in service anymore. 

Simply put are the Americans ahead yes. Is Russia still working with 1970s tech. Definitely not.


----------



## ptldM3

Chinaownseverything said:


> While the Russians have made some very fine flankers, most of the technology are upgrades of 1970's technology.



Again your are wrong, there was no such things as PESA or AESA radars in 1970s Flankers or fly-by-optics, or TV engines, or HMC. These technologies are not upgrades of anything becuase they are completely different from the systems that were in place before.

What the designers of the Flanker did was they developed an airframe that was ahead of it's time much like the F-15 and F-16. As time went by they installed more capable avionics.





Chinaownseverything said:


> Saying that Russia can build a F-22 because they can build jet engines, is like saying that China can build a F-22 because they can teleport atoms.



It's not because we can build jet engines but because we have already build a prototype and several tech domonstrators, not to mention that Russia has the ability to create advanced radars including AESA as well as other advanced avionics that are so important in 5th generation aircraft, and it kind of helps that the stealth formula used to construct the F-117 was Peter Ufimtsev's formula (a Russian). It also helps that Russia has been reasearching stealth aircraft since the 1950's.

Your're acting like the pak-fa is built in Zimbabwe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chinaownseverything

> And to stop straying from the subject, you claimed Russia has not broken into the metamaterials feild. However, i gave sources proving otherwise, clear you made a epic blunder, and thus far i have not heard you admit that your're wrong, same thing goes for your comment about Russia not having 'stealth' ships, among other claims.



Fine I admit that I was wrong about the stealth ships

Based on scientific papers along Russia is only at the tip of the iceburg, countries in Africa have papers on metamaterials and etc... too but one would not say that they have broken in 



> By the way you still havn't provided a source showing that the F-22 is full of meta materials. Having an AESA radar and RAM doesn't constitute as "chock full" since AESA is also available in Russia; the same for RAM, if anything the pak-fa is also "chock full" of meta materials since it has multiple X-band radars as well as L-band radars, instead of just one.



History of metamaterials - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the 1990s Sir John Pendry, a physicist from Imperial College in London who was consulting for a British company, Marconi Materials Technology, as a condensed matter physics expert. The company manufactured a stealth technology, a radiation-absorbing carbon, for naval vessels. However, the company did not understand the physics of the material. The company asked Pendry if he could figure it out

Its a well known fact by most scientists and engineers that metamaterials are used in stealth technology, and are used in most advanced sensors. The first discovered nanomaterials were used on stealth warships

Again the argument that it is doubtful that Russia can build such a jet is based on the fact that the proficiency in metamaterials that has been demonstrated many times by the USA



> The figures i gave are from the fusalage manufactured by Boing, the intire airframe is as followed:
> 
> 
> F-22 Materials and Processes



Again this is BY WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION, meaning that if I wear to build a plane out of wood and then put a lump of depleted Uranium in it the plane would have Uranium as 99% and wood as 1% even though clearly the plane is not made out of wood.

Saying that 60% of the weight comes from commonly used metals provides no relevant information, just like saying that 99% of the weight from my wooden plane comes from depleted Uranium gives no information about the other part of it.




> And in case you didn't know, the geometry of an aircraft is the most importand aspect of LO since it diffracts radar waves, if the surfaces are sloped at atleast 30 degrees than most radar waves will scatter off of the aircraft.



And this is the most easily copied part, countries like North Korea could easily build the outer shell of the F-22 and attach an engine, but that is all it is a shell what separates the shell from other shells is whats inside the shell and the materials that make up the shell. 


> Who said the F-22 was junk? Certainly not me. It's you that started the provications by boasting that China will surpass the pak-fa. And ironically it is you that is implying that the pak-fa is junk.





My argument was based around the fact that the F-22 uses an entire tree of technology thats different from the F-16.

a tree of technology that China has shown itself to be adept at or rivaling the USA in most of them. A tree of technology that Russia has not demonstrated proficiency in, but from publically available data like scientific papers is behind countries like Italy.

I think that coming up with the conclusion that the PAK-FA probably would not be able to compete with the F-22 and that China probably has a better shot of making something more similar to the F-22 than Russia is a perfectly logical conclusion based on the evidence and arguments that I presented.


----------



## Devianz

hasnain0099 said:


> the expected *range for AIM-120D is 120 Miles* while *AIM-120C7 is approx 120-130 KM* so IRST need to be of this range to prevent Rap from a shot



Source....


----------



## Chinaownseverything

Jigs said:


> @Chinaownseverything
> 
> Has the U.S. not taken a similar route just faster though? Think about it F-15 and F-16 was 4th gen tech they both evolved into 4.5 gen platforms with the F-16 Block 60 and the F-15SE so you can make the argument they were both 1970s tech planes (in 1970. But Soviets at the time had the Su-27 and MiG-29 to counter this. Eventually the Su-27 family was evolved into the SU-35BM and the MiG family evolved in the MiG-35 both these aircraft are a far cry from 1970s technology they are radically different as not only did both specific variants see substantial upgrades but both lines saw consistent upgrades (Like the American counterparts) Now the U.S. once again ahead has moved into the 5th gen market with the F-22(nothing to do with 1970s tech) which is an amazing aircraft which was a totally new design and the Russians have answered it with a totally new design of their own PAK-FA(Nothing to do with 1970s). Plz explain where the 1970 lays at this point with Russia ? A F-16A Block 5 is 1970s tech and a MiG-29 (Product 9.12) is 1970s tech. Both these aircraft are not even in service anymore.
> 
> Simply put are the Americans ahead yes. Is Russia still working with 1970s tech. Definitely not.



Theres a clear difference between something new and something that is an upgrade.

Say building a car engine, now car engines have been around quite awhile. The first car engine had extremely efficiency, but every 10 years changes have been made to the car engine that made it more fuel efficient every year.

Most people would say that the car engines made in the year 2010 are just advancements made on 1880's technology. And that our cars todays are nothing more than advancements made in 1880's technology, because the concept is still the same you have a engine that takes fuel, burns it to turn a crank and then transmits the power via axele's and differentials to wheels.

If Ford were to come out with a brand new hummer tomorrow, would the general public think of it as new technology? 

On the other hand most people do indeed think of electric cars as new technology.

Clearly the F-22 is new technology while the Flankers are not


----------



## Jigs

Chinaownseverything said:


> Theres a clear difference between something new and something that is an upgrade.



Like the PAK-FA





> Say building a car engine, now car engines have been around quite awhile. The first car engine had extremely efficiency, but every 10 years changes have been made to the car engine that made it more fuel efficient every year.
> 
> Most people would say that the car engines made in the year 2010 are just advancements made on 1880's technology. And that our cars todays are nothing more than advancements made in 1880's technology, because the concept is still the same you have a engine that takes fuel, burns it to turn a crank and then transmits the power via axele's and differentials to wheels.
> 
> If Ford were to come out with a brand new hummer tomorrow, would the general public think of it as new technology?


That comparison is irrelevant is it like saying because a 1973 Honda civic 





Compared to the newest model 






Is just 1970s tech right ? 

Once again the PAK-FA is new technology. Inline with 5th gen aircraft. Stealth with internal weapons, extreme agility, full-sensor fusion, integrated avionics, some or full supercruise. Again i am asking you where is 1970s tech in this. It is a completely new design. Name something that is 1970s tech ? AESA radar is not 1970s tech, stealth with internal weapons is not 1970s tech, Sensor fusion is not 1970s tech, supercruise is not 1970s tech.



> On the other hand most people do indeed think of electric cars as new technology.
> 
> _*Clearly the F-22 is new technology while the Flankers are not*_



Clearly your wrong.


----------



## Jigs

Tell me is if a gran trino was was kept in production and a 2010 model came out would it not be 2010 technology ? Or are you trying to explain specific breakthrough leaps like how WW1 Aircraft used inferior material and a Rotary engine. While WW2 aircraft had Radial engines and better build from materials. Just like 4th gen aircraft had Pulse-doppler radar; high maneuverability; look-down, shoot-down missiles. And 5th gen aircraft like the F-22 and PAK FA have 5th gen characteristics.


----------



## Chinaownseverything

Jigs said:


> Like the PAK-FA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again the PAK-FA is new technology. Inline with 5th gen aircraft. Stealth with internal weapons, extreme agility, full-sensor fusion, integrated avionics, some or full supercruise. Again i am asking you where is 1970s tech in this. It is a completely new design. Name something that is 1970s tech ? AESA radar is not 1970s tech, stealth with internal weapons is not 1970s tech, Sensor fusion is not 1970s tech, supercruise is not 1970s tech.
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly your wrong.



I never called the PAK-FA 1970's technology

I called the Flankers 1970's technology just like people would call the hummers 1970's

Sensor fusion is not new, it is technology that has been used in factories for a long while now factories sensors would measure the weight and temperature and a host of other goodies to feed back into a computer that controls the process. 

Supercruise is the same as regular cruise except faster, Super cruise came from increasing the efficiency and power of the 1970's jet engines so that planes can move faster. Nothing different from making a car engine 1% more efficient 

We have had AESA and PESA radars for many years, they were just too big to be put on planes


----------



## ptldM3

Chinaownseverything said:


> Fine I admit that I was wrong about the stealth ships
> 
> Based on scientific papers along Russia is only at the tip of the iceburg, countries in Africa have papers on metamaterials and etc... too but one would not say that they have broken in



Russia does more than just right papers they actually produce technologies.







Chinaownseverything said:


> Again this is BY WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION, meaning that if I wear to build a plane out of wood and then put a lump of depleted Uranium in it the plane would have Uranium as 99&#37; and wood as 1% even though clearly the plane is not made out of wood.
> 
> Saying that 60% of the weight comes from commonly used metals provides no relevant information, just like saying that 99% of the weight from my wooden plane comes from depleted Uranium gives no information about the other part of it.



You are in utter denial, what else is the frame going to be made of , clay? Perhaps newspapers? Wood? All of the above materials are extremely light weight and they still make up the majority of the aircrafts weight.






Chinaownseverything said:


> And this is the most easily copied part, countries like North Korea could easily build the outer shell of the F-22 and attach an engine, but that is all it is a shell what separates the shell from other shells is whats inside the shell and the materials that make up the shell.




If it was that easy everyone would be building airframes and buying engines for them, and i highly doubt North Korea would have the fly-by-wire technology able to keep the aircraft airborn.

And i seriously hope you're not saying Russian avionics are poor, Russia was the first to create many inovations in avionics such as hmc, tvs, coordinated data-link, hud/radar in one, first PESA and much more. Infact Lockheed martin (the builder of the F-22) purchased Russian rocket engines for the Atlas program because it was the most advanced engine at the time.



Chinaownseverything said:


> My argument was based around the fact that the F-22 uses an entire tree of technology thats different from the F-16.



And you're saying the pak-fa uses SU-27 technology? Ahhh no.



Chinaownseverything said:


> a tree of technology that China has shown itself to be adept at or rivaling the USA in most of them.



Yea right, that's why China hired Phazatron to help them develope radars, what about China engine struggles? And if i'm not mistaken the Chinese SD-10 uses a Russian seaker. Any fighter sized AESA? What about China either receiving or asking Russia to help or transfer technology, this includes, cruis missles, SAMs, engines and much more.



Chinaownseverything said:


> A tree of technology that Russia has not demonstrated proficiency in, but from publically available data like scientific papers is behind countries like Italy.






Once China can built a decent engine for serial production, make it's own seakers, stop hiring Russians to help build their radars, submarines, and aircraft than you can talk.




Chinaownseverything said:


> I think that coming up with the conclusion that the PAK-FA probably would not be able to compete with the F-22 and that China probably has a better shot of making something more similar to the F-22 than Russia is a perfectly logical conclusion based on the evidence and arguments that I presented.



Has China even made anything similar to the F-15, let alone the F-22? No it has not, so how is China going to build a stealth aircraft compairable to the F-22?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Devianz

Chinaownseverything said:


> And this is the most easily copied part, countries like North Korea could easily build the outer shell of the F-22 and attach an engine, but that is all it is a shell what separates the shell from other shells is whats inside the shell and the materials that make up the shell.



OK.... so shall we apply the same to formula1 racing. Now you could say the most important factor that defines the performance of a formula1 car is its aerodynamics, in other words the outer shell like you mentioned. Now if making the outer shell was so easy as you said don't you think the low performing teams would just copy the outer shell from a top team.



> My argument was based around the fact that the F-22 uses an entire tree of technology thats different from the F-16.
> 
> a tree of technology that China has shown itself to be adept at or rivaling the USA in most of them. A tree of technology that Russia has not demonstrated proficiency in, but from publically available data like scientific papers is behind countries like Italy.
> 
> I think that coming up with the conclusion that the PAK-FA probably would not be able to compete with the F-22 and that China probably has a better shot of making something more similar to the F-22 than Russia is a perfectly logical conclusion based on the evidence and arguments that I presented.



Publicly available research papers amounts to nothing in military terms. Now how many of the countless number of papers released by USA are from its military R&D institutes? Or how many papers released by China are actually related to defence. Most of the discoveries or inventions made my defence researchers stay away from public.

The military research capability of a country is not judged by the number of journal papers released by a country but rather by the quality of military hardware made by the country. There are numerous countries that release more research paper than Russia but how many of them actually builds better military hardware than Russia. China to date have shown no signs of competing against Russia in the field of engines, radars or even avionics. Over taking Russia is a distant dream for now.


----------



## Jigs

Chinaownseverything said:


> I never called the PAK-FA 1970's technology
> 
> I called the Flankers 1970's technology just like people would call the hummers 1970's


 If a hummer was made in 1970 and incorporated 1970s car tech. They wouldn't call a 2010 Hummer a 1970s hummer would they ? 

So the F-16 and F-15 which currently makes up the majority of the USAF is 1970s tech ? What does that make the majority of the Chinese air-force ? 1960s tech from Russia ? 
Then why are you comparing the F-22 to 1970s flankers and not the PAK-FA. Should we compare the latest "1970s" F-16 block 50/52 to your Lavi influenced J-10 now that wouldn't be a fair comparison would it ? Should i bring the 1970s Block 60 into the discussion ? 



> Sensor fusion is not new, it is technology that has been used in factories for a long while now factories sensors would measure the weight and temperature and a host of other goodies to feed back into a computer that controls the process.



Apparently it is new in Aircraft we are not comparing factory concepts to 5th gen fighter jets here. Why didnt aircraft in the "1970s" have it ?



> Supercruise is the same as regular cruise except faster, Super cruise came from increasing the efficiency and power of the 1970's jet engines so that planes can move faster. Nothing different from making a car engine 1&#37; more efficient



English Electric Lightning which is from the 1950s but it couldn't do it efficently or for long periods or at speeds that substantially exceeded Mach 1. While today's aircraft are able to do all of those much more efficiently due to engine design. 




> We have had AESA and PESA radars for many years, they were just too big to be put on planes



Ok and now they are smaller.




So what new technology is there since these are all old ones the F-22 and PAK-FA seem to incorporate. This discussion is going around in circles because you don't seem to understand some very simple things. I am out. Live in denial that Russia and the U.S. is far ahead of china and your receive and duplicate concepts.


----------



## SBD-3

Devianz said:


> Source....







plz listen carefully from 2:20 and 2:25


----------



## ptldM3

Chinaownseverything said:


> Sensor fusion is not new, it is technology that has been used in factories for a long while now factories sensors would measure the weight and temperature and a host of other goodies to feed back into a computer that controls the process.



Your anologies are seriously rediculous, sensor fusion is a realatively new concept. Even if factories have some sort of sensor fusion it can not be compaired to an aircraft's compact sensors, factories often have computers the size of buses while aircraft have computers the size of suite cases, in any case a 100 million-300milllion aircraft will have much better sensors than 99.9&#37; of all factories.



Chinaownseverything said:


> Supercruise is the same as regular cruise except faster, Super cruise came from increasing the efficiency and power of the 1970's jet engines so that planes can move faster. Nothing different from making a car engine 1% more efficient




Supercruise is determined by dry thrust and equally as important is the airframe and drag or lack their of. And if your wondering the SU-35 has supercruise.



Chinaownseverything said:


> We have had AESA and PESA radars for many years, they were just too big to be put on planes



But with China's so called superior technology why can't they make an AESA small enough to house in a nose of an aircraft, while Russian can. Isn't it suppost to be the other way around?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Devianz

Chinaownseverything said:


> I never called the PAK-FA 1970's technology
> 
> I called the Flankers 1970's technology just like people would call the hummers 1970's


The 1970s tech talk is utter bullsh1t. Apparently superiority of 21st century tech over the upgraded 1970s tech will not stop a F-15SE or a Su-35S from kicking the a$$ of a modern euro-canard or JSF (in some scenarios)



> Sensor fusion is not new, it is technology that has been used in factories for a long while now factories sensors would measure the weight and temperature and a host of other goodies to feed back into a computer that controls the process.
> 
> Supercruise is the same as regular cruise except faster, Super cruise came from increasing the efficiency and power of the 1970's jet engines so that planes can move faster. Nothing different from making a car engine 1&#37; more efficient
> 
> We have had AESA and PESA radars for many years, they were just too big to be put on planes



OK so are there anything that is not derived from old technology?
So according to you engine tech is old, AESA is old, stealth is old, supercruise is old, sensor fusion is old. So then answer me... what is new about F-22?


----------



## Jigs

In Chinaownseverything's world everything is actually from 1970 so no technology seems to have evolved since this time. Since everything the F-22 has is actually decades old and flankers seem to be stuck in some type of time paradox  where they will always be 1970s technology no matter how much 80s 90s and 00 tech you throw in it. Must be the structure


----------



## Devianz

hasnain0099 said:


> YouTube - Future Dogfights pt 2
> plz listen carefully from 2:20 and 2:25



I'm sorry that doesn't qualify as a source. Its a propaganda video. You might as well read the user comments.


----------



## Chinaownseverything

> Russia does more than just right papers they actually produce technologies.



Your argument would be stronger if you had some credible evidence

Chinese scientists create metamaterial black hole

How about some examples of Russian metamaterial technology similar to this?






> Unbufreakinleavable, Russia produces nano RAM, which is a metamaterial, Russia produces AESA radar which is also metamaterial, Russian also produces magmatized metamaterials, fly-by-opics should also be considered metamaterials, I can keep going all day.



Nano ram is not made by Russia

Nano-RAM - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nano-RAM is a proprietary computer memory technology from the company Nantero.

Aesa radar cannot use meta materials

Active Electronically Scanned Array - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now look at some of the planes that use it

Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First flight 1960

Now lets look at history of meta materials

History of metamaterials - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Invention of the metamaterial

Look at the first date 1990

Not going to even bother to disprove the rest of your claims, you seem to have no understanding of what a meta material really is



> You are in utter denial, what else is the frame going to be made of , clay? Perhaps newspapers? Wood? All of the above materials are extremely light weight and they still make up the majority of the aircrafts weight.



Are you kidding me? Aluminum is light? Do you know that Aluminum can refer to thousands of types of metals? Crack open a materials science textbook sometime there are literally thousands of aluminum alloys, different types of aluminum depending on how the aluminum is processed , aluminum super alloys all of these can range from being extremely light to extremely heavy and extremely weak to extremely strong.










> And i seriously hope you're not saying Russian avionics are poor, Russia was the first to create many inovations in avionics such as hmc, tvs, coordinated data-link, hud/radar in one, first PESA and much more. Infact Lockheed martin (the builder of the F-22) purchased Russian rocket engines for the Atlas program because it was the most advanced engine at the time.



Discussion has nothing to do with avionics





> And you're saying the pak-fa uses SU-27 technology? Ahhh no.



I actually said the opposite of this, some indian mentioned that past technology like flankers is proof that Russia can make something similar to the F-22. I think countered by showing that the F-22 uses a whole new field of science that was only first recognized in the 1990's




> Yea right, that's why China hired Phazatron to help them develope radars, what about China engine struggles? And if i'm not mistaken the Chinese SD-10 uses a Russian seaker. Any fighter sized AESA? What about China either receiving or asking Russia to help or transfer technology, this includes, cruis missles, SAMs, engines and much more.



I never claimed China had superior avionics, only that they had better computers and mastery of meta materials.

The F-22 is created by melding things from new fields of sciences and combining them with the field of avionics. A new fields of sciences that China is ahead in while Russia is playing catch up.







> Has China even made anything similar to the F-15, let alone the F-22? No it has not, so how is China going to build a stealth aircraft compairable to the F-22?



The F-15 has nothing to do with the F-22, just like teleporting atoms has nothing to do with the F-22


----------



## Chinaownseverything

Jigs said:


> In Chinaownseverything's world everything is actually from 1970 so no technology seems to have evolved since this time. Since everything the F-22 has is actually decades old and flankers seem to be stuck in some type of time paradox  where they will always be 1970s technology no matter how much 80s 90s and 00 tech you throw in it. Must be the structure



The F-22 uses meta materials, the field of science was only recognized in the 1990's

Flankers use things that already existed in the 1970's except that improvements on these things allowed them to fit on planes

History of metamaterials - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Invention of the metamaterial

Historically, and conventionally, the function or behavior of materials can be altered through their chemistry. This has long been known. For example, adding lead changes the color or hardness of glass. However, at the end of the 20th century this definition was about to be expanded.[9]

In the 1990s Sir John Pendry, a physicist from Imperial College in London who was consulting for a British company, Marconi Materials Technology, as a condensed matter physics expert. The company manufactured a stealth technology, a radiation-absorbing carbon, for naval vessels. However, the company did not understand the physics of the material. The company asked Pendry if he could figure it out.[9]


----------



## Chinaownseverything

ptldM3 said:


> Your anologies are seriously rediculous, sensor fusion is a realatively new concept. Even if factories have some sort of sensor fusion it can not be compaired to an aircraft's compact sensors, factories often have computers the size of buses while aircraft have computers the size of suite cases, in any case a 100 million-300milllion aircraft will have much better sensors than 99.9% of all factories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supercruise is determined by dry thrust and equally as important is the airframe and drag or lack their of. And if your wondering the SU-35 has supercruise.
> 
> 
> 
> But with China's so called superior technology why can't they make an AESA small enough to house in a nose of an aircraft, while Russian can. Isn't it suppost to be the other way around?



I already explained the difference between improvements of old things and actual creation of something new. Supercruise and all that cool stuff just came from improvements of old technology.

Again I explained to you why China can't make AESA, Theres a fundamental difference between OLD technology and NEW technology.

Just because you can do new technology does not mean you can do old technology.

China is ahead in brand new fields like super conductivity, metamaterials and all of those other fields.

But behind in already established fields like avionics.

Just because a country is advanced enough to teleport things it is still possible for that country to lack basic technology like crop rotation for agriculture.

Following this thought process that there is a difference between old and new technology. Building a F-16 does not mean that you can build a F-22.


----------



## sssss

And guess,India has already signed these 5th gen fighters,which unfortunately China has on papers and Pakistan has no hopes.


----------



## 500

ptldM3 said:


> And if your wondering the SU-35 has supercruise.


Only partial. Su-35 can support supersonic speed without afterburners, but it cant pass sound barrier without afterburners.


----------



## TCS

sssss said:


> And guess,India has already signed these 5th gen fighters,which unfortunately China has on papers and Pakistan has no hopes.



*Engine, Radar are heart of any fighter and Russians are way ahead of China in this field *


----------



## ptldM3

Chinaownseverything said:


> Your argument would be stronger if you had some credible evidence
> 
> 
> 
> Chinese scientists create metamaterial black hole
> 
> How about some examples of Russian metamaterial technology similar to this?





I'll send some old articals writen on Russian RAM development, when i can find them.




Chinaownseverything said:


> Nano ram is not made by Russia
> 
> 
> 
> Nano-RAM - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Nano-RAM is a proprietary computer memory technology from the company Nantero.




Do you have any idea what the definition of of nano is? Nano is something that is small enough on the melecular level. 




Chinaownseverything said:


> Aesa radar cannot use meta materials






Again do some better research:


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...kYCuCw&usg=AFQjCNG7Xv8L9wP-h2TLQVYP39yCQPZZhg



> Metamaterials: Can be used to make conformal arrays where otherwise not posssible; can make &#8220;Superlens Lens&#8221; which focuses beyond diffraction limit at optical wavelengths; potentially can stealth targets; used commercially in wireless router where it reduces size of antennas (8 of them) by large amount and increases isolation between the antennas






Chinaownseverything said:


> Now look at some of the planes that use it
> 
> Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> First flight 1960
> 
> Now lets look at history of meta materials
> 
> History of metamaterials - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Invention of the metamaterial
> 
> Look at the first date 1990
> 
> Not going to even bother to disprove the rest of your claims, you seem to have no understanding of what a meta material really is



What are you trying to prove? That aircraft such as E-2's use AESA?  You should have learned from your other post that Weki can be garbage, much of the none US aircraft listed do not use AESA, instead AESA was in the development stages, Either way what were you trying to prove?

And it's *you* that has a hard time understanding.






Chinaownseverything said:


> Are you kidding me? Aluminum is light? Do you know that Aluminum can refer to thousands of types of metals? Crack open a materials science textbook sometime there are literally thousands of aluminum alloys, different types of aluminum depending on how the aluminum is processed , aluminum super alloys all of these can range from being extremely light to extremely heavy and extremely weak to extremely strong.



Thanks captain obvious, but certain aluminums dominate the aerospace industry:


MakeItFrom.com: 2024 Aluminum



> *Alloy 2024 *was introduced by Alcoa in 1931 as an alclad sheet in the T3 temper. It was the first
> Al-Cu-Mg alloy to have a yield strength approaching 50,000-psi and generally replaced 2017-T4
> (Duralumin) as the predominant 2XXX series aircraft alloy. With its relatively good fatigue resistance,
> especially in thick plate forms, *alloy 2024 continues to be specified for many aerospace structural*
> applications. 2024 varient alloys, such as higher purity 2124 and 2324, with improvements in
> *strength and other specific characteristics, have also found application in critical aircraft structures.*
> An improved sheet alloy for fuselage applications was introduced in 1991. Alclad C188 offers
> *improved fracture toughness and fatigue crack growth while maintaining the strength characteristics
> of 2024.*









Chinaownseverything said:


> Discussion has nothing to do with avionics




You were boasting that Chinese computers are better than Russian computers...







Chinaownseverything said:


> The F-15 has nothing to do with the F-22, just like teleporting atoms has nothing to do with the F-22



Read my statement carefully.






Chinaownseverything said:


> China is ahead in brand new fields like super conductivity, metamaterials and all of those other fields.
> 
> But behind in already established fields like avionics.
> 
> Just because you can do new technology does not mean you can do old technology.




So now China is behind in avioncs, shouldn't it be ahead because of it's science base and better computers?

And avionics in the US and Russia are always changing; for instance, the OLS-35 was a radical departure from previous systems, and DAS is also unique. There are always avionics breakthroughs, established feilds should be no excuse, infact it should be easyier since you are working with an existing technology instead of something new and unfamiliar.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## amalakas

Many of you have the idea that IRST sensors provide an image similar to the one the Predator had in the 1987 movie with the governator. And hence believe that IRST sensors will pick up a red blob / spot in a screen from a hot engine. 
wrong. 

here is an image from a previous generation QWIP IR detector. 







This is from a detector not even 1/1000 as powerful as the one expected to be on the mature operational T50. 

You want to tell me this thing will not pick up something metalic with clear temp differential from the ambient air ????

Look how it picks up individual leaves on the trees !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## inddef

@chinaownseverything : i am starting to doubt your smarts now.


----------



## Chinaownseverything

> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...kYCuCw&usg=AFQjCNG7Xv8L9wP-h2TLQVYP39yCQPZZhg
> 
> 
> What are you trying to prove? That aircraft such as E-2's use AESA? You should have learned from your other post that Weki can be garbage, much of the aircraft listed did not use AESA, instead AESA was in the development stages, Either way what were you trying to prove?
> 
> And it's *you* that has a hard time understanding.



AESA existed before metamaterials existed as a field of science. Therefore meta materials are not an integral part of AESA

That paper you posted just says that metamaterials can be used to make Antenna's. Notice the title says past, present and future developments? You can make batteries out of your own pee, whats your point?




> Thanks captain obvious, but certain aluminums dominate the arospace industry:
> 
> 
> MakeItFrom.com: 2024 Aluminum



Most of the aerospace industry is civilian jets, military jets they are definitely not made from AL2024, also there is not one type of metal that is used. When engineering something like a jet a heat analysis is done along with stress tests on every part. They will use stronger alloys for parts of the plane that takes more punishment, point of stagnation will have more pressure. 









> You were boasting that Chinese computers are better than Russian computers...



Radars are not computer

Russia Lags In Supercomputers, Medvedev Warns -- Supercomputers -- InformationWeek

Russia Lags In Supercomputers, Medvedev Warns 

Russia ranks 15th on the list of countries with the most powerful supercomputers, he noted, and 95 percent of the machines are manufactured in the U.S. 




> So now China is behind in avioncs, shouldn't it be ahead because of it's science base and better computers?
> 
> And avionics in the US and Russia are allways chaging; for instance, the OLS-35 was a radical departure from previous systems, and DAS is also unique. There are always avionics breakthroughs, established feilds should be no excuse, infact it should be easyier since you are working with an existing technology instead of something new and unfamiliar.



Except this is a military field, North Korea can easily get an expert in say Europe to teach their guys about hydroelectric dams but not the same with military radars.

China has a lot of ground to cover, a difficult job even with a science base.

Russia is technologically backwards in the same sense being weak in industry but strong in military.

But in emerging fields they can keep up, for instance Quantum physics China currently holds 3 world records

China has world record for quantum teleportation

DailyTech - China Teleports Photons 10 Miles, Surpasses U.S./European Record

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-06/chinese-researchers-tap-quantum-noise-generate-randomness-record-rates

The method is a bit mind-bending, but still more impressive is the output: 300 megabits per second of random data, blowing a 100-megabit record set by American scientists using a different method earlier this month clean out of the water. Which means the U.S. will now have to top the Chinese to stay ahead in the encryption game, setting up a competitive back-and-forth that should make true Cold Warriors wistful for the good old days

*http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4199761/Update-China-claims-record-in-quantum-cat-state

Update: China claims record in quantum cat state*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Devianz

amalakas said:


> Many of you have the idea that IRST sensors provide an image similar to the one the Predator had in the 1987 movie with the governator. And hence believe that IRST sensors will pick up a red blob / spot in a screen from a hot engine.
> wrong.
> 
> here is an image from a previous generation QWIP IR detector.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is from a detector not even 1/1000 as powerful as the one expected to be on the mature operational T50.
> 
> You want to tell me this thing will not pick up something metalic with clear temp differential from the ambient air ????
> 
> Look how it picks up individual leaves on the trees !



Ahh.. thats exactly what most people think.
Now, the effectiveness of a modern high tech IRST can be explained from this figure. Even the level of detail shown on this low powered system is staggering.

Now, look at the lake on the bottom of the picture. See how the sand is glowing like lava compared to water in the lake. Also interesting to note the difference between metal body of those cars and its windshields. The temperature difference here is just a few degrees and look how the differences show up in the above pic.
It will clearly pic up the 1000 degree difference between exhaust gas and surrounding cooler air.


----------



## dbc

amalakas said:


> Many of you have the idea that IRST sensors provide an image similar to the one the Predator had in the 1987 movie with the governator. And hence believe that IRST sensors will pick up a red blob / spot in a screen from a hot engine.
> wrong.
> 
> here is an image from a previous generation QWIP IR detector.
> 
> 
> *This is from a detector not even 1/1000 as powerful as the one expected to be on the mature operational T50. *
> 
> You want to tell me this thing will not pick up something metalic with clear temp differential from the ambient air ????
> 
> Look how it picks up* individual leaves on the trees* !



 the T-50's IR detector will be a 1000 times more powerful.
..individual leaves ... exaggerate much??


----------



## Bhairava

500 said:


> Only partial. Su-35 can support supersonic speed without afterburners, but it cant pass sound barrier without afterburners.



WTF....last time I heard...going in supersonic speed and breaking sound barriers are one and the same.

or am I missing something here.?


----------



## Chogy

Gounder said:


> WTF....last time I heard...going in supersonic speed and breaking sound barriers are one and the same.
> 
> or am I missing something here.?



He is correct. There is a drag "spike" as you approach Mach 1. Think of it like this... there is a modest wave traveling on the ocean, and you are swimming madly, chasing it. To cross into supersonic (the other side of the wave), you must climb the rear of the wave, cross over the peak, and then once on the other side, sliding down the face of the wave, the drag falls off, and less thrust is required.

It's a crude analogy, but you can definitely feel a vague wall at mach 1.0, and once on the other side of it, with all of the airflow over the airframe at > Mach 1.0, drag falls off, and less thrust is required to stay there.

In a clean F-15, at mil power, level flight, the machmeter will climb to 0.99 mach and hang up there. Tap the burners, you slide through. Now, reduced back to mil power, it will stay supersonic for several minutes. It eventually falls back to subsonic, but it takes quite a while.

On IRST and thermal imaging - I am not a huge fan. Most of the cool pictures we see here are at ranges that are FAR too close to compare to air combat - as distances increase to what would be considered normal, the IR signals fall off with the square of the distance. Add in dust, flares, clouds, additional range, and IRST begins to fail.

Add in a target aspect change from rear to something else, and the signal can easily vanish.

And how about daylight combat? A guy with outstanding eyes might see an enemy fighter at 12 to 15 miles. Unfortunately, that is close-ranged for missiles these days.

IRST / Thermal is not a solution or panacea for radar stealth.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Devianz

Chogy said:


> And how about daylight combat? A guy with outstanding eyes might see an enemy fighter at 12 to 15 miles. Unfortunately, that is close-ranged for missiles these days.
> 
> IRST / Thermal is not a solution or panacea for radar stealth.



What about daylight combat, how much difference would that make to an IRST?


----------



## nicamarvin

Chinaownseverything said:


> The topic of the thread is can the T-50 exceed the F-22.?.



Not when Mr Putin mix the word Cheap and T-50 in the same sentence, you just can´t hope to compete with the Raptor when your best asset its being cheap...


Go Raptor....


----------



## ptldM3

Chinaownseverything said:


> AESA existed before metamaterials existed as a field of science. Therefore meta materials are not an integral part of AESA




Now it makes sense why you posted this:




> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-2_Hawkeye
> 
> First flight 1960





Did you think that just becuase the E-2 presently has EASA that it had it on its first flight?



The first airborn aircraft to receive AESA was the F-15, in the year 2000.

Raytheon Marks 10 Years of AESA Radar Flight -- FARNBOROUGH, England, July 21, 2010 /PRNewswire/ --



> A squadron of Air Force F-15Cs was the first to become operational with the world's first tactical AESA radar systems in December 2000.



Further, you stated that metamaterials came along in 1990, lets take into account that AESA was used before 1990. I never claimed that AESA is solely reliant on metametamaterials, instead *you* claimed that AESA does not use metamaterial.



Chinaownseverything said:


> That paper you posted just says that metamaterials can be used to make Antenna's. Notice the title says past, present and future developments? You can make batteries out of your own pee, whats your point?




Still in denial? Lets look at another source--a scientific journal:


IEEE Xplore is Under Maintenance




> Many think that radar is a mature field, nothing new to happen, it having been around a long time. Nothing can be further from the truth. When I entered the field in the '50s I thought the same thing. The MIT Radiation Lab. Series 28 book volume set summarizing the highly classified World War II work on radar was just published and provided the definitive coverage and there was to be nothing more to learn. How wrong I was. Since then many amazing new developments have taken place. Things are moving even faster now. We live in exciting times. Phased array radars and radars have seen in recent years breakthroughs that lead to capabilities not possible only a few years ago. This is exemplified by the development of GaAs integrated microwave circuits called monolithic microwave integrated circuits (MMIC) which makes it possible to build active electronically scanned arrays* (AESAs)* having lighter weight, smaller volume, higher reliability and lower cost. MMIC allows the construction of AESAs for applications not feasible before. This integration has reached the point where it is possible to now build a low cost 35 GHz phased array for a missile seeker costing $40/element (total cost of array including all electronics divided by number of elements). The advances provided by Moore's Law has now made it is feasible to do digital beam forming with all its numerous advantages. One advantage of digital beamforming is the ability to lower the search power and occupancy by up to a factor of two. Another advantage is that it makes it possible to achieve the performance of a fully adaptive array without having to do a large matrix inversion, i.e., it makes adaptive-adaptive array processing or equivalently principal decomposition feasible. Also covered will be: the potential for GaN and SiC chips which have the capability of a factor of ten higher peak power than GaAs chips; arrays with instantaneous bandwidths of up to 33:1; SiGe low cost T/R modules; low cost MEMS arrays;* meta- materials which provide negative refractivity possibly allowing focusing beyond the diffraction limit*; a real radar application for Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) as opposed to fantasy has been demonstrated by Lincoln Laboratory MIT which allows the coherent combining of two radars to achieve a 9 dB increase in sensitivity; the ability to build microwave tubes that are smaller, more power efficient, lighter, require lower voltages and have lower cost.




So how many times were you proved wrong?




Chinaownseverything said:


> Most of the aerospace industry is civilian jets, *military jets they are definitely not made from AL2024*, also there is not one type of metal that is used. When engineering something like a jet a heat analysis is done along with stress tests on every part. They will use stronger alloys for parts of the plane that takes more punishment, point of stagnation will have more pressure.



Really?

Let see:


2024 Aluminum Alloy - Aviation Metals




> Alloy 2024 plate products are used in fuselage structurals, wing tension members, shear webs and ribs and structural areas where stiffness, fatigue performance and good strength are required. Sheet products, usually alclad, are *used extensively in *commercial and *military aircraft for fuselage skins, wing skins and engine areas where elevated temperatures to 250°F (121°C)* are often encountered.




To reiterate my point, most of the alloys used in the F-22 are common on other aircraft too, the only difference is that the F-22 uses more of the good stuff such as titanium, even Boing has acknowledged that the parts they manufacture for the F-22 are mostly titanium and aluminum alloys by weight.



Your're badly underestimating Russia based on fact that Russia has less research papers than China, and thus because of that you are are comming to conclusions that China can manufacture something better than the pak-fa and that Chinese technology rivals US technology. Like i mentioned that is flawed thinking, becuase there are many countries that rank fairly low in material sciences that produce amazing technology. Likewise there are countries that rank high that do not produce anything ground breaking.


With that said, even if the pak-fa doesn't have as advanced composites as the F-22 it would make little difference because the pak-fa will still be light and strong just like other Russian aircraft.


*Still think Russia neglects nano technology or has no experience?*

SpringerLink -




> With *a budget of up to $10 billion (USD)* in government funds, RUSNANO co-invests in nanotechnology projects in areas such as solar energy, *composite materials, nano-biotechnology*, and mechanical engineering that have high potential for commercial or social benefit. RUSNANO stipulates that all companies that win funding must operate in Russia. Its goal is to ensure the production of the value of *Russias nanotechnology industry reaches $30 billion by 2015.*



Nano technology being taken vary serious and as a result many innovations are being made, lets say that Russian composites lag behind many countries, but there is one factor not taken into account, Russia has been able to examine many forign aircraft everything from F-4's, F-5's, Mirage, perhaps F-16's from Venuzuela and of course the F-117 wreckage from Kosovo.

Russia Offers India $8 Billion Weapons Deal



> The Serbs are believed to have invited Russian personnel to inspect the remains.
> 
> Senior Russian aerospace officials admitted that the F-117 was being used to test new anti-stealth.





So not only did Russia test the alloy composition of the F-117 but also the radar absorbent material among other things.






Chinaownseverything said:


> Radars are not computer




Wow, just wow, a radar is made up of many components, here's a few: entanna, transmiter modules, and of course the radar computer.

The computer processes: aerial targets, provides terrain mapping, distiguishes clutter, and assignes targets.

And who said radars are computers? A radar is full of computers, those same computers allow the above functions to be possible.







Chinaownseverything said:


> But in emerging fields they can keep up, for instance Quantum physics China currently holds 3 world records
> 
> China has world record for quantum teleportation
> 
> DailyTech - China Teleports Photons 10 Miles, Surpasses U.S./European Record





I can pull up random articals claiming that Russia has created the worlds first this and that, or discovered this or that. For instance:


CBC News - Technology & Science - U.S., Russian scientists create element 117




> Researchers working at a particle accelerator at the Flerov Laboratory of Nuclear Reactions in Dubna, 120 kilometres north of Moscow, created six atoms of element 117.
> 
> 
> The discovery fills in the gap between the previously synthesized elements 116 and 118, meaning all the elements with atomic numbers between one and 118 have been observed.
> 
> "During a long (half a year) experiment, six events of the 'birth' of the new element were registered," A.N. Sissakian of the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna said in a statement.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Chinaownseverything

> Now it makes sense why you posted this:
> 
> 
> Did you think that just becuase the E-2 presently has EASA that it had it on its first flight?
> 
> 
> 
> The first airborn aircraft to receive AESA was the F-15, in the year 2000.
> 
> Raytheon Marks 10 Years of AESA Radar Flight -- FARNBOROUGH, England, July 21, 2010 /PRNewswire/ --



Look as I explained, Phased array radars have been around for a long time. They were just too big and heavy to be put on planes, hence why I called AESA old technology because we already had it, we just couldn't put it into a plane till we could shrink it into the size of a carton of milk



> Active Electronically Scanned Array - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> AESAs are the result of further developments in solid-state electronics. In earlier systems the broadcast signal was originally created in a klystron or traveling wave tube or similar device, which are relatively large. Receiver electronics were also large due to the high frequencies that they worked with. The introduction of gallium arsenide microelectronics through the 1980s served to greatly reduce the size of the receiver elements, until effective ones could be built at sizes similar to those of handheld radios, only a few cubic centimeters in volume. The introduction of JFETs and MESFETs did the same to the transmitter side of the systems as well. Now an entire radar, the transmitter, receiver and antenna, could be shrunk into a single "transmitter-receiver module" (TRM) about the size of a carton of milk.






> Further, you stated that metamaterials came along in 1990, lets take into account that AESA was used before 1990. I never claimed that AESA is solely reliant on metametamaterials, instead *you* claimed that AESA does not use metamaterial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still in denial? Lets look at another source--a scientific journal:
> 
> 
> IEEE Xplore is Under Maintenance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how many times were you proved wrong?
Click to expand...


Thankfully as a practicing engineer I have access to the IEEE database so I can call out your bullshit
















As you can see the only mention of metamaterials in regard to radars is that they can use metamaterials to make stealth planes that can make it diffucult for AESA to detect.

Not as you implied that AESA radars made by Russia have metamaterials



> Really?
> 
> Let see:
> 
> 
> 2024 Aluminum Alloy - Aviation Metals



Wait, you do realize that different metals are used for different planes right? A military aircraft can mean anything, including a helicopter, transport plane, subsonic fighters, subsonic bombers etc....

Show me that AL 2024 is specifically used by supersonic Jet fighters that can hit mach 2 like the F-22.










> Wow, just wow, a radar is made up of many components, here's a few: entanna, transmiter modules, and of course the radar computer.
> 
> The computer processes: aerial targets, provides terrain mapping, distiguishes clutter, and assignes targets.
> 
> And who said radars are computers? A radar is full of computers, those same computers allow the above functions to be possible.



If I took a sensor connected it to a bunch of resistors and capacitors and then to a motor and designed the circuit so that when say the sensor hit 100 volts that the voltage to the motor would be 0. Would you say that is a computer?

So why would you say that a radiation sensor sending voltages to a pad that lights up to form pictures a computer?








> I can pull up random articals claiming that Russia has created the worlds first this and that, or discovered this or that. For instance:
> 
> 
> CBC News - Technology & Science - U.S., Russian scientists create element 117


[/QUOTE]

My only point of posting China's achievements is that you implied that China was not technologically advanced because they couldn't create modern avionics, posting those articles proved that China was cutting edge in emerging fields and that they don't just write papers on make new condoms like you constantly claim.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Devianz

Chinaownseverything said:


> So why would you say that a radiation sensor sending voltages to a pad that lights up to form pictures a computer?



You really have no idea how a modern radar works. It's not as simple as a CRO you used in your school days. I bet your resistors, capacitors and connecting wires will also calculate the distance and direction of your target for you not to mention millions of other calculations and filtering that are required.


----------



## SBD-3

Devianz said:


> You really have no idea how a modern radar works. It's not as simple as a CRO you used in your school days. I bet your resistors, capacitors and connecting wires will also calculate the distance and direction of your target for you not to mention millions of other calculations and filtering that are required.


can you plz explain how does it work????


----------



## ptldM3

I added more information in my previous post.







Chinaownseverything said:


> Thankfully as a practicing engineer I have access to the IEEE database so* I can call out your bullshit*
> 
> As you can see the only mention of metamaterials in regard to radars is that they can use metamaterials to make stealth planes that can make it diffucult for AESA to detect.
> 
> Not as you implied that AESA radars made by Russia have metamaterials




Someone that's in denial and someone that has been wrong 90&#37; of the time is "calling my bullshit".....priceless.

I gave you atleast two link, yet you ignored them.

Take a look at the following and this time take off your blindfold.

http://www.rfalliance.org/2010 conference/presentations/04 Eli Brookner.pdf



















Chinaownseverything said:


> If I took a sensor connected it to a bunch of resistors and capacitors and then to a motor and designed the circuit so that when say the sensor hit 100 volts that the voltage to the motor would be 0. Would you say that is a computer?
> 
> So why would you say that a radiation sensor sending voltages to a pad that lights up to form pictures a computer?





Oh boy....

All radars have a main computer that processes incoming information via antenna and transmitters to, for example, the LCM's. Things such as capacitors are scattered through out and are just an extension of the main radar computer.

Take a look:

http://www.esicomputing.com/documents/IEEE.pdf




> Main Radar Computer
> *The main radar computer is responsible for
> coordinating all aspects of the radar. The main computer&#8217;s
> real-time program* (RTP) is developed to be common
> across all the KMR radars, which is accomplished by
> writing software that is parameter-driven and hardwareindependent.
> As described earlier, hardware-independence
> is achieved using subsystems to abstract the underlying
> radar hardware. Parameter files are used to configure the
> RTP for a specific radar; these parameters include radar
> frequencies, available waveforms, and beamwidths.
> The RTP performs the following major functions:
> 
> &#8226; Coherent pulse integration and detection,
> &#8226; Signature and catalog data recording,
> &#8226; Multiple-target tracking,
> &#8226; Target classification,
> &#8226; Display generation and button processing,
> &#8226; Subsystem communication,
> &#8226; Track file maintenance.



Earlier did i not mention that the radar computer is responsible for things such as target classification as stated in the source?

Here is more:

http://www.esicomputing.com/documents/IEEE.pdf



> Radar systems have historically employed tightly
> integrated designs, custom hardware, and proprietary
> interfaces. ROSA replaces the tightly integrated design
> with subsystems for each major radar component. *These
> intelligent subsystems (also called radar peripherals)
> perform all interface functions between the high-level main
> computer and low-level radar electronics*. This
> configuration provides an important level of abstraction
> that dramatically increases the level of hardwareindependent
> software within the main radar computer. As
> the main computer software is not dependent on the
> underlying hardware, it is very portable from radar to
> radar.
> *Communication between the subsystem components
> and the main computer is key to the success of a ROSA
> architecture*. Subsystems act as a software object that
> performs specific functions based on control messages;
> specifically, a high-level control message is passed from
> the main computer to the subsystems using a single
> commercial network interface.








Chinaownseverything said:


> My only point of posting China's achievements is that you implied that China was not technologically advanced because they couldn't create modern avionics, posting those articles proved that China was cutting edge in emerging fields and that they don't just write papers on make new condoms like you constantly claim.



Back up, it was you that started claiming that Russia is behind and that China can create something better than the pak-fa. I only mentioned China's struggles with engines because you claimed China's research into science is an indication that China can create better things than Russia and that Chinese technology rivals the US, clearly all that scientific research isn't helping China develope angines superior to Russian's engines. And the condom anology was an axample that much of the material science is not applicable to the military, for instance, creating a better condom that uses new rubber will fall under material science---which means nothing in terms of military aviation.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 500

ptldM3 said:


> The first airborn aircraft to receive AESA was the F-15, in the year 2000.


First aircraft to recieve AESA was Boeing 707 with Phalcon AEW&C in 1993.



Chogy said:


> On IRST and thermal imaging - I am not a huge fan. Most of the cool pictures we see here are at ranges that are FAR too close to compare to air combat - as distances increase to what would be considered normal, the IR signals fall off with the square of the distance.


Well, its not necessary for IRST to provide image. It should search and track. For example OLS-27 which is installed on Su-27/30 and Mig-29 does not give any picture at all.



> Add in dust, flares, clouds, additional range, and IRST begins to fail.


And radar fails in jamming , old radars could not see targets near the earth.



> IRST / Thermal is not a solution or panacea for radar stealth.


Its not panacea, but it can be helpful in some cases.


----------



## ptldM3

500 said:


> First aircraft to recieve AESA was Boeing 707 with Phalcon AEW&C in 1993.



As far as i know Raytheon was the first to develope an operational AESA for the F-15, perhaps they don't take awac's platforms into account.

Anyways please post a source.


----------



## amalakas

500 said:


> Well, its not necessary for IRST to provide image. It should search and track. For example OLS-27 which is installed on Su-27/30 and Mig-29 does not give any picture at all.
> .



Couldn't put it better byself. The IRST sensors do not need to provide an image. The image is just an illustration/demonstration side of the sensors resolution capacity. 

an IRST sensor comes with extensive DSP electronics meant to seperate any potential interesting targets from background clutter. 

isolate it, focus on it, zoom on it or whatever else the designer thinks the sensor should do. 
much like RADAR electronics do.


----------



## Devianz

hasnain0099 said:


> can you plz explain how does it work????



Here... help yourself

Understanding radar systems

Modern radar systems


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> Couldn't put it better byself. The IRST sensors do not need to provide an image. The image is just an illustration/demonstration side of the sensors resolution capacity.
> 
> an IRST sensor comes with extensive DSP electronics meant to seperate any potential interesting targets from background clutter.
> 
> isolate it, focus on it, zoom on it or whatever else the designer thinks the sensor should do.
> much like RADAR electronics do.


Keep going. So far nothing worthwhile yet to debunk...


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> Keep going. So far nothing worthwhile yet to debunk...



haha.. perhaps because there is nothing to debunk. Things are as they are, how effective they will be remains to be seen.


----------



## 500

ptldM3 said:


> As far as i know Raytheon was the first to develope an operational awacs for the F-15, perhaps they don't take awac's platforms into account.


Yep they did not take AWACS into account:



> After designing and building the worlds first operational AESA *fighter* radarthe APG-63(V)2 for the F-15C, first fielded in 2000


Raytheon Company: Raytheon's Revolutionary AESA Technology



> Anyways please post a source.



_the first Phalcon system to be installed was fitted to a former LanChile Boeing 707, and was first flown in 1993 In May 1994 the aircraft was delivered to the Chilean Air Force, where it is known as the Condor._

EL/M-2075 Phalcon Airborne Early Warning And Control System(AWACS)


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> haha.. perhaps because there is nothing to debunk. Things are as they are, how effective they will be remains to be seen.


If you make things vague enough: possibly, may be, could... And so on, what is there to debunk? But that is all that you got and is enough for the gullible to go on.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> If you make things vague enough: possibly, may be, could... And so on, what is there to debunk? But that is all that you got and is enough for the gullible to go on.




Hey, I am not selling anything. You on the other hand could well be on LM's payroll the way you defend their.. "designs". 

the bottom line is that time will tell. People tend to know the truth even if they make their best to deny it.


----------



## Chinaownseverything

> I added more information in my previous post.
> 
> 
> Someone that's in denial and someone that has been wrong 90% of the time is "calling my bullshit".....priceless.
> 
> I gave you atleast two link, yet you ignored them.
> 
> Take a look at the following and this time take off your blindfold.
> 
> http://www.rfalliance.org/2010 conference/presentations/04 Eli Brookner.pdf



This is meaningless, First you claim that russian AESA radar contained metamaterials.

Now you post an image showing that they strunk EPLRS antennas using metamaterials.

Enhanced Position Location Reporting System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EPLRS is a communications network, similar to a router network. Which they then showed that you could shorten the antenna of a router using the same technique.

None of this has any relevance to plane arrayed radars








> Oh boy....
> 
> All radars have a main computer that processes incoming information via antenna and transmitters to, for example, the LCM's. Things such as capacitors are scattered through out and are just an extension of the main radar computer.
> 
> Take a look:
> 
> http://www.esicomputing.com/documents/IEEE.pdf






> Earlier did i not mention that the radar computer is responsible for things such as target classification as stated in the source?
> 
> Here is more:
> 
> http://www.esicomputing.com/documents/IEEE.pdf



No you are just whining about pointless semantics (no doubt to draw attention away from your ignorance about modern material science)

You made the claim that a radar was a computer which is simply NOT TRUE.

You seem to have no understanding about the basic difference between a radar and a radar system.

In a modern radar system, the radar is connected to a computer which is connected to a display.

Similarly a mouse is connected to a desktop (computer) which is then connected to a display.

Get it?

Radar = Mouse
Desktop = Computer
Radar display = Monitor

Would you say that someone is wrong if they called a mouse a computer?

A Radar does not necessarily NEED to be connected to a computer as the term radar was applied to early 1940's systems that had no computers.








> Back up, it was you that started claiming that Russia is behind and that China can create something better than the pak-fa. I only mentioned China's struggles with engines because you claimed China's research into science is an indication that China can create better things than Russia and that Chinese technology rivals the US, clearly all that scientific research isn't helping China develope angines superior to Russian's engines. And the condom anology was an axample that much of the material science is not applicable to the military, for instance, creating a better condom that uses new rubber will fall under material science---which means nothing in terms of military aviation.



And how is your engine and radar remotely related to the development of metamaterials and nanomaterials used in in full stealth planes?

China has plenty of things that Russia does not have like Maglev, KBBF and the likes.

And there is a definite correlation between amount of papers written in a country and how well the country excels in that field.


How many papers do you see countries like Africa producing, the most high tech countries the USA, Japan, Germany are the countries that produce the most papers.

The only technology that Russia leads in is Nuclear science and aviation relics from the cold war. The F-22 requires leadership in around 10 different fields of science to build.

Russian science in a state of 'decline' - physicsworld.com



> Over the last five years, researchers in Russia have produced about 127,000 papers across all sciences, accounting for about 2.6% of the world's output, according to data taken from Thomson Reuters Web of Science database. This share of publications is less than that for researchers in China and India, with 2.9% and 8.4%, respectively, but higher than fellow BRIC nation Brazil, whose scientists publish about 102,000 papers that account for 2.1% of the worlds output.
> 
> Russia still maintains a strong focus in the physical sciences but this too is in decline compared with other countries output. Between 1999 and 2003, physics articles published by researchers based in Russia accounted for 9.7% of the worlds output, with about 38,000 papers published. However, between 2004 and 2008 that number had shrunk to 7.4%, or 35,000 papers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

Chinaownseverything said:


> This is meaningless, First you claim that russian AESA radar contained metamaterials.



I never claimed that--get your facts right, or take some English reading courses. I provided sources proving that Russia has experience in metamaterials after you blatantly said we did not, never did i say any Russian radar had metamaterials. Although it is a real possibility.





Chinaownseverything said:


> Now you post an image showing that they strunk EPLRS antennas using metamaterials.



First read what *you said *about metamaterials in regards to radar:



Chinaownseverything said:


> As you can see the only mention of metamaterials in regard to radars is that they can use metamaterials to make stealth planes that can make it diffucult for AESA to detect.




What you are saying is that metamaterials are none applicable to radars but instead only serve to mask an aircraft's radar cross section? Which has been proven be be *wrong*, the EPLRS was only an example that metamaterial applies to radars because AESA radars too have entennas. I also illustrated that metamaterials applies to circuits.

Metamaterials makes it possible to shrink entennas, which is a critical component of any radar.

Read the following:

Meta-materials shrink antennas - 29/01/2010 - Electronics Weekly



> US researchers are shrinking antennas by using meta-materials - structures with negative refractive index.
> 
> They are claimed by NIST to be as small as one-fiftieth of a wavelength, with a UHF aerial measuring under 65mm square, while radiating up to 95% of input power.





Notice the officiency which is also a goal of any radar.


Are you still sticking to your failed argument? 




Enhanced Position Location Reporting System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Chinaownseverything said:


> EPLRS is a communications network, similar to a router network. Which they then showed that you could shorten the antenna of a router using the same technique.
> 
> *None of this has any relevance to plane arrayed radars*




It has all the relevance in the world, metamaterials can shrink entennas but acheive atleast the same range, usually greater. How is that not relivant?

Besides that i have posted a number of scientific articals *writen by professionals* in the feild of *radars* that are saying that metamaterials* are *applicable *to AESA *radars.





Chinaownseverything said:


> No you are just whining about pointless semantics (no doubt to draw attention away from your ignorance about modern material science)
> 
> *You made the claim that a radar was a computer which is simply NOT TRUE.*




Are you kidding me? Stop putting words in my mouth, this is what i said:




ptldM3 said:


> Wow, just wow, a radar is made up of many components, here's a few: entanna, transmiter modules, and of course the radar computer.
> 
> The computer processes: aerial targets, provides terrain mapping, distiguishes clutter, and assignes targets.
> 
> And *who said radars are computers? A radar is full of computers*, those same computers allow the above functions to be possible.









Chinaownseverything said:


> You seem to have no understanding about the basic difference between a radar and a radar system.
> 
> *In a modern radar system, the radar is connected to a computer which is connected to a display.*
> 
> Similarly a mouse is connected to a desktop (computer) which is then connected to a display.
> 
> Get it?
> 
> Radar = Mouse
> Desktop = Computer
> Radar display = Monitor






Unbeleivible! Again read my information carefully, here is what i have said before:




ptldM3 said:


> All radars have a main computer that* processes incoming information via antenna and transmitters** to, for example, the LCM's.* Things such as capacitors are scattered through out and are just an extension of the main radar computer.







In that sentence i made it clear that a radar is made up of many components such as entannas, than i made it clear that it's the radar computer's function to process the information and send it to the LCM's (liquid crystal monitors), or as you call it "displays".


Dont you feel embarrassed? Maybe next time you will read my posts carefully.




Chinaownseverything said:


> A Radar does not necessarily NEED to be connected to a computer as the term radar was applied to early 1940's systems that had no computers.





Who said that radars can only work with the aid of a computer? Early radars were nothing like the radars we use today, they were crued, bulky, and could acheive only a fraction of what a modern radar can acheive.

This is one of the earliest forms of radar:


History of radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





> The difficulty in pinpointing the direction of these fleeting signals *led to the use of rotating directional antennas,* and in 1923 the *use of oscilloscopes in order to display the signals*




Notice that it used oscilloscopes to diplay information--today we use LCM's to display information.


And this was one of the first operational radars:



History of radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Pollard led the first project, a gun-laying RDF code-named Mobile Radio Unit (MRU). This truck-mounted system was designed a small version of a CH station. It operated at 23 MHz (13 m) with a power of 300 kW. A single 105-foot tower supported a transmitting antenna, as well as two receiving antennas set orthogonally for estimating the signal bearing. In February 1937, a developmental unit detected an aircraft at 60 m (96 km) range. The Air Ministry also adopted this system as a mobile auxiliary to the CH system




I am aware of radar history, but we are not talking about ancient radars, we are talking about AESA radars, and, like it or not, AESA radars do use computers.

Let me repeat since you have difficulty understanding, we are talking about AESA radars which use computers not early forms of radars which consisted of few parts such as entennas and osilliscopes to display information.






Chinaownseverything said:


> And how is your engine and radar remotely related to the development of metamaterials and nanomaterials used in in full stealth planes?




Again go back read what i wrote and than read what you wrote, for the millionth time i mentioned China's struggles with things such as engines because you started thumping your chest claiming that *China can make a superior stealth aircraft compared to Russia *and that *China even "rivals" the US*. Clearly it's proof that all those scientific articals are a wet dream.



Chinaownseverything said:


> China has plenty of things that Russia does not have like Maglev, KBBF and the likes.




And Russia has plenty of things that China does not such as stealth  which you claimed China can do better in, i do admite those photoshops of Chinese stealth aircraft send shivers down my spine. 





Chinaownseverything said:


> And there is a definite correlation between amount of papers written in a country and how well the country excels in that field.





Yet somehow Israel is ranked 22nd and most of their technology is light years ahead of anything China has, also Spain, for example, is ranked 9th, yet what have they created that is so ground breaking? Israel is also far ahead of Spain in technology.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

ptldM3
Dude 

don't pay attention. 

The man apparently has an orgasm everytime he writes the word "metamaterials" 

I have read the whole thing 4 times and still can't understand what his point is !!!


----------



## Chinaownseverything

amalakas said:


> ptldM3
> Dude
> 
> don't pay attention.
> 
> The man apparently has an orgasm everytime he writes the word "metamaterials"
> 
> I have read the whole thing 4 times and still can't understand what his point is !!!



My argument is that

Look at stealth ships and look at the F-117








> http://eaa119.org/images/f117.jpg



Notice how they look so bulky and angled? While the F-22 is not bulky? instead it looks more like a Su-27?



> http://www.commutefaster.com/F-22.jpg



So how does the F-22 retain such a stealth profile? (especially if you read well the scientific papers about radar effects on different slopes)

Hey guess what happened in 1990?



> History of metamaterials - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> In the 1990s Sir John Pendry, a physicist from Imperial College in London who was consulting for a British company, Marconi Materials Technology, as a condensed matter physics expert. The company manufactured a stealth technology, a radiation-absorbing carbon, for naval vessels. However, the company did not understand the physics of the material. The company asked Pendry if he could figure it out.



For ships they care only for maximizing stealth while for planes it is a tradeoff the more stealthy the design the worse the aerodynamics.

The F-22 manages to get both however because the airframe supports aerodynamics more and is made stealthy by meta materials and RAM paint.

China and the USA both have large metamaterials industry and large metamaterials research (in terms of papers published). While Russia does not have either of these. 

So one would reason that the radiation absorbing metal and paint produced by Russia would be of inferior quality.


----------



## Chinaownseverything

> I never claimed that--get your facts right, or take some English reading courses. I provided sources proving that Russia has experience in metamaterials after you blatantly said we did not, never did i say any Russian radar had metamaterials. Although it is a real possibility.



You showed a handful of Russian papers on metamaterials. Which is not proof of anything, Russia's metamaterials industry and the amount of papers that Russia produces regarding the subject are a tiny fraction of China and the USA's





> First read what *you said *about metamaterials in regards to radar:
> 
> What you are saying is that metamaterials are none applicable to radars but instead only serve to mask an aircraft's radar cross section? Which has been proven be be *wrong*, the EPLRS was only an example that metamaterial applies to radars because AESA radars too have entennas. I also illustrated that metamaterials applies to circuits.
> 
> Metamaterials makes it possible to shrink entennas, which is a critical component of any radar.



Just because experts claim it is possible doesn't mean that we are doing it, there are many physicists who claim that things like massless propulsion and faster then light travel is possible.





> It has all the relevance in the world, metamaterials can shrink entennas but acheive atleast the same range, usually greater. How is that not relivant?
> 
> Besides that i have posted a number of scientific articals *writen by professionals* in the feild of *radars* that are saying that metamaterials* are *applicable *to AESA *radars.



Again refer to my above post clearly nobody has actually implemented it yet just like massless propulsion. Or there is little to no evidence to support that people are doing it now.

Clearly the Antenna used for communications is different from the Antenna used used in radars. 





> In that sentence i made it clear that a radar is made up of many components such as entannas, than i made it clear that it's the radar computer's function to process the information and send it to the LCM's (liquid crystal monitors), or as you call it "displays".
> 
> 
> Dont you feel embarrassed? Maybe next time you will read my posts carefully.



Post #123

Your Quote 



> You were boasting that Chinese computers are better than Russian computers...



My Reply



> Radars are not computer
> 
> Russia Lags In Supercomputers, Medvedev Warns -- Supercomputers -- InformationWeek
> 
> Russia Lags In Supercomputers, Medvedev Warns
> 
> Russia ranks 15th on the list of countries with the most powerful supercomputers, he noted, and 95 percent of the machines are manufactured in the U.S.



In Summary, I made the claim that China has better computers.

You replied with if China has better computer why do their radars suck?

I then replied that computers are not radar.

Which you then claimed that computers are radar

I then answered that just because a radar is connected to a computer does not mean that radar is a computer



> Who said that radars can only work with the aid of a computer? Early radars were nothing like the radars we use today, they were crued, bulky, and could acheive only a fraction of what a modern radar can acheive.
> 
> Notice that it used oscilloscopes to diplay information--today we use LCM's to display information.
> 
> 
> And this was one of the first operational radars:



I was Using History of radars to show that the term "Radar" to show the definition of radar







> I am aware of radar history, but we are not talking about ancient radars, we are talking about AESA radars, and, like it or not, AESA radars do use computers.
> 
> Let me repeat since you have difficulty understanding, we are talking about AESA radars which use computers not early forms of radars which consisted of few parts such as entennas and osilliscopes to display information.



No **** sherlock, I never claimed that AESA had no computers







> Again go back read what i wrote and than read what you wrote, for the millionth time i mentioned China's struggles with things such as engines because you started thumping your chest claiming that *China can make a superior stealth aircraft compared to Russia *and that *China even "rivals" the US*. Clearly it's proof that all those scientific articals are a wet dream.



Read the post before this one, critical stealth components are nanomaterials and metamaterials which China is clearly ahead in based on the size of the industry and numbers of papers written on each field.




> And Russia has plenty of things that China does not such as stealth  which you claimed China can do better in, i do admite those photoshops of Chinese stealth aircraft send shivers down my spine.



Theres a lot of evidence that China is ahead of Russia in stealth due to critical stealth components being nanotechnology and metamaterials. Fields that China is #2 in after the USA.






Yet somehow Israel is ranked 22nd and most of their technology is light years ahead of anything China has, also Spain, for example, is ranked 9th, yet what have they created that is so ground breaking? Israel is also far ahead of Spain in technology.[/QUOTE]


----------



## amalakas

Dude, enough 

the F22 and the F35 have as much to do with metamaterials as they have with metaphysics .... 

the excellent F22 design is down to the key understanding and computer aided design of and on the theories developed by Pyotr Ya. Ufimtsev. 

Designers have a much better understanding and can simulate far better the difraction and absorbtion of em waves far better now than they could in the 70's . 

Fundamentals of the Physical Theory of Diffraction 
Pyotr Ya. Ufimtsev

I suggest you buy the book if you have any doubts ... 
oh by the way , the guy was russian and he wrote the book in the 60's ...

oh .. and the ENTIRE stealth tech is based on it.


----------



## KingOfGods

shaitan_singh said:


> i want to ask 1 thing.......does india has any role in this 5th generation fighter project of russia??



If you are asking about PAK FA...........yes. Detail is listed below.



> *India to develop 25% of fifth generation fighter*
> Ajai Shukla / New Delhi January 6, 2010, 0:36 IST
> 
> Scrutinising the Sukhoi Corporations work on the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA)  a project that India will soon sign up to co-develop  gives one an idea of Russias size, and its aerospace expertise. During daytime, in Moscow, the Sukhoi Design Bureau conceptualises FGFA components; by 10 pm the drawings are electronically transmitted over 5,000 kilometres to a manufacturing unit in Siberia. Here, at KnAAPO (Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aircraft Production Organisation)  seven time zones away  it is already 5 am next morning. Within a couple of hours, the drawings start being translated into aircraft production.
> 
> Having designed over 100 aircraft (including Indias Su-30MKI), built over 10,000 fighters, and with 50 world aviation records to its credit, Sukhoi understandably regards Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL)  its partner-to-be in designing the FGFA  as very much the greenhorn.
> 
> *But the newcomer wants its due. Bangalore-based HAL has negotiated firmly to get a 25 per cent share of design and development work in the FGFA programme. HALs work share will include critical software, including the mission computer (the Su-30MKI mission computer is entirely Indian); navigation systems; most of the cockpit displays; the counter measure dispensing (CMD) systems; and modifying Sukhois single-seat prototype into the twin-seat fighter that the Indian Air Force (IAF) wants.*
> 
> 
> *India will also contribute its expertise in aircraft composites, developed while designing the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). Russia has traditionally built metallic aircraft; just 10 per cent of the Su-30MKI fuselage is titanium and composites. The FGFAs fuselage, in contrast, will be 25 per cent titanium and 20 per cent composites. Russias expertise in titanium structures will be complemented by Indias experience in composites.*
> 
> With Indias work share almost finalised, the 2007 Russia-India Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) to build the FGFA will soon evolve into a commercial contract between Russias United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) and HAL. Ashok Baweja, until recently the chairman of HAL, told Business Standard: When HAL and UAC agree on terms, they will sign a General Contract. This will include setting up a JV to design the FGFA, and precise details about who will fund what.
> 
> This contract will mark a significant shift in the aeronautical relationship between India and Russia. For decades, HAL has played a technologically subordinate role, assembling and building fighters that Russia had designed. Now, forced to accept HAL as a design partner, the Russians have negotiated hard to limit its role.
> 
> The reason: Russia is sceptical about Indias design ability in such a cutting edge project. In June 2008, Business Standard interviewed Vyacheslav Trubnikov, then Russias ambassador to India, and an expert on Russias defence industry. Contrasting the Su-30MKI with the Tejas LCA, Trubnikov pointed out snidely, I know perfectly well the Russian ability. But I dont know what contribution the Indian side might make. So, one must ask the question to the Indian designers, to HALwhat is their claim for building a fighter of the fifth generation type? Either avionics, or engine? What might be Indias contribution? To be absolutely frank, I dont know.
> 
> For long, the UAC argued that HAL could not expect a major role in the FGFA because Sukhoi had finished much of the work while New Delhi dithered about joining the project. UAC asserts that 5,000 Sukhoi engineers have worked for five years to design the FGFA. Such claims are hard to verify, but it is known that the Sukhoi Design Bureau has about 8,000 engineers, distributed between many different programmes.
> 
> With Sukhois ploughing on alone, Minister of State for Defence Pallam Raju admitted to Business Standard: The longer India waits to join the project, the lesser will be our contribution. But, we are not sitting idle. Through the defence ministrys existing programmes [such as the Tejas LCA] we are building up our capabilities.
> 
> Most Indian officials agree that India has not lost much. Even if the FGFA makes its much-anticipated first flight this year, it is still at a preliminary stage of development. Ashok Baweja assessed in early 2009, The FGFAs first flight is just the beginning of the programme. My understanding is that the Russians are going ahead (with the test) to validate the FGFAs proof of concept (conceptual design). Whatever composite materials they have now, theyll use. But, because the composites will change the FGFA will keep evolving for a fairly long time.
> 
> A top ministry official estimates, It will take another 4-5 years to develop many of the FGFAs systems. Then, the aircraft will undergo at least 2000 hours of certification flying and, possibly, some reconfiguration. The FGFA should not be expected in service before 2017. And the twin-seat version may take a couple of years longer.
> 
> With just a 25 per cent share of design, South Block policymakers still believe that the FGFA project is a vital step towards Indias emergence as a military aeronautical power. Developing 25 per cent of this fighter is far better than just transferring technology to build it in India, as we did with the Su-30MKI, points out a defence ministry official.
> 
> Ashok Baweja puts the project in context. India can only (develop the FGFA) by partnering with Russia. They have so much experience. Its not just the design you must also have materials maraging steel, titanium, composite alloys, and the industrial base to convert these into high-tech components like gyros, sensors and optics. The FGFA will give us important experience for building fighters hereafter.



Link:
India to develop 25% of fifth generation fighter


----------



## Chinaownseverything

amalakas said:


> Dude, enough
> 
> the F22 and the F35 have as much to do with metamaterials as they have with metaphysics ....
> 
> the excellent F22 design is down to the key understanding and computer aided design of and on the theories developed by Pyotr Ya. Ufimtsev.
> 
> Designers have a much better understanding and can simulate far better the difraction and absorbtion of em waves far better now than they could in the 70's .
> 
> Fundamentals of the Physical Theory of Diffraction
> Pyotr Ya. Ufimtsev
> 
> I suggest you buy the book if you have any doubts ...
> oh by the way , the guy was russian and he wrote the book in the 60's ...
> 
> oh .. and the ENTIRE stealth tech is based on it.



Explain then why recently developed stealth ships look more like the F-117 than the F-22?

Creating a stealth fighter is not as easy as stealing an airframe and filling it up with electronics and slapping on an engine.

The only reason why the F-22 is possible is because of advances in metamaterials 

See here

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/f...ft&openedRefinements=*&searchField=Search+All

This paper shows the drastic effect that generic RAM paint, obviously in a real situation militaries will be using RAM paint thats not for sale, and not all parts of the plane are painted (As some parts of the plane will face particularly nasty heat+ pressure that will erode it), the parts that aren't painted are constructed from radar absorbing metamaterials

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/f...ts&openedRefinements=*&searchField=Search+All

And as you can see from this paper they compare the radar cross section of the F-117 to the F-22 simply based on the shape


Clearly the F-117 has the superior stealth design since the F-117 is almost 3 times as big as the F-22 yet the RCS does not differ significantly, if the F-22 was optimized for stealth the design would look similar to the F-117 as it would have an even smaller cross section.

I have IEEE login so if you are unable to login I can post pics even though they will take awhile


----------



## gambit

I have read enough of this metamaterials nonsense.



Chinaownseverything said:


> Explain then why recently developed stealth ships look more like the F-117 than the F-22?


Because of the 2D environment. Radar signals do not penetrate well into and under water. Realistically...Any radar signal that impact water surface will deflect back up, therefore it make sense to have faceted angles on the ship. The effect is called 'multipath propagation' and is most prominent when the approaching signal is parallel to the surface, even land. For water, temperature layers can create additional deflective surfaces for any radar signal that did penetrate the surface.

Assuming a parallel to the surface approaching signal, we have:

1) Direct-direct
This is where the signal and echo have their direct paths.

2) Direct-indirect
This is where the signal is direct, from seeker to target, but a portion of the echo deflects off the water surface before going back to the seeker radar.

3) Indirect-direct
This is where a portion of the signal deflects off the water surface, create an echo off the body, and a portion of the echo took the direct path back to the seeker radar.

4) Indirect-indirect
This is where portions of both signal and echo deflects off the water surface before reaching their destinations.

All four types have delays with each other. Ironically...The more sophisticated the seeking radar, the greater the negative effects from multipath propagation as this sophisticated radar is trying to process what it believes to be four targets or four ghosts, depending on the humidity level and temperature layers of the body of water.

So for ship, angling its side surfaces to deflect any echo signals upward make sense. Where else can we deflect but up anyway since this is a 2D environment?



Chinaownseverything said:


> The only reason why the F-22 is possible is because of advances in metamaterials


There are no 'metamaterials' on the F-22.



Chinaownseverything said:


> See here
> 
> This paper shows the drastic effect that generic RAM paint, obviously in a real situation militaries will be using RAM paint thats not for sale, and not all parts of the plane are painted (As some parts of the plane will face particularly nasty heat+ pressure that will erode it), the parts that aren't painted are constructed from radar absorbing metamaterials
> 
> IEEE Xplore - Abstract Page
> 
> And as you can see from this paper they compare the radar cross section of the F-117 to the F-22 simply based on the shape
> 
> 
> Clearly the F-117 has the superior stealth design since the F-117 is almost 3 times as big as the F-22 yet the RCS does not differ significantly, if the F-22 was optimized for stealth the design would look similar to the F-117 as it would have an even smaller cross section.
> 
> I have IEEE login so if you are unable to login I can post pics even though they will take awhile


The F-117 uses angled facetings while the F-22 uses curves. Both fall under body shaping to effect radar surface behavior controls. The negative side to angled faceting is reduce aerodynamic performance and increase use of absorbers. The positive side of curves are superior aerodynamic performance and far less demand for absorbers. So for the 3D environment curves are better.

News for you, buddy. Radar absorber, solid or liquid, are commercially available. They are known for radome application. It is only the ferrite particle formulation in size and distribution that is secret to these 'stealth' aircrafts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

Finaly Gambit 

you popped in when and where you were needed. !


also ..


> It is only the ferrite particle formulation in size and distribution that is secret to these 'stealth' aircrafts.



I was under the impression that the method of application for RAM coatings is also a "secret" as their performace varies depending on how they are applied on surfaces.


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> I was under the impression that the method of application for RAM coatings is also a "secret" as their performace varies depending on how they are applied on surfaces.


Not really. The 'paint' is just like any other paint that we use to color our houses or aircrafts. Except that it is slightly heavier. Then we moved to adhesive panels. For gaps between panels, we have 'zip strips', essentially sticky strings that are thicker and heavier to get between the gaps.

Clarifications...

For 'gaps between panels', I meant aircraft hard panels, not the adhesive panels or sheets. It is the frequently access maintenance hard panels that are problematic for RCS controls.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> Not really. The 'paint' is just like any other paint that we use to color our houses or aircrafts. Except that it is slightly heavier. Then we moved to adhesive panels. For gaps between panels, we have 'zip strips', essentially sticky strings that are thicker and heavier to get between the gaps.



fair enough


----------



## Thomas

gambit said:


> Not really. The 'paint' is just like any other paint that we use to color our houses or aircrafts. Except that it is slightly heavier. Then we moved to adhesive panels. For gaps between panels, we have 'zip strips', essentially sticky strings that are thicker and heavier to get between the gaps.



It is also incorporated into carbon fiber now as well.


----------



## Devianz

Chinaownseverything said:


> Clearly the Antenna used for communications is different from the Antenna used used in radars.



RESOLUTION RADAR USING METAMATERIALS



> *A radar system includes at least one transmit array comprising a plurality of metamaterial elements.* The radar system further includes at least one near-field stimulator for inputting electromagnetic signal to the transmit array so that a sub-wavelength target is illuminated with an electromagnetic wave.




Phased array metamaterial antenna system 


> *An efficient, low-loss, low sidelobe, high dynamic range phased-array radar antenna system is disclosed that uses metamaterials, which are manmade composite materials having a negative index of refraction, to create a biconcave lens architecture (instead of the aforementioned biconvex lens) for focusing the microwaves transmitted by the antenna.* Accordingly, the sidelobes of the antenna are reduced. Attenuation across microstrip transmission lines may be reduced by using low loss transmission lines that are suspended above a ground plane a predetermined distance in a way such they are not in contact with a solid substrate. By suspending the microstrip transmission lines in this manner, dielectric signal loss is reduced significantly, thus resulting in a less-attenuated signal at its destination.



Left-Handed Metamaterial Technologies Significant for Information and Communication Devices


> *Wide-Range Beam Scan of Radar Antenna*
> A radar is a system that performs a wide range scanning detection across a certain angle by rotating its antenna havinig a directional narrow beamradiation pattern. The phase of the electromagnetic wave inside the antenna is so controlled as to implement the antenna's beam scan without using a rotation mechanism.* A backward wave from a lefthanded metamaterial can be used effectively to widen the range of beam scanning.* Sweeping the frequency of the radar electromagnetic wave from the righthanded frequency band to the left-handed frequency band, both the ordinary forward wave (electromagnetic wave in a right-handed medium) and the backward wave can be used. The doubled range in phase shift can double the scanning range by the antenna beam



METAMATERIAL MEDIATED INVERSE CHERENKOV ACCELERATION


> In this paper we consider the application of metamaterials to Traveling Wave Tubes (TWT). The TWT proposed in the 1940's by Kompfner [1] remains the driving technology for many applications ranging from communications to radar. The interaction between
> electron beam and EM field results in an energy transfer from beam to wave. To date four papers [2][3][4][5] have considered metamaterials in TWTs, first three of them used metamaterials to line the side of the structure to minimise losses and increase efficiency, while the 4th paper [5] used metamaterial along the waveguide mode propagation path.



Metamaterials based steerable antennas for millimeter wave radar applications

Enjoy


----------



## Thomas

There a lots of different applications for meta materials, some of it having to do with stealth. However the entire field of meta materials is in it's infancy. And to ascribe currently fielded stealth aircraft as benefiting from meta materials is incorrect. 

A Duke university team that is at the vanguard of Meta Material research give an example of meta material usages. 

Duke Magazine-The Magic of Metamaterials By Ker Than-March/April 2007

*" In the future, the Duke team&#8217;s metamaterials could be used to conceal military aircraft from radar better than current stealth technology, protect people and electronics against harmful electromagnetic radiation, create super-sensitive solar cells, or focus light rays into tight beams, enabling a satellite orbiting Mars, for example, to transmit power to a rover on the planet&#8217;s surface.

Two other classes of metamaterials, being developed by other researchers, have the potential to create &#8220;super lenses&#8221; that could be fitted onto microscopes and allow scientists to peer into the mysterious inner workings of living cells, or to shepherd electrons more precisely and efficiently for the construction of smaller electronics and faster computers."*


----------



## Chinaownseverything

> Because of the 2D environment. Radar signals do not penetrate well into and under water. Realistically...Any radar signal that impact water surface will deflect back up, therefore it make sense to have faceted angles on the ship. The effect is called 'multipath propagation' and is most prominent when the approaching signal is parallel to the surface, even land. For water, temperature layers can create additional deflective surfaces for any radar signal that did penetrate the surface.
> 
> Assuming a parallel to the surface approaching signal, we have:
> 
> 1) Direct-direct
> This is where the signal and echo have their direct paths.
> 
> 2) Direct-indirect
> This is where the signal is direct, from seeker to target, but a portion of the echo deflects off the water surface before going back to the seeker radar.
> 
> 3) Indirect-direct
> This is where a portion of the signal deflects off the water surface, create an echo off the body, and a portion of the echo took the direct path back to the seeker radar.
> 
> 4) Indirect-indirect
> This is where portions of both signal and echo deflects off the water surface before reaching their destinations.
> 
> All four types have delays with each other. Ironically...The more sophisticated the seeking radar, the greater the negative effects from multipath propagation as this sophisticated radar is trying to process what it believes to be four targets or four ghosts, depending on the humidity level and temperature layers of the body of water.
> 
> So for ship, angling its side surfaces to deflect any echo signals upward make sense. Where else can we deflect but up anyway since this is a 2D environment?



Nope the basic rule is that the more spherical the more easily you show up on radar. Without a doubt it has been proven that a flat angled plate has the best deflection.

RCS of bent rectangular shape





Compared to RCS of curved rectangular shape





Adaptive grid method to show deflection of a angled plate








> There are no 'metamaterials' on the F-22.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The F-117 uses angled facetings while the F-22 uses curves. Both fall under body shaping to effect radar surface behavior controls. The negative side to angled faceting is reduce aerodynamic performance and increase use of absorbers. The positive side of curves are superior aerodynamic performance and far less demand for absorbers. So for the 3D environment curves are better.
> 
> News for you, buddy. Radar absorber, solid or liquid, are commercially available. They are known for radome application. It is only the ferrite particle formulation in size and distribution that is secret to these 'stealth' aircrafts.
Click to expand...


Here you go RCS comparisons between the F-22 and F-117

















The design of the F-117 is obviously better for stealth as the F-117 is much larger than the F-22 yet the RCS cross sections are almost equivalent. 

The F-22 was built more for aerodynamics rather than pure stealth as a shrunken F-117 to the size of the F-22 would have a smaller cross section.

However the F-22 gets a smaller RCS because of metamaterials and better RAM paint.

And please learn what metamaterial is before making claims about it


> History of metamaterials - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Invention of the metamaterial
> 
> Historically, and conventionally, the function or behavior of materials can be altered through their chemistry. This has long been known. For example, adding lead changes the color or hardness of glass. However, at the end of the 20th century this definition was about to be expanded.[9]
> 
> In the 1990s Sir John Pendry, a physicist from Imperial College in London who was consulting for a British company, Marconi Materials Technology, as a condensed matter physics expert. The company manufactured a stealth technology, a radiation-absorbing carbon, for naval vessels. However, the company did not understand the physics of the material. The company asked Pendry if he could figure it out.



Your arguments are mostly irrelevant, your jargon impresses nobody. You can't understand simple mathematical proofs. You don't seem to understand propagation of electromagnetic radiation.

Stick to your area of expertise washing toilets for the USA navy instead of trying to talk physics when you probably don't have a high school degree.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chinaownseverything

Thomas said:


> There a lots of different applications for meta materials, some of it having to do with stealth. However the entire field of meta materials is in it's infancy. And to ascribe currently fielded stealth aircraft as benefiting from meta materials is incorrect.
> 
> A Duke university team that is at the vanguard of Meta Material research give an example of meta material usages.
> 
> Duke Magazine-The Magic of Metamaterials By Ker Than-March/April 2007
> 
> *" In the future, the Duke teams metamaterials could be used to conceal military aircraft from radar better than current stealth technology, protect people and electronics against harmful electromagnetic radiation, create super-sensitive solar cells, or focus light rays into tight beams, enabling a satellite orbiting Mars, for example, to transmit power to a rover on the planets surface.
> 
> Two other classes of metamaterials, being developed by other researchers, have the potential to create super lenses that could be fitted onto microscopes and allow scientists to peer into the mysterious inner workings of living cells, or to shepherd electrons more precisely and efficiently for the construction of smaller electronics and faster computers."*



There are many types of metamaterials, literally thousands all of them have potential military applications. More are being discovered everyday.

We have had plenty of these at hand when the F-22 was being conceived


> History of metamaterials - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Invention of the metamaterial
> 
> Historically, and conventionally, the function or behavior of materials can be altered through their chemistry. This has long been known. For example, adding lead changes the color or hardness of glass. However, at the end of the 20th century this definition was about to be expanded.[9]
> 
> In the 1990s Sir John Pendry, a physicist from Imperial College in London who was consulting for a British company, Marconi Materials Technology, as a condensed matter physics expert. The company manufactured a stealth technology, a radiation-absorbing carbon, for naval vessels. However, the company did not understand the physics of the material. The company asked Pendry if he could figure it out.[9]

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chinaownseverything

Devianz said:


> RESOLUTION RADAR USING METAMATERIALS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phased array metamaterial antenna system
> 
> 
> Left-Handed Metamaterial Technologies Significant for Information and Communication Devices
> 
> 
> METAMATERIAL MEDIATED INVERSE CHERENKOV ACCELERATION
> 
> 
> Metamaterials based steerable antennas for millimeter wave radar applications
> 
> Enjoy



What is your point? I have already acknowledged that metamaterials could be used to improve radar.

Russian guy used USA replacing the antenna of a router with metamaterial and claimed that they were using them in AESA radars NOW using the assumption that if they did it to a router they can do it to a radar.

We might be able to improve radar in the future, but the radar we use right now does not incorporate

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Devianz

I would love to see Gambit's reply.....


----------



## Devianz

Chinaownseverything said:


> What is your point? I have already acknowledged that metamaterials could be used to improve radar.
> 
> Russian guy used USA replacing the antenna of a router with metamaterial and claimed that they were using them in AESA radars NOW using the assumption that if they did it to a router they can do it to a radar.
> 
> *We might be able to improve radar in the future, but the radar we use right now does not incorporate*



That's the whole point.... In future many things would be possible.


----------



## Thomas

Chinaownseverything said:


> We have had plenty of these at hand when the F-22 was being conceived



Not true the concept of the F-22 dates to the 80's, with the first YF-22 flight in 1990. The first experimental demonstration of Meta Materials was in 2000. Prior to that meta materials were theoretical only. The field really is only in it's early stages of development. 20 - 30+ years from now you may start to see meta materials applied to the field of stealth. but for now the technology simply is not there.

Metamaterial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## dbc

Chinaownseverything said:


> Stick to your area of expertise washing toilets for the USA navy instead of trying to talk physics when you probably don't have a high school degree.



..and what do you do at NYU-Poly


----------



## amalakas

Chinaownseverything said:


> The design of the F-117 is obviously better for stealth as the F-117 is much larger than the F-22 yet the RCS cross sections are almost equivalent.
> 
> The F-22 was built more for aerodynamics rather than pure stealth as a shrunken F-117 to the size of the F-22 would have a smaller cross section.
> 
> However the F-22 gets a smaller RCS because of metamaterials and better RAM paint.




Righttttttttttttt !!!!!!!

okkkkk 

F 117 size 
# Length: 65 ft 11 in (20.09 m)
# Wingspan: 43 ft 4 in (13.20 m)
# Height: 12 ft 9.5 in (3.78 m)
# Wing area: 780 ft² (73 m²)

F 22 size 

# Length: 62 ft 1 in (18.90 m)
# Wingspan: 44 ft 6 in (13.56 m)
# Height: 16 ft 8 in (5.08 m)
# Wing area: 840 ft² (78.04 m²)


You were telling us how the F 22 is a much smaller plane than the F117 ..!!!! 

may I ask in which dimension it is much smaller ??


----------



## no_name

Radar absorbent materials are available on market. What is more difficult is to make such material have the equivalent permittivity and permeability of air at the frequency range of interest so that reflections at the boundary between the paint and air is eliminated or reduced as much as possible. 

This is why in anechoic chambers the radiation absorbent materials are in bulky triangular shapes because although they are lossy they still reflect signals at boundaries so it must be shaped so that they reflect inward rather than outwards.

Designing a RAM paint for stealth aircraft is difficult because the paint would have to appear transparent yet lossy for a large frequency range as modern radars are wideband. The paint would have to be thin and not too heavy. They have to attenuate signals rapidly before it hit the underlying plane surface and reflect/scatter back out again. The paint would also have to be polarisation and incidence angle independent.

chinaowns, to each his own way. We don't need to prove or argue who is better than what. Let the result speak. Currently Russia have already unveiled their prototype. China may also have one but so far there has been no infos on it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Chinaownseverything said:


> Nope the basic rule is that the more spherical the more easily you show up on radar. Without a doubt it has been proven that a flat angled plate has the best deflection.


More 'spherical'. A sphere, depending on its diameter, can have as small an RCS return as *ANY* angled surface with respect to incident signal.

Creeping wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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








In other words, because of the 'creeping wave' behavior, the surface of the sphere is called the 'electrical path' or 'propagation path', depending on the incident signal's wavelength, the sphere can be dimensionally much larger, its surface area much greater, and still can have the same or even smaller RCS return. If the sphere is small enough, the creeping wave can return back to incident direction, creating an RCS return larger than the angled plate.

Your argument is also based upon a perfectly smooth surface, which we know is impossible...






If there is a perfectly smooth surface, the angled surface would be truly invisible to radar. But then apply this perfectly smooth surface to a sphere, *IT* would also be invisible to radar. That is why absorber integrity is important to the F-117.



Chinaownseverything said:


> RCS of bent rectangular shape
> 
> Compared to RCS of curved rectangular shape
> 
> Here you go RCS comparisons between the F-22 and F-117


Aircrafts are complex bodies and the fact that the F-22's RCS is comparable to the F-117's RCS and with superior overall performance and capabilities tells us that angled faceting as an RCS control method has reached its limit with the F-117.



> Chinaownseverything said:
> 
> 
> 
> The design of the F-117 is obviously better for stealth as the F-117 is *much larger* than the F-22 yet the RCS cross sections are almost equivalent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amalakas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Righttttttttttttt !!!!!!!
> 
> okkkkk
> 
> F 117 size
> # Length: 65 ft 11 in (20.09 m)
> # Wingspan: 43 ft 4 in (13.20 m)
> # Height: 12 ft 9.5 in (3.78 m)
> # Wing area: 780 ft² (73 m²)
> 
> F 22 size
> 
> # Length: 62 ft 1 in (18.90 m)
> # Wingspan: 44 ft 6 in (13.56 m)
> # Height: 16 ft 8 in (5.08 m)
> # Wing area: 840 ft² (78.04 m²)
> 
> 
> You were telling us how the F 22 is a much smaller plane than the F117 ..!!!!
> 
> may I ask in which dimension it is much smaller ??
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Yes...Am curious about how much 'much larger' is larger'.



Chinaownseverything said:


> The F-22 was built more for aerodynamics rather than pure stealth as a shrunken F-117 to the size of the F-22 would have a smaller cross section.


The F-22, as an RCS primary body, is superior to the F-117. There is no such animal as 'pure stealth' because the word 'stealth' is a contrived idea for PR purposes. The proper phrasings are 'low radar observability' or 'low radar reflectivity'. The fact that you use 'pure stealth' tells me you do not know what you are talking about.



Chinaownseverything said:


> However the F-22 gets a smaller RCS because of metamaterials and better RAM paint.


The F-22 has far lower absorber than the F-117. The F-22 has absorbers mostly on the leading edges such as flight control surfaces and intake. There are no metamaterials on the F-22. You are making an absurd assumption based upon your flawed understanding of radar detection of complex bodies.



Chinaownseverything said:


> And please learn what metamaterial is before making claims about it


As if we have learned anything from you about it. You cannot provide a source that says the F-22 has any 'metamaterials'.



Chinaownseverything said:


> Your arguments are mostly irrelevant, your jargon impresses nobody. You can't understand simple mathematical proofs. You don't seem to understand propagation of electromagnetic radiation.
> 
> Stick to your area of expertise washing toilets for the USA navy instead of trying to talk physics when you probably don't have a high school degree.


Sure...Everything I posted came from engineers' trash can as I make my nightly cleaning rounds. Now all you have to do is show us at least a couple of sources that says the F-22 is installed with 'metamaterials'.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chinaownseverything

> gambit said:
> 
> 
> 
> More 'spherical'. A sphere, depending on its diameter, can have as small an RCS return as *ANY* angled surface with respect to incident signal.
> 
> Creeping wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, because of the 'creeping wave' behavior, the surface of the sphere is called the 'electrical path' or 'propagation path', depending on the incident signal's wavelength, the sphere can be dimensionally much larger, its surface area much greater, and still can have the same or even smaller RCS return. If the sphere is small enough, the creeping wave can return back to incident direction, creating an RCS return larger than the angled plate.
> 
> Your argument is also based upon a perfectly smooth surface, which we know is impossible...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there is a perfectly smooth surface, the angled surface would be truly invisible to radar. But then apply this perfectly smooth surface to a sphere, *IT* would also be invisible to radar. That is why absorber integrity is important to the F-117.
> 
> 
> Aircrafts are complex bodies and the fact that the F-22's RCS is comparable to the F-117's RCS and with superior overall performance and capabilities tells us that angled faceting as an RCS control method has reached its limit with the F-117.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have NO understanding of creeping waves, or radar. You are spouting gibberish just like in that DF-21 thread.
> 
> When you fire radiation at a angled plane and at a perfect sphere, the perfect sphere will always deflect back more radiation towards the source than the angled plane. All creeping wave radiation does is that some of the radiation fired at it gets bent around the sphere and gets sent back to the source. So it is doubly worse due to sending back more information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a well known FACT amongst any engineer. Smoothness has nothing to do with it, a perfectly smooth sphere will still send back radiation towards the source while a perfectly smooth plane will not.
> 
> Fire radiation at the center of a perfect sphere and it will come right back at you, however fire at every part of a perfectly smooth angled plate and nothing will come back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...Am curious about how much 'much larger' is larger'.
> 
> 
> The F-22, as an RCS primary body, is superior to the F-117. There is no such animal as 'pure stealth' because the word 'stealth' is a contrived idea for PR purposes. The proper phrasings are 'low radar observability' or 'low radar reflectivity'. The fact that you use 'pure stealth' tells me you do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again look at the two images I posted earlier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the Black shape in the center for XOY in both of them, the F-117 is bigger than the F-22 in every plane. Giving a bunch of lengths is meaningless. Clearly the F-117 is 3 times the size of the F-22.
> 
> 
> 
> The F-22 has far lower absorber than the F-117. The F-22 has absorbers mostly on the leading edges such as flight control surfaces and intake. There are no metamaterials on the F-22. You are making an absurd assumption based upon your flawed understanding of radar detection of complex bodies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again the RCS is showed you is the RCS formed from ONLY THE SHAPE of the object and assuming that both the F-117 and F-22 were made out of pure steel.
> 
> The F-22 needs extremely advanced RAM material if it is to live up to its marble sized RCS since the low RCS is clearly not coming from the plane shape.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure...Everything I posted came from engineers' trash can as I make my nightly cleaning rounds. Now all you have to do is show us at least a couple of sources that says the F-22 is installed with 'metamaterials'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have been using metamaterials in stealth ships since the 1990's
> 
> History of metamaterials - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Invention of the metamaterial
> 
> Historically, and conventionally, the function or behavior of materials can be altered through their chemistry. This has long been known. For example, adding lead changes the color or hardness of glass. However, at the end of the 20th century this definition was about to be expanded.[9]
> 
> In the 1990s Sir John Pendry, a physicist from Imperial College in London who was consulting for a British company, Marconi Materials Technology, as a condensed matter physics expert. The company manufactured a stealth technology, a radiation-absorbing carbon, for naval vessels. However, the company did not understand the physics of the material. The company asked Pendry if he could figure it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The company manufactured a stealth technology, a radiation-absorbing carbon, for naval vessels. However, the company did not understand the physics of the material.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## ptldM3

Chinaownseverything said:


> You showed a handful of Russian papers on metamaterials. Which is not proof of anything, Russia's metamaterials industry and the amount of papers that Russia produces regarding the subject are a tiny fraction of China and the USA's




First you claimed that Russia has not broken into the field of metamaterials and now your argument has shifted to Russia has not published as much articles on metamaterial as China, this is after I called you out and proved you wrong, btw, I want a source showing how many papers have been published by said countries in regards to metamaterials.






Chinaownseverything said:


> In Summary, I made the claim that China has better computers.
> 
> You replied with if China has better computer why do their radars suck?
> 
> I then replied that computers are not radar.
> 
> *Which you then claimed that computers are radar*
> 
> I then answered that just because a radar is connected to a computer does not mean that radar is a computer






Holly mother of god, when did I say a radar was a computer?


This I what I said about radars:




ptldM3 said:


> a radar is made up of many components, here's a few: antenna, transmitter modules, *and of course the radar computer*.




Can you see the list of radar components I listed? Can you see that a radar computer is one of the things on that list? Can you see that I never even remotely implied that a radar is a computer? 


You told me that a radar was not a computer after you boasted about China having more advanced computers, I than gave you a hypothetical question, asking why Russian radars are better than Chinese ones--you than told me that a radar is not a computer. 

Clearly I never said a radar was a computer, instead I implied that whosever&#8217;s radar has the better electronics/computers will ultimately have the better radar.







Chinaownseverything said:


> No **** sherlock, I never claimed that AESA had no computers







This is what you said:




Chinaownseverything said:


> If I took a sensor connected it to a bunch of resistors and capacitors and then to a motor and designed the circuit so that when say the sensor hit 100 volts that the voltage to the motor would be 0. *Would you say that is a computer?*
> 
> So why would you say that a radiation sensor sending voltages to a pad that lights up to form pictures a computer?




Clearly you tried to imply that a radar is not a computer or has no computers, either way, before that post, I established that a radar is not a computer, but rather that a radar uses computers, so the only other thing I can take away from your above quote is that radars have no computers. If this is not the case than please take some English writing classes so you can write a coherent and fluent sentence that makes sense and doesn't get misinterpreted.









Chinaownseverything said:


> Read the post before this one, critical stealth components are *nanomaterials* and metamaterials which *China is clearly ahead in based on the size of the industry* and numbers of papers written on each field.




What is China's size in the industry? Do you know Russia&#8217;s size? Have you ever considered things other than lousy papers written?


Russia has an enormous nanotechnology industry, this has little to do with papers written., instead it's funding.


Rusnano: Fostering Nanotechnology Innovation in Russia | MIT World




> *With a budget of up to $10 billion (USD) in government funds, RUSNANO co-invests in nanotechnology projects in areas such as solar energy, composite materials, nano-biotechnology, and mechanical engineering* that have high potential for commercial or social benefit. RUSNANO stipulates that all companies that win funding must operate in Russia. *Its goal is to ensure the production of the value of Russia&#8217;s nanotechnology industry reaches $30 billion by 2015.*




This is one company in Russia receiving government funds, there are many more companies and institutions that are in the business of nanotechnology.


Chinese professors may write theories on nanotechnology and conducts some experiments, and the same holds true in Russia, but Russia also spends billions on research and development.


Like I mentioned before, most scientific papers do not apply to the military. Growing greener vegetables and making better tooth paste is worthless when you are trying to construct an aircraft. Moreover, Engineers and scientist do* their own* experiments, meaning someone's journal article is of little importance. 


If the Russia military has a requirement for a piece of technology, in this case lets say a new engine with a long service life, than Russian companies will conduct research. 

This is one example of nanotechnology making it into Russian engines:


&#208;&#238;&#241;&#241;&#232;&#233;&#241;&#234;&#224;&#255; &#234;&#238;&#240;&#239;&#238;&#240;&#224;&#246;&#232;&#255; &#237;&#224;&#237;&#238;&#242;&#229;&#245;&#237;&#238;&#235;&#238;&#227;&#232;&#233;



> *Rhenium - a rare metal is of strategic importance. On this basis, make a strong heat-resistant alloys and structural materials for the manufacture of aircraft engines and spacecraft, blades of turbine engines *and power plants, the platinum-rhenium catalysts for oil refining, as well as for the nuclear and electronic industries. On this basis, make a strong heat-resistant alloys and structural materials for the manufacture of aircraft engines and spacecraft, blades of turbine engines and power plants.




This is the work of RUSNANO. There has been many nanotechnology products that have came from Russia and many articles that have been written, in fact there is a such thing a socks made from nanotechnology but in the context of building a better engine, those nano sox are good as garbage.


When Russian engineers and scientists want to built a long lasting engine with 4000 hours of service life than they will conduct their own research, they do not care too much about scientific journals.







Chinaownseverything said:


> Theres a lot of evidence that China is ahead of Russia in stealth due to critical stealth components being nanotechnology and metamaterials. Fields that China is #2 in after the USA.





Give me a source that says China is #2 in nanotechnology and metamaterials.















Chinaownseverything said:


> China and the USA both have large metamaterials industry and large metamaterials research (in terms of papers published). *While Russia does not have either of these. *





I'm fed up with your stupidity, I gave you Russian journal articals describing Russia's metamaterials, yet you still have the audacity to write that crap. Your tactics are cheap, no matter what proof I give you, you are still in *utter denial*......how can one need get? Your clear goal is to put China on a Pedestal and at the same time make Russia look like crap.


And your 'stealth' theories about the F-22 and F-117 are so stoopid i'm not even going to bother.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chinaownseverything

> First you claimed that Russia has not broken into the field of metamaterials and now your argument has shifted to Russia has not published as much articles on metamaterial as China, this is after I called you out and proved you wrong, btw, I want a source showing how many papers have been published by said countries in regards to metamaterials.



Metamaterials falls under the category of nanomaterials which falls under the category of nanotechnology which falls under the category of material science (I have shown beforehand that China leads in material science) (you can also go to international scientific databases like worldwidescience.com and by searching metamaterials you will see a lot more from china than russia)

If China leads in nanomaterials it is likely that they will have a good advantage in metamaterials since fields are so close I will show China leads in the lower post





> Can you see the list of radar components I listed? Can you see that a radar computer is one of the things on that list? Can you see that I never even remotely implied that a radar is a computer?
> 
> 
> You told me that a radar was not a computer after you boasted about China having more advanced computers, I than gave you a hypothetical question, asking why Russian radars are better than Chinese ones--you than told me that a radar is not a computer.
> 
> Clearly I never said a radar was a computer, instead I implied that whosevers radar has the better electronics/computers will ultimately have the better radar.



I have no wish to continue this He said, she said, he meant, she meant argument.

Lets go back to computers, I have proven that China has better computers

Russia Lags In Supercomputers, Medvedev Warns -- Supercomputers -- InformationWeek

Straight from Medvedev's mouth

Russia ranks 15th on the list of countries with the most powerful supercomputers, he noted, and 95 percent of the machines are manufactured in the U.S. 

But Russia has only one airplane created on a supercomputer, Medvedev said. "Everything else is done on Whatman's drawing paper like in the 1920s and 30s using the old approaches. It's obvious that here only a digital approach can have a breakthrough effect, lead to dramatic improvements in quality, and reduce the cost of the product." 



> What is China's size in the industry? Do you know Russias size? Have you ever considered things other than lousy papers written?
> 
> 
> Russia has an enormous nanotechnology industry, this has little to do with papers written., instead it's funding.
> 
> 
> Rusnano: Fostering Nanotechnology Innovation in Russia | MIT World
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is one company in Russia receiving government funds, there are many more companies and institutions that are in the business of nanotechnology.
> 
> 
> Chinese professors may write theories on nanotechnology and conducts some experiments, and the same holds true in Russia, but Russia also spends billions on research and development.
> 
> 
> Like I mentioned before, most scientific papers do not apply to the military. Growing greener vegetables and making better tooth paste is worthless when you are trying to construct an aircraft. Moreover, Engineers and scientist do* their own* experiments, meaning someone's journal article is of little importance.
> 
> 
> If the Russia military has a requirement for a piece of technology, in this case lets say a new engine with a long service life, than Russian companies will conduct research.
> 
> This is one example of nanotechnology making it into Russian engines:
> 
> 
> Ðîññèéñêàÿ êîðïîðàöèÿ íàíîòåõíîëîãèé
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the work of RUSNANO. There has been many nanotechnology products that have came from Russia and many articles that have been written, in fact there is a such thing a socks made from nanotechnology but in the context of building a better engine, those nano sox are good as garbage.
> 
> 
> When Russian engineers and scientists want to built a long lasting engine with 4000 hours of service life than they will conduct their own research, they do not care too much about scientific journals.


This is a presentation made to USA congress I will post some select quotes (Russia has almost no mention in this article)

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34493.pdf



> China ranks second in public nanotechnology
> spending in 2006 at $906 million, behind only the United States; Japan drops to third
> as its PPP-adjusted investment falls to $889 million.28 Comparative international
> public funding for nanotechnology R&D is provided in Table 1.





> As with public R&D investments, on a PPP comparison basis, the United States
> led the world in 2006 in private sector R&D investments in nanotechnology with an
> estimated $1.9 billion investment, led by companies such as Hewlett-Packard, Intel,
> DuPont, General Electric, and IBM. Japans $1.7 billion in private investments in
> nanotechnology R&D  led by companies such as Mitsubishi, NEC, and Hitachi 
> ranks a close second behind the United States. The private investments of companies
> headquartered in these two nations account for nearly three-fourths of corporate
> investment in nanotechnology R&D in 2006. In contrast to its high PPP ranking in
> public R&D investment, China ranks fifth in corporate investment, accounting for
> only about 3% of global private R&D investments in nanotechnology.30





> Output of Peer-Reviewed Papers. The United States leads all other
> nations in peer-reviewed nanotechnology papers published in scientific journals. A
> National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) analysis reported that the United
> States 24% share of global publication output was more than double that of the next
> most prolific nation, China.33 However, this share represents a decline from the early
> 1990s when the United States accounted for approximately 40% of nanotechnology
> papers.





> Using
> a fractional count of papers,36 the United States maintained about a 22% share of
> papers from 2000 to 2005. The EU27s37 share of papers fell from 32% to 25%
> during this period, while Chinas share rose from 11% to 20%. Viewed from this
> perspective, the EU27 led the United States in output of nanotechnology-related
> scientific papers, but the EU27 share has been in decline. Chinas share is
> approaching that of both the United States and the EU27





> Using an integer count, with each paper assigned to the nation of the lead
> authors address, yields similar results. By this method, the EU27 led the world in
> 2006 with approximately 29% of all papers, followed by the United States with 25%,and China with approximately 23%. Evaluametrics analysis of preliminary data
> shows that China may have surpassed the United States in share of papers in 2007.3





> Evaluametrics analysis of the papers by scientific disciplines reveals regional
> differences. The United States articles were more heavily weighted toward the
> biological and medical fields, Chinas toward chemistry and engineering, and the
> EU27s toward the biological and medical fields, similar to the United States, but
> with a greater emphasis on physics and less on chemistry.



Nanotechnology: Tom Mackenzie on China's giant step into nanotech | Technology | The Guardian



> China now produces more papers on nanotech than any other nation.




Also compared to the figures you gave for Russia's nano tech industries

Nanotechnology Now - Press Release: "Nanotechnology In China Is Focusing On Innovations And New Products. Strong Growth"



> The markets in china for nanotechnology products and systems is 5.4 billion us dollar in 2006 and will increase to 31.4 bn us $ by 2010 and 144.9 bn us $ by 2015.








> I'm fed up with your stupidity, I gave you Russian journal articals describing Russia's metamaterials, yet you still have the audacity to write that crap. Your tactics are cheap, no matter what proof I give you, you are still in *utter denial*......how can one need get? Your clear goal is to put China on a Pedestal and at the same time make Russia look like crap.



Utter denial? I have shown plenty of evidence that China has a better r & D base and a better handle on emerging technologies.

My goal was not meant to put China on a pedestal or make Russia look like crap. My goal was just to convince people that China had a fighting chance, My goal was to show that China had advantages other than MORE FUNDS.

Which hopefully, I have succeeded in swaying some disbelievers.


----------



## gambit

Chinaownseverything said:


> You have NO understanding of creeping waves, or radar. You are spouting gibberish just like in that DF-21 thread.
> 
> When you fire radiation at a angled plane and at a perfect sphere, the perfect sphere will always deflect back more radiation towards the source than the angled plane. All creeping wave radiation does is that some of the radiation fired at it gets bent around the sphere and gets sent back to the source. So it is doubly worse due to sending back more information.


Aaaannnd...You are wrong. In radar detection, a sphere is called an 'isotropic' reflective body, meaning no matter the direction of the incident signal, the reflective energy is always the same. The initial reflection is called 'specular', that is a portion of the signal that bounce off the sphere's surface because there is always a tiny flat area on the sphere's surface where it impact the body. The rest of the signal became surface wave, of which the creeping wave is a component. The sphere's surface area is called the 'electrical path' or the 'propagation path' for surface wave behaviors. The only time the creeping wave will travel all around the body and return to source direction is *IF* the circumference of the sphere equals to wavelength. If the sphere's circumference is greater than wavelength, then as the creeping wave travels on this 'electrical path', it continues to radiate energy in the 'shadow zone' which usually is not visible to the seeking radar. That is why this blanket statement by you...



Chinaownseverything said:


> Nope the basic rule is that the more spherical the more easily you show up on radar. Without a doubt it has been proven that a flat angled plate has the best deflection.


...Is factually *INCORRECT*. The relationship between sphere diameter and incident wavelength to produce a certain RCS figure is well known. That mean the larger the sphere, the lower its RCS, especially for centimetric and millimetric freqs......To the point where the only indication of the sphere's radar reflectivity is that initial 'specular reflection'. That is why certain millimetric bands are vulnerable to atmospheric loss, meaning the wavelength is the same as a raindrop's diameter, giving the radar rain echoes instead of the aircraft's. Increase the wavelength and there is sufficient energy to 'wrap around' the raindrops and travels onto the aircraft.

Missile Defense Radars


> One of the major disadvantages to operations at millimeter waves is the increased atmospheric attenuation, particularly from water vapor and oxygen. The atmospheric attenuation characteristics in the 10-300 GHz range vary widely and influence the choice of frequency bands.


Most aircrafts' radar operate in the X-band, which is...

Radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> 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.


See that...??? Centimetric radar, baby...!!! The X-band is good enough to provide reasonably accurate target resolutions from large complex bodies and can get around near-spherical bodies like raindrops.

The one who is spouting gibberish here is *YOU*.



Chinaownseverything said:


> Again look at the two images I posted earlier
> 
> Look at the Black shape in the center for XOY in both of them, the F-117 is bigger than the F-22 in every plane. Giving a bunch of lengths is meaningless. Clearly the F-117 is 3 times the size of the F-22.


You must be either joking or incredibly gullible. The shapes of the illustrations are in no way to scale to each other with respect to their true dimensions. They are just to show the readers which graph belongs to which. This is 'Chinese physics' all over again.



Chinaownseverything said:


> Again the RCS is showed you is the RCS formed from ONLY THE SHAPE of the object and assuming that both the F-117 and F-22 were made out of pure steel.


Utter BS. There is nothing there that indicate those RCS figures can come from only 'pure steel'. What is 'pure' here is your BS.



Chinaownseverything said:


> The F-22 needs extremely advanced RAM material if it is to live up to its marble sized RCS since the low RCS is clearly not coming from the plane shape.


Hey, pal...If it matters any, the forum's admin staff can tell you that one of my IPs when I post here come from Las Vegas. That mean Nellis AFB where the F-22 is stationed. I got friends on the flightline here. Friends I know from 10yrs in the USAF. I even touched the F-22, may be sat in its cockpit...??? For what it is worth, absorbers on the F-22 is scarce. They are on the leading edges of the intakes and on the FLCS surfaces. The F-22 is not made out of metamaterials. You are making an erroneous assumption based from a flawed understanding of basic radar detection and are too proud to admit you are wrong.



Chinaownseverything said:


> They have been using metamaterials in stealth ships since the 1990's
> 
> History of metamaterials - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Do not care. I want to see a source that says the F-22 is made of metamaterials.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

Dude 

I can't believe this is happening... I agree with Gambit... the end of the world is nigh...


Chinese dude, DROP IT, YOU CLEARLY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE HELL IS WHAT

listen carefuly to what the man has taken the time to show you and accept your limited knowledge... for god's shake it's ok to be wrong... 


Also dude, I don't know if it's ok to publish parts of the IEEE papers on this forum, 

you have to be an affiliate to have access and not everyone in here is ...so you may be violating some rules here...


----------



## Jigs

Gambit stop it your destroying this mans engineering credentials .


----------



## amalakas

Jigs said:


> Gambit stop it your destroying this mans engineering credentials .



+1


----------



## dbc

amalakas said:


> Dude
> 
> I can't believe this is happening... I agree with Gambit... the end of the world is nigh...
> 
> 
> Chinese dude, DROP IT, YOU CLEARLY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE HELL IS WHAT
> 
> listen carefuly to what the man has taken the time to show you and accept your limited knowledge... for god's shake it's ok to be wrong...
> 
> 
> *Also dude, I don't know if it's ok to publish parts of the IEEE papers on this forum,
> *
> you have to be an affiliate to have access and not everyone in here is ...so you may be violating some rules here...



It's not, he is jeopardizing this forum his own institute and his future with the institute. Everything he's screen captured so far are theories the respective authors have attempted to prove or disprove with the aid of mathematical equations and controlled experiments using scale models. MODS please remove the screen captures taken from IEEE.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Thomas

Death.By.Chocolate said:


> It's not, he is jeopardizing this forum his own institute and his future with the institute. Everything he's screen captured so far are theories the respective authors have attempted to prove or disprove with the aid of mathematical equations and controlled experiments using scale models. MODS please remove the screen captures taken from IEEE.



What they should do is put a gag in his mouth for a bit. And let him reflect on what others with a lot more experience have tried to tell him here. Enough is enough!


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> Dude
> 
> I can't believe this is happening... I agree with Gambit... the end of the world is nigh...
> 
> 
> Chinese dude, DROP IT, YOU CLEARLY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE HELL IS WHAT
> 
> listen carefuly to what the man has taken the time to show you and accept your limited knowledge... for god's shake it's ok to be wrong...
> 
> 
> Also dude, I don't know if it's ok to publish parts of the IEEE papers on this forum,
> 
> you have to be an affiliate to have access and not everyone in here is ...so you may be violating some rules here...


Purists probably gagged and gnash their teeth at some of the simplified explanations I had to give.


----------



## gowthamraj

^  finally you done it


----------



## Devianz

Death.By.Chocolate said:


> It's not, he is jeopardizing this forum his own institute and his future with the institute. Everything he's screen captured so far are theories the respective authors have attempted to prove or disprove with the aid of mathematical equations and controlled experiments using scale models. MODS please remove the screen captures taken from IEEE.



And that article costs $30.


----------



## Chinaownseverything

> gambit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creeping wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Creeping waves greatly extend the ground wave propagation of long wavelength (low frequency) radio. They also cause both of a person's ears to hear a sound, rather than only the ear on the side of the head facing the origin of the sound. In radar ranging, the creeping wave return appears to come from behind the target.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look you clearly have no understanding of what creeping wave is.
> 
> I WILL EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY CREEPING WAVE APPEARS TO COME FROM BEHIND
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explanation for why spherical sends back more radiation.
> 
> first creeping wave ONLY EFFECTS the surface wave, in a real situation radiation will cover the sphere, a lot of them will make it back to the receiver. This is why a spherical shape is not ideal for stealth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A sphere will send more radiation back to the source than an angled plate. CREEPING WAVE ONLY EFFECTS SURFACE RADIATION
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See? creeping wave behavior only effects a small part. a spherical shape will still show up clear as day
Click to expand...


----------



## Chinaownseverything

> Look you clearly have no understanding of what creeping wave is.
> 
> I WILL EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY CREEPING WAVE APPEARS TO COME FROM BEHIND
> 
> 
> Explanation for why spherical sends back more radiation.
> 
> first creeping wave ONLY EFFECTS the surface wave, in a real situation radiation will cover the sphere, a lot of them will make it back to the receiver. This is why a spherical shape is not ideal for stealth.
> 
> 
> 
> See? creeping wave behavior only effects a small part. a spherical shape will still show up clear as day



------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOW WHY DOES THAT RADAR THINK THAT SOURCE IS BEHIND THE OBJECT?






When a radar sends radiation it records the STRENGTH of the SIGNAL in this diagram that radar sends signal at 50 watts.

electromagnetic radiation loses energy over distance, so the close object will reflect back 40 while the far away object will reflect back 20.

By measuring the value that is returned the radar knows how far away the object is.

In creeping wave radiation the creeping wave that gets returned to the radar loses a lot of energy due to going around the object.






The NON SURFACE radiation waves will return back with 30, the surface wave will go around the object (creeping wave behavior) and return back to source. However the value is much lower due to going around the sphere the radar will read the value of 10 even though the distance should only read 30.






To the receiver the value of 10 corresponds to an object that is FAR AWAY






As a result from the radiation returned from surface wave it appears to come from behind the object. However surface wave is only a TINY PART of the wave. Creeping wave is just like how you fire radiation just right you will get a wave that skips along the surface of a sphere kind of like how if you throw a lot of rocks at the water you will get a rock that skips across the surface.

In a perfect sphere the Surface wave could possibly travel around INFINITELY till it loses all of its energy.

You clearly do not understand how creeping wave works, saying creeping wave, and then making a ludicrous claim that it is the best design because of it is just ignorance that you don't understand the basic concept of this 

Now if you still do not believe that angled plate is better look at some of these designs for stealth heliocopters

How strange they look like stealth ships! apparently according to gambit, stealth ships only look angled because of water! and that spherical designs give ultimate stealth!
















Why are these helicopters shaped like this? because it gives better stealth.

Why is F-22 spherical? because it provides a little bit of stealth and a lot of speed and manueverability



> You must be either joking or incredibly gullible. The shapes of the illustrations are in no way to scale to each other with respect to their true dimensions. They are just to show the readers which graph belongs to which. This is 'Chinese physics' all over again.



If you read the entire paper, these were the sizes used in the simulation



> Utter BS. There is nothing there that indicate those RCS figures can come from only 'pure steel'. What is 'pure' here is your BS.



The scientific experiment was to construct F-117 and F-22 replicas out of steel and then compare their RCS. That way the only difference in RCS will be from the shape. It will tell which design is stealthier,



> Hey, pal...If it matters any, the forum's admin staff can tell you that one of my IPs when I post here come from Las Vegas. That mean Nellis AFB where the F-22 is stationed. I got friends on the flightline here. Friends I know from 10yrs in the USAF. I even touched the F-22, may be sat in its cockpit...??? For what it is worth, absorbers on the F-22 is scarce. They are on the leading edges of the intakes and on the FLCS surfaces. The F-22 is not made out of metamaterials. You are making an erroneous assumption based from a flawed understanding of basic radar detection and are too proud to admit you are wrong.
> 
> 
> Do not care. I want to see a source that says the F-22 is made of metamaterials.


[/QUOTE]

You think that an average soldier actually knows or cares about the physics behind ANY of their guns other than the fact that they squeeze the trigger and it shoots?

I can say that I have PHD friends who worked on the F-22? Saying my friend told me as an argument just shows that you have lost.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

Hellicopters are shaped like this because they do not need to fly like the F22 does.
it's a compromise ..get it ?

if a chopper had to supercruise and hyper maneouvre at the same time whilst being stealth at 60^ AoA .. then maybe they would look like the F22. 


Do you get it now ? 

Your whole approach to stealth technology is wrong. 

you are hanging on terms and missing the point.. please ...focus here.. 

The engineers who designed the F22 and the F35( I can't believe i am defending the F35) have a very clear understanding of how the EM wave is travelling on and around all the surfaces of the craft. Hence they do not need to follow the faceted approach anymore as they can deploy their entire arsenal of tricks against EM reflection being RAM coating, composites, or structural shape at individual areas of interest around the plane.. 

how much more specific should we get... ??


----------



## Chinaownseverything

amalakas said:


> Hellicopters are shaped like this because they do not need to fly like the F22 does.
> it's a compromise ..get it ?
> 
> if a chopper had to supercruise and hyper maneouvre at the same time whilst being stealth at 60^ AoA .. then maybe they would look like the F22.
> 
> 
> Do you get it now ?
> 
> Your whole approach to stealth technology is wrong.
> 
> you are hanging on terms and missing the point.. please ...focus here..
> 
> The engineers who designed the F22 and the F35( I can't believe i am defending the F35) have a very clear understanding of how the EM wave is travelling on and around all the surfaces of the craft. Hence they do not need to follow the faceted approach anymore as they can deploy their entire arsenal of tricks against EM reflection being RAM coating, composites, or structural shape at individual areas of interest around the plane..
> 
> how much more specific should we get... ??



My entire argument was that based on the airframes alone, if they were of identical size and made out of the same materials.

The F-117 would have a smaller RCS than the F-22.

Because flat plates have lower RCS than curved plates.

I stated long ago that the F-22's stealth was a compromise for better aerodynamics.

The only reason why the F-22 during wargames is smaller than the F-117 by a large margin is because of superior RAM which is based on nanotechnology. Hence why the doubt that Russia will be able to produce F-22 quality RAM due to their deficiency in nanotechnology while China is one of the world leaders.

You are agreeing with me.

Gambit said that the reason why the F-22 lacked flat plates was because curves were better, then he posted some scientific crap that wasn't even relevant. 

I then brought up the fact that stealth ships did not have curves.

I even posted scientific experiments that compared the RCS of a flat plate as it became more and more spherical to each other.

He then argued that stealth ships had water, then posted some crap about radar effects on water (that in no way supported his argument)

I am now countering by posting stealth helicopters, which have no water. (I wonder what random unrelated scientific papers he is going to post now to explain why stealth helicopters aren't spherical like the superior F-22 stealth design)

I understand stealth clearly, Gambit is the one who is clearly confused, this stems from the fact that he lacks the basic scientific understanding to understand the scientific progress or to understand any of the scientific papers that he reads (Case in point he is a highschool/college dropout who couldn't find a job so he ran off of join the navy also look at his DF-21 thread where he pulls the same tactic). Case in point creeping wave behavior, apparently gambit thinks that making a sphere will cause the radiation to run around in circles around the object thus never allowing it to reach the target.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## dbc

Chinaownseverything said:


> I understand stealth clearly



no you don't.






*Case 1 Impinging wave is normal to the flat plate and sphere*
Solve the above equation for a sphere and flat plat, assume cross section of 1m2 for both the flat plate and sphere also assume radar wavelength is 3 cm. The unmistakable conclusion is the RCS of a flat plate is four orders of magnitude larger than the sphere. 

*Case 2 Impinging wave is not normal to the flat plate*

Waves incident upon the angled flat plate are reflected away from the radar. But, impinging waves incident upon the sharp edge are diffracted from the bottom edge in all directions. In addition, second-order diffraction will occur at the top edge further increasing the RCS of a flat plate.

In both cases, the RCS of a sphere is lower than a flat plate.
Of course, these are ideal conditions in the real world there are multiple hostile radars the flat plate will present full face to one or more probing radars.


----------



## ptldM3

Chinaownseverything said:


> If China leads in nanomaterials it is likely that they will have a good advantage in metamaterials since fields are so close I will show China leads in the lower post




Theory and reality are two different things. Again China's experience in metamaterials/material science isn't living up to all the hype when they struggle to master the basics of engine technology, which invlove both feilds.


I have already esstablished that nanomaterials are used in aircraft engines, the engine made up of the more advanced alloys will last longer. Material science is also a major part of aircraft engine technology, with that said the Chinese themselves say that the WS-13 has a life of 2200 hours, the RD-33MK has double the service life, the funny thing about this is that the WS-13 is still in development while the RD-33MK has been out for years, meaning by the time the WS-13 is ready, the RD-33 will widen the gap even further.

Engines are based on material science, nanotechnology, and engineering, China is ranked high on all of the above feilds. Consiquently, your argument is since China has more scientific journals in said subjects than China can do better than Russia.


In theory your argument makes sense but in reality it is nothing more than wishful thinking. The Chinese have thrown everything they have into engine manufacturing but have nothing to show for it.





Chinaownseverything said:


> I have no wish to continue this He said, she said, he meant, she meant argument.
> 
> Lets go back to computers, I have proven that China has better computers
> 
> 
> 
> Russia ranks 15th on the list of countries with the most powerful supercomputers, he noted, and 95 percent of the machines are manufactured in the U.S.






Why didn't you post sources that stated that Russia is/was ranked 9th, 10th, and 12th?

Clearly you're trying to twist things around to make Russia look as bad as possible.

And what are you trying to prove in regards to supercomputers? Perhaps that because we do not have the best supercomputer, we can not make an aircraft comparable to whatever China can make?

If that's the case we can alway buy supercomputers from the US.

And we have:

Russia buys world's most powerful supercomputer - Tech News - IBNLive



> A Russian university has bought one of the world's most powerful supercomputers, the first time that such sophisticated technology has been exported to the former Soviet Union, makers IBM said on Thursday.



Chinese supercomputers are also said to be better than Japan's, but this means what?




Chinaownseverything said:


> *Also compared to the figures you gave for Russia's nano tech industries*





Again, you are either manipulating sources or neglecting to read the source carefully, the 10 billion dollar nanotechnology budget is from *one* russian* company** not *"Russia's nano tech *industries*"









Chinaownseverything said:


> My goal was not meant to put China on a pedestal or make Russia look like crap. My goal was just to convince people that China had a fighting chance, My goal was to show that China had advantages other than MORE FUNDS.




When someone comes into a thread not at all related to China and starts boasting how China can do better and at the same time degrade Russia by saying things such as Russia doesn't have a stealth ship (which was wrong) and that Russia has not broken into metamaterials (also wrong) than i say it's more than just showing china has a fighting chance.


----------



## Jigs

Chinaownseverything said:


> My entire argument was that based on the airframes alone, if they were of identical size and made out of the same materials.
> 
> The F-117 would have a smaller RCS than the F-22.
> 
> Because flat plates have lower RCS than curved plates.
> 
> I stated long ago that the F-22's stealth was a compromise for better aerodynamics.
> 
> The only reason why the F-22 during wargames is smaller than the F-117 by a large margin is because of superior RAM which is based on nanotechnology. Hence why the doubt that Russia will be able to produce F-22 quality RAM due to their deficiency in nanotechnology while China is one of the world leaders.
> 
> You are agreeing with me.
> 
> Gambit said that the reason why the F-22 lacked flat plates was because curves were better, then he posted some scientific crap that wasn't even relevant.
> 
> I then brought up the fact that stealth ships did not have curves.
> 
> I even posted scientific experiments that compared the RCS of a flat plate as it became more and more spherical to each other.
> 
> He then argued that stealth ships had water, then posted some crap about radar effects on water (that in no way supported his argument)
> 
> I am now countering by posting stealth helicopters, which have no water. (I wonder what random unrelated scientific papers he is going to post now to explain why stealth helicopters aren't spherical like the superior F-22 stealth design)
> 
> I understand stealth clearly, Gambit is the one who is clearly confused, this stems from the fact that he lacks the basic scientific understanding to understand the scientific progress or to understand any of the scientific papers that he reads (Case in point he is a highschool/college dropout who couldn't find a job so he ran off of join the navy also look at his DF-21 thread where he pulls the same tactic). Case in point creeping wave behavior, apparently gambit thinks that making a sphere will cause the radiation to run around in circles around the object thus never allowing it to reach the target.



You do know that a B-2 has a smaller RCS then a F-117 and you do know the F-35s RCS is a bit smaller then the B-2s and the F-22 has a smaller RCS then the F-35. We agree on this ? Where exactly is the compromise being done here ? 




> Nov 2005: The U.S. Air Force, in it&#8217;s effort to get money to build more F-22s, has revealed just how &#8220;stealthy&#8221; the F-22 is. It&#8217;s RCS (Radar Cross Section) is the equivalent, for a radar, to a metal marble. The less stealthy (and much cheaper) F-35, is equal to a metal golf ball. The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber, which, in turn, was twice as good as that on the even older F-117. Much older aircraft, like the B-52, have a huge RCS, which makes them very easy to spot on radar. But with a smaller RCS, it's more likely that the aircraft won't be detected at all.
> 
> The air force revealed this information, which is usually kept secret, because it wants to make the case that it makes more sense to cut production of the F-35 (which cost $30-50 million each), so that more F-22s (that cost over $100 million each) can be bought. Most of the air force generals are former fighter pilots, and the F-22 is a much hotter fighter than the F-35 (which is basically a fighter-bomber, with emphasis on the latter function.) This is causing an international uproar, because of the many foreign countries that are buying the F-35. Some of these countries have contributed money for the development of the F-35. The F-22 will not be exported, because it uses so much top secret technology.


----------



## gambit

Chinaownseverything said:


> Look you clearly have no understanding of what creeping wave is.


Far better than you.



Chinaownseverything said:


> I WILL EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY CREEPING WAVE APPEARS TO COME FROM BEHIND


This is a sad example of your education. I made fun of 'Chinese physics' but...Good Heavens...This is truly sad. Radar signals do not have distinct lines. So in making a bunch of straight and parallel lines and pointing to *ONE LINE* that supposedly would create a creeping wave, you explained nothing and destroyed any credibility you have in this discussion. May God help China if her scientists and engineers are this gullible when they genuinely believe these sorry 2D images to be representative of the 3D world.

If it is possible to visualize a radar signal, it would be *CONICAL* in shape...






There are no lines, straight or wavy, inside this cone. The single arrowed line above is to illustrate a portion of the cone that will directly impact the sphere in this ideal situation. Any return from this portion is our 'specular' reflection and will be our initial energy level. The rest of the cone will become circumferential waves.



Chinaownseverything said:


> Explanation for why spherical sends back more radiation.
> 
> first *creeping wave ONLY EFFECTS the surface wave*, in a real situation radiation will cover the sphere, a lot of them will make it back to the receiver. This is why a spherical shape is not ideal for stealth.
> 
> A sphere will send more radiation back to the source than an angled plate. CREEPING WAVE ONLY EFFECTS SURFACE RADIATION
> 
> A sphere will send more radiation back to the source than an angled plate. CREEPING WAVE ONLY EFFECTS SURFACE RADIATION


Wrong...Utterly and embarrassingly wrong. More 'Chinese physics'.

First...On a sphere, surface and creeping waves are independent of each other and together, they are components of 'circumferential waves':

1- Surface (SW)
2- Creeping (CW)
3- Leaky (LW)

Second...Surface waves do not need a spherical body or even a curvature to exist. Surface waves are created even if the incident signal is perpendicular to the surface. In this situation, the wave is statistically insignificant. However, when the incident wave's angle, hereby refer to as 'incident angle' for clarity, departs from perpendicular (90 deg), the energy level of the surface wave increases. As the incident angle approaches parallel to the surface, the surface wave becomes increasingly statistically relevant. A flat plate has SW and LW but not CW. The sphere is considered a simple body. The cylinder is a complex body. Both will exhibit all three components.

On a much more complex body like an aircraft, if the incident angle is head-on, the body's frontal RCS is the lowest. But for this complex body...

Creeping wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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


...There are *EDGE DIFFRACTION* effects.

What happens is as the surface wave traverse the fuselage, wings, stabs, missiles, bombs, external fuel tanks, fins, and assorted antennas, whenever the wave reached the ends of these elements, it encounter...*EDGES*. Gaps on the aircrafts surfaces are also edges and edge diffraction effects will radiate some of the wave's energy into free space. Some of that radiation will be back towards the seeking radar. The echo's energy spread in a 3D graph is never uniform because of the many flat plates, cylinders and edges, aka reflective points, on this complex body but those points can be statistically grouped, resulting in a concentration of energy spikes that the system will alert as a 'valid target'. That is why even for complex and irregular (but symmetrical) bodies, in a straight head- or tail-on radar collision, the radar echo can still be behind the aircraft's spatial location.

So when you said this: '_...creeping wave ONLY EFFECTS the surface wave..._' You are absurdly wrong. Surface and creeping waves create 'leaky' waves, aka free space radiation, and it is this free space radiation that can give a false spatial location of our sphere. Free space radiation from edge diffraction and leaky wave (LW) effects can (not must) give a false spatial location of our complex body. This is why in radar detection no system is ever &#37;100 precise in target spatial location.

For someone who has access to paywalled sources, you are pathetic in your research. If you are any good with it, you would have found plenty of research papers that will effectively debunk *EVERYTHING* you posted here. You would have found that there is a clear relationship between wavelength and sphere diameter and when the creeping wave *WILL NOT* complete a circumference.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Chinaownseverything said:


> *You clearly do not understand how creeping wave works*, saying creeping wave, and then making a ludicrous claim that it is the best design because of it is just ignorance that you don't understand the basic concept of this


Am willing to bet 100 bucks to every renminbi that before me you did not even know about the 'creeping wave' and its effects. Now you just learned that there are three *MAJOR* components to circumferential waves and I just explained far better than you ever could about their effects and why no radar system is ever %100 precise in target spatial location. I may had to simplify my explanations some but at least I used proper terminologies.



Chinaownseverything said:


> Now if you still do not believe that angled plate is better look at some of these designs for stealth heliocopters
> 
> Why are these helicopters shaped like this? because it gives better stealth.


So how many of these designs are in flight?

First...Helos do not have the fuselage aerodynamic necessities that fixed wing aircrafts do. Only the moving blades, aka rotors, have those necessities.

Second...Advances in Doppler processing make fuselage radar reflectivity nearly irrelevant and instead focused on those moving blades. There are two major components of interest: the large rotor hub and the individual blades. Stationary blade echoes can be lost in ground clutter but moving blade Doppler echoes are cyclical hence predictable. They can be 3D graphed to reveal movements centered around the hub's echo and even it rotate and create its own Doppler shifts. Not only that...

IEEE Xplore - RADAR Target Amplitude, Angle, and Doppler Scintillation from Analysis of the Echo Signal Propagating in Space


> RADAR target scintillation is observed in every type of RADAR system and has generally been analyzed on the basis of the performance of specific types of RADAR systems. However, the target scintillation phenomenon, including *Doppler scintillation*, may be expressed as distortions of the RADAR echo signal propagating in space, independent of RADAR system parameters.


Take note of the highlighted and that it is from your paywalled source.

The rotor hub contains many small parts that moves with and as an assembly. Those small parts create 'Doppler scintillations' effects. This is how we also detect suborbital vehicles like a nuclear warhead bus. As the bus spins, its surface irregularities create the same Doppler scintilations effects. Anyway, now we have moving blades that each create a Doppler signature and with the rotor hub we have a concentration of smaller Doppler shifts (scintilations) in the middle of these moving blades. Who needs and cares about the fuselage? China can go right on building helos with very 'stealthy' fuselages. We *STRONGLY* encourage our adversaries to build helos with 'stealthy' bodies.

Third...The F-117 is retired. Do you see anyone building anything similar to it? Even China is Photochopping fantasy 'stealth' fighters that copy the curves of the F-22. So these helo designs has angled facets like the F-117. How many of them are flying?



Chinaownseverything said:


> How strange they look like stealth ships! apparently according to gambit, stealth ships only look angled because of water!


I have no problems explaining to everyone again how you are wrong. This is because of the sea's 2D environment.

Radar signals do not penetrate well into and under water. Realistically...Any radar signal that impact water surface will deflect back up, therefore it make sense to have faceted angles on the ship. The effect is called 'multipath propagation' and is most prominent when the approaching signal is parallel to the surface, even land. For water, temperature layers can create additional deflective surfaces for any radar signal that did penetrate the surface.

Assuming a parallel to the surface approaching signal, we have:

1) Direct-direct
This is where the signal and echo have their direct paths.

2) Direct-indirect
This is where the signal is direct, from seeker to target, but a portion of the echo deflects off the water surface before going back to the seeker radar.

3) Indirect-direct
This is where a portion of the signal deflects off the water surface, create an echo off the body, and a portion of the echo took the direct path back to the seeker radar.

4) Indirect-indirect
This is where portions of both signal and echo deflects off the water surface before reaching their destinations.

All four types have delays with each other. Ironically...The more sophisticated the seeking radar, the greater the negative effects from multipath propagation as this sophisticated radar is trying to process what it believes to be four targets or four ghosts, depending on the humidity level and temperature layers of the body of water.

So for ship, angling its side surfaces to deflect any echo signals upward make sense. Where else can we deflect but up anyway since this is a 2D environment?



Chinaownseverything said:


> and that spherical designs give ultimate stealth!


Not spherical but curves. I never said the F-22 was 'spherical'. I said the F-22 uses curves. You have a reading comprehension problem.



Chinaownseverything said:


> If you read the entire paper, these were the sizes used in the simulation


That is not the question. You claimed that the F-117 is 'much larger' dimensionally...



Chinaownseverything said:


> The design of the F-117 is obviously better for stealth as the F-117 is much larger than the F-22 yet the RCS cross sections are almost equivalent.


Here are their dimensions...

Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> # Length: 65 ft 11 in (20.09 m)
> # Wingspan: 43 ft 4 in (13.20 m)
> # Height: 12 ft 9.5 in (3.78 m)
> # Wing area: 780 ft² (73 m²)



Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> # Length: 62 ft 1 in (18.90 m)
> # Wingspan: 44 ft 6 in (13.56 m)
> # Height: 16 ft 8 in (5.08 m)
> # Wing area: 840 ft² (78.04 m²)


Their true RCS figures are unknown. At least to you anyway. Suffice for our discussion that they are very similar. So you are wrong, as usual, about their sizes.



Chinaownseverything said:


> The scientific experiment was to construct F-117 and F-22 replicas out of steel and then compare their RCS. That way the only difference in RCS will be from the shape. It will tell which design is stealthier,


Considering you are wrong about their dimensions, your assumptions about which method is 'stealthier' is meaningless.



Chinaownseverything said:


> You think that an average soldier actually knows or cares about the physics behind ANY of their guns other than the fact that they squeeze the trigger and it shoots?
> 
> I can say that I have PHD friends who worked on the F-22? Saying my friend told me as an argument just shows that you have lost.


Military aviation maintainers are not infantry. They do not carry weapons everywhere. Your lack of military experience embarrassed you here. Still...If the F-22 is laden with 'metamaterials' as you repeated claimed...



Chinaownseverything said:


> The only reason why the F-22 is possible is because of advances in metamaterials


...Then my active duty friends who work on the jet would know about it and I would know about it. The fact that you failed to provide a couple of sources to support this repeated claim make you dishonorable. Basically, you make a claim and demand that we prove you wrong. This mean you are asking for proof of a negative, which is illogical. This mean we should no longer take seriously any boast you make about yourself regarding your education or profession. *YOU* lost this debate, kid.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Thomas

gambit said:


> *This is a sad example of your education. I made fun of 'Chinese physics' but...Good Heavens...This is truly sad*. Radar signals do not have distinct lines. So in making a bunch of straight and parallel lines and pointing to *ONE LINE* that supposedly would create a creeping wave, you explained nothing and destroyed any credibility you have in this discussion. *May God help China if her scientists and engineers are this gullible when they genuinely believe these sorry 2D images to be representative of the 3D world.*



Don't forget he has in the past claimed to live in Brooklyn. And uses the Chinese, and North Korean flags simply because he admires them. I am starting to think however he actually got his college education in North Korea. That would explain a lot!


----------



## gambit

Thomas said:


> Don't forget he has in the past claimed to live in Brooklyn. And uses the Chinese, and North Korean flags simply because he admires them. I am starting to think however he actually got his college education in North Korea. That would explain a lot!


There are four math equations that make possible the F-22 and -- believe it or not -- they are *PUBLICLY* available. They form the foundation of the complex CAD algorithms that virtually shaped the B-2, F-22 and F-35. This guy does not know what he is yabbering about.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> This guy does not know what he is yabbering about.



I kinda mentioned that already... I am not sure why the guy is so hung up on metamaterials .. the only metamaterial related to EM behaviour I have been within 10 feet of, was about 4mm in diameterx0.4mm ... that is about it.. not sure where all this is coming from....


----------



## Chinaownseverything

> Far better than you.
> 
> 
> This is a sad example of your education. I made fun of 'Chinese physics' but...Good Heavens...This is truly sad. Radar signals do not have distinct lines. So in making a bunch of straight and parallel lines and pointing to *ONE LINE* that supposedly would create a creeping wave, you explained nothing and destroyed any credibility you have in this discussion. May God help China if her scientists and engineers are this gullible when they genuinely believe these sorry 2D images to be representative of the 3D world.
> 
> If it is possible to visualize a radar signal, it would be *CONICAL* in shape...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no lines, straight or wavy, inside this cone. The single arrowed line above is to illustrate a portion of the cone that will directly impact the sphere in this ideal situation. Any return from this portion is our 'specular' reflection and will be our initial energy level. The rest of the cone will become circumferential waves.



I know that it is conical, but in reality that cone is extremely large compared to the object that it is locating. So relative to the object the waves will be straight lines. Just like how relative to the size of a human the face of the earth is flat.



> Wrong...Utterly and embarrassingly wrong. More 'Chinese physics'.
> 
> First...On a sphere, surface and creeping waves are independent of each other and together, they are components of 'circumferential waves':
> 
> 1- Surface (SW)
> 2- Creeping (CW)
> 3- Leaky (LW)
> 
> Second...Surface waves do not need a spherical body or even a curvature to exist. Surface waves are created even if the incident signal is perpendicular to the surface. In this situation, the wave is statistically insignificant. However, when the incident wave's angle, hereby refer to as 'incident angle' for clarity, departs from perpendicular (90 deg), the energy level of the surface wave increases. As the incident angle approaches parallel to the surface, the surface wave becomes increasingly statistically relevant. A flat plate has SW and LW but not CW. The sphere is considered a simple body. The cylinder is a complex body. Both will exhibit all three components.



Attacking strawman again are we? I never claimed that creeping wave only existed on spherical bodies.

Creeping wave only applies to surface waves, they are not independent of each other








> On a much more complex body like an aircraft, if the incident angle is head-on, the body's frontal RCS is the lowest. But for this complex body...
> 
> Creeping wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...There are *EDGE DIFFRACTION* effects.
> 
> What happens is as the surface wave traverse the fuselage, wings, stabs, missiles, bombs, external fuel tanks, fins, and assorted antennas, whenever the wave reached the ends of these elements, it encounter...*EDGES*. Gaps on the aircrafts surfaces are also edges and edge diffraction effects will radiate some of the wave's energy into free space. Some of that radiation will be back towards the seeking radar. The echo's energy spread in a 3D graph is never uniform because of the many flat plates, cylinders and edges, aka reflective points, on this complex body but those points can be statistically grouped, resulting in a concentration of energy spikes that the system will alert as a 'valid target'. That is why even for complex and irregular (but symmetrical) bodies, in a straight head- or tail-on radar collision, the radar echo can still be behind the aircraft's spatial location.
> 
> So when you said this: '_...creeping wave ONLY EFFECTS the surface wave..._' You are absurdly wrong. Surface and creeping waves create 'leaky' waves, aka free space radiation, and it is this free space radiation that can give a false spatial location of our sphere. Free space radiation from edge diffraction and leaky wave (LW) effects can (not must) give a false spatial location of our complex body. This is why in radar detection no system is ever %100 precise in target spatial location.





Again you don't seem to realize how radars work, the radar only sees the waves that comes back to it. I have stated before that when a surface wave creeps around the object that it loses most of its energy, this energy is conserved by leaky waves. These leaky waves will never make it back to the receptor due to low energy and wrong orientation.

I already explained to you in my nicely drawn pictures why creeping wave appears to come from behind the actual object. Because the wave that ends up making it back to the receptor due to having the proper orientation having traversed around the object and thus reversing its direction the lower energy signature that it carries implies that the object is further away.



> For someone who has access to paywalled sources, you are pathetic in your research. If you are any good with it, you would have found plenty of research papers that will effectively debunk *EVERYTHING* you posted here. You would have found that there is a clear relationship between wavelength and sphere diameter and when the creeping wave *WILL NOT* complete a circumference.



I found plenty of resources that disproved ALL OF YOUR POSTS. The only things that you have disproved were set up strawmen

Valid scientific evidence that you just ignored?

F-117 vs F-22 RCS? IGNORED

RCS of slightly curved plate vs spherical plate? IGNORED

Saying that Stealth ships had angled plates because of RADAR DOESN'T WORK UNDERWATER when I pointed out that every experimental stealth helicopter design look similar to stealth ships and F-117?

I have debunked all of your arguments, while you spout gibberish to waste my time digging through sources to disprove you and making nice little MS paint diagrams to try and educate you. And ignoring the arguments that you can't disprove. 


Not once have you posted a source, this entire conversation has been one sided. You make CRAZY CLAIM, I pull up a paper telling you wrong. You ignore it, strawman by stating things and claiming that I said them just to debunk them yourself (most of the time getting many theories completely wrong).

According to your crazy pseudoscience theories (WITHOUT ANY SOURCES) stealth helicopters and stealth ships should all be spherical. Obviously you know more than all the engineers at Raytheon,Northrop etc... 

And this is why some people in life work designing machines while others (similar to you) are working cleaning toilets. I bet that you are one of those scum that go around telling girls that they are engineers when really they are "sanitation engineers"

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> *I kinda mentioned that already... I am not sure why the guy is so hung up on metamaterials* .. the only metamaterial related to EM behaviour I have been within 10 feet of, was about 4mm in diameterx0.4mm ... that is about it.. not sure where all this is coming from....


He has no choice. He made a foolish claim and could not support it. His reasoning about it was from faulty logic. His demand for us to prove a negative, meaning show everyone that the F-22 is *NOT* of this 'metamaterial', is proof of that illogical thinking. No one can prove a negative. That should have been part of his education. He was wrong about the size differences -- 'much larger' -- whatever that mean. Could not even do basic research before making that assertion before easily debunked. He publicly painted himself into a corner with this 'metamaterial' nonsense.


----------



## amalakas

Chinaownseverything said:


> Valid scientific evidence that you just ignored?
> 
> F-117 vs F-22 RCS? IGNORED



I don't know how valid the scientific evidence you talk about are, but to be honest, I have sat in 4 LM presentations were the F35 has been discussed and NO number for the RCS was given !! 

You have a number on the RCS of the F117 or the F22 ? 

I am no genious but I am pretty sure both are classified and only approximations or comparative figures are given to interested parties, like potential customers and these are not even about the F22...


----------



## Tang0

ChinaOwnsEverything..

A couple of years ago (2003 maybe?) the AIAA ( American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) did a design competition for a low cost alternative to the F-22 with equivalent stealth to an F-117. It was an undergraduate level competition... I had a friend who completed it. It took a team of 7 undergraduates 2 weeks to come up with the conceptual design for an aerodynamically stable (At least in pitch and yaw) aircraft with equivalent stealth to the F-117 using commercially available CAD software, and an RCS software called POFACETS.

These were aerospace engineers, experts in fluid dynamics who know next to nothing about EE or ECE beyond freshman electrodynamics. 

You know how they could do in a couple of weeks what took professional engineers in the late 70's months/years? FASTER COMPUTERS. Read the POFACETS description if you care, no secret sauce meta-materials there, just faceted classical optics. 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...sg=AFQjCNEfwmgEWtIewP9XbQcs2uO0has10g&cad=rja

By the way, all of the stuff that is equally important, but hard to quantify that Gambit. et al. were talking about? This code does not include. 
IE: No Creeping, surface waves, no multiple second order reflection or diffractions, no shadowing....
And still, it does not take long to beat the design of the F-117....

Might I recommend something from the sources on that paper? 

Jenn, Radar and Laser Cross Section Engineering, AIAA Education Series, June 1995. 
It might enlighten you, so you can come back and not sound like a moron.


----------



## Tang0

And here is a bunch of excellent sources from the Author of that book, which should further enlighten you. Of course, he is an employee of the USN, so maybe it is all just imperialist western propaganda from the military-industrial complex....
Dr. David C. Jenn


----------



## below_freezing

Chinaownseverything said:


> I know that it is conical, but in reality that cone is extremely large compared to the object that it is locating. So relative to the object the waves will be straight lines. Just like how relative to the size of a human the face of the earth is flat.
> 
> 
> 
> Attacking strawman again are we? I never claimed that creeping wave only existed on spherical bodies.
> 
> Creeping wave only applies to surface waves, they are not independent of each other
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you don't seem to realize how radars work, the radar only sees the waves that comes back to it. I have stated before that when a surface wave creeps around the object that it loses most of its energy, this energy is conserved by leaky waves. These leaky waves will never make it back to the receptor due to low energy and wrong orientation.
> 
> I already explained to you in my nicely drawn pictures why creeping wave appears to come from behind the actual object. Because the wave that ends up making it back to the receptor due to having the proper orientation having traversed around the object and thus reversing its direction the lower energy signature that it carries implies that the object is further away.
> 
> 
> 
> I found plenty of resources that disproved ALL OF YOUR POSTS. The only things that you have disproved were set up strawmen
> 
> Valid scientific evidence that you just ignored?
> 
> F-117 vs F-22 RCS? IGNORED
> 
> RCS of slightly curved plate vs spherical plate? IGNORED
> 
> Saying that Stealth ships had angled plates because of RADAR DOESN'T WORK UNDERWATER when I pointed out that every experimental stealth helicopter design look similar to stealth ships and F-117?
> 
> I have debunked all of your arguments, while you spout gibberish to waste my time digging through sources to disprove you and making nice little MS paint diagrams to try and educate you. And ignoring the arguments that you can't disprove.
> 
> 
> Not once have you posted a source, this entire conversation has been one sided. You make CRAZY CLAIM, I pull up a paper telling you wrong. You ignore it, strawman by stating things and claiming that I said them just to debunk them yourself (most of the time getting many theories completely wrong).
> 
> According to your crazy pseudoscience theories (WITHOUT ANY SOURCES) stealth helicopters and stealth ships should all be spherical. Obviously you know more than all the engineers at Raytheon,Northrop etc...
> 
> And this is why some people in life work designing machines while others (similar to you) are working cleaning toilets. I bet that you are one of those scum that go around telling girls that they are engineers when really they are "sanitation engineers"



forget it. these people know jack s* about engineering. you're wasting your degree. it's like me arguing with the fake "doctor" (who is actually something like an army associate paramedic trainee) a few months back about biochemistry.


----------



## ptldM3

Chinaownseverything said:


> Explain then why recently developed stealth ships look more like the F-117 than the F-22?





While I was going to college I got lucky enough to get hired on at a company that built ships, I understand the construction methods inside and out. I have worked with or closely collaborated with engineers, project managers, foremen, and most departments ex: mechanics, shipwrights...ect.

A ship has 'flat plane surfaces' because it comes natural with the design. Remember a typical hull flares outwards, main deck cabin sides although often flat can be angled, ones that are angled fit into the 'flat plane surfaces' criteria. The only parts of a ship that typically come cylindrical is the rear comeing.


There are many 'stealth' ships, some designs are radical while most are traditional, what you see in most 'stealth' ships is simply an increase in slopes on already sloped surfaces. The rest is just refinement.

A 'stealth' ship that would come in cylindrical form would be inefficient if it was curved, for example, like the B-2's fuselage.









Chinaownseverything said:


> Clearly the F-117 has the superior stealth design since the F-117 is almost 3 times as big as the F-22 yet the RCS does not differ significantly, if the F-22 was optimized for stealth the design would look similar to the F-117 as it would have an even smaller cross section.




The F-22 and F-117 are almost identical in regards to length and wingspan. In fact, the F-22 has more wing areas and has a larger height.

The F-117 is not a superior design, it is a inferior design. The F-117 was the first true 'stealth' aircraft. The designers at the time only knew one way to design the F-117 and that was in the form of the trapezoid. The f-117's design was terribly inefficient, looking at the geometry of the F-117 it's clear that the designers added extra and unnecessary (back then necessary) surface area's, while the F-22 and all other 'stealth' aircraft have clean surfaces areas, the less surface areas, the less emissions.

The F-22 uses the same principles as the F-117 minus needles surface areas such as the nose and all the bagage it carries.

Smooth surfaces do give better aerodynamics, but this should not be used as the only reason for the F-22's and all other 'stealth' aircraft designs. Remember, the F-22 is not the only stealth design, The B-2, F-35, pak-fa, Mitsubishi ATD-X, and countless drones developed in the UK, Russia, France and the USA all have smooth curves.

So why do aircrafts such as drones and the B-2 all come with smooth curves? After all aerodynamics in these aircraft aren&#8217;t as important as in fighter designs. High speed and maneuverability aren't even considered in these aircraft.







Chinaownseverything said:


> The F-22 was built more for aerodynamics rather than pure stealth as a shrunken F-117 to the size of the F-22 would have a smaller cross section.




Again aircraft such as B-2, F-35, pak-fa, and countless drones didn't come with smooth curves by coincidence.







Chinaownseverything said:


> Now if you still do not believe that angled plate is better look at some of these designs for stealth helicopters
> 
> How strange they look like stealth ships! apparently according to gambit, stealth ships only look angled because of water! and that spherical designs give ultimate stealth!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are these helicopters shaped like this? because it gives better stealth.




Those helicopters aren&#8217;t real, but the Comanche is.





As you can see everything from the nose to the tail, to the rotor hub is smooth and curved.









Chinaownseverything said:


> Why is F-22 spherical? because it provides a little bit of stealth and a lot of speed and maneuverability





No it's spherical because the trapezoid method is outdated.






Chinaownseverything said:


> I can say that I have PHD friends who worked on the F-22? Saying my friend told me as an argument just shows that you have lost.



If it makes any difference, Gambit has, in other threads, stated that the F-22 uses less composites and less coats of RAM, I believe he knows this because he knows technicians that have worked on both aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tang0

below_freezing said:


> forget it. these people know jack s* about engineering. you're wasting your degree. it's like me arguing with the fake "doctor" (who is actually something like an army associate paramedic trainee) a few months back about biochemistry.



Good sir, would you then enlighten this engineer on how ChinaOwnsEverythings views hold weight? 
__
Self Delete, Off topic
__


----------



## below_freezing

so you're a US bachelor's in engineering? know how many PHDs are out there? what do you want, a medal or something?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Brotherhood

below_freezing said:


> so you're a US bachelor's in engineering? know how many PHDs are out there? what do you want, a medal or something?



Its best to ignore those self-proclaim west this, west that, its nothing more than someone you can smell them from miles away.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

Brotherhood said:


> Its best to ignore those self-proclaim west this, west that, its nothing more than someone you can smell them from miles away.



hey, this is not about starting a cultural war here. 

There were some comments made on how specific planes were designed, and some people (myself included) don't agree or share your "friend's" chineowneseverything thoughts on cetrain technical areas. 

I am a professional and I don't happen to agree with him, I outright say he is wrong. Plus he is showing poor professionalism in this forum as he is publishing papers that are copyrighted by authors and institutions. What does that tell you?


----------



## Jigs

"*copyrighted by authors and institutions*"


Look at his flags. Those things don't exist in his world.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gowthamraj

Jigs said:


> "*copyrighted by authors and institutions*"
> 
> 
> Look at his flags. Those things don't exist in his world.



  
Nothing to say more than there


----------



## gambit

Tang0 said:


> ChinaOwnsEverything..
> 
> A couple of years ago (2003 maybe?) the AIAA ( American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) did a design competition for a low cost alternative to the F-22 with equivalent stealth to an F-117. It was an undergraduate level competition... I had a friend who completed it. It took a team of 7 undergraduates 2 weeks to come up with the conceptual design for an aerodynamically stable (At least in pitch and yaw) aircraft with equivalent stealth to the F-117 using commercially available CAD software, and an RCS software called POFACETS.
> 
> These were aerospace engineers, experts in fluid dynamics who know next to nothing about EE or ECE beyond freshman electrodynamics.
> 
> You know how they could do in a couple of weeks what took professional engineers in the late 70's months/years? FASTER COMPUTERS. Read the POFACETS description if you care, no secret sauce meta-materials there, just faceted classical optics.
> 
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...sg=AFQjCNEfwmgEWtIewP9XbQcs2uO0has10g&cad=rja
> 
> By the way, all of the stuff that is equally important, but hard to quantify that Gambit. et al. were talking about? This code does not include.
> IE: No Creeping, surface waves, no multiple second order reflection or diffractions, no shadowing....
> And still, it does not take long to beat the design of the F-117....
> 
> Might I recommend something from the sources on that paper?
> 
> Jenn, Radar and Laser Cross Section Engineering, AIAA Education Series, June 1995.
> It might enlighten you, so you can come back and *not sound like a moron.*


When I enlisted back in 1983, there were four Training Instructors (TI) in Lackland AFB that knew of the F-117. When they eased off their verbal abuse of recruits, as TIs and DIs usually do, and act a little humane, the most they could do was hint about it. One guy told us that the future of combat aviation is rapidly changing and we, the next generation, is going to be in the thick of it. Today, I do not like the word 'invisible' but that was what they used to describe what they saw but could not speak of. The F-117 was designed with sliderulers. Only senior project engineer leads have access to something exotic called a 'computer' and machine time was expensive. The Matlab code you presented excluded edge diffraction, which is unusual in that edge diffractions made life hell for the F-117 engineers after they include items like engine exhausts, vents, and a cockpit.

This fool and his lack of military experience amplified his foolishness. Tactically speaking, top RCS is irrelevant. Underside RCS is slightly less irrelevant only because most radars are ground based and despite the fact that all aircrafts have relatively somewhat 'flat' underside, the odds of having a radar directly below the F-117 is extremely remote, leaving the bi-static configuration the best odds of a ground based system to pick up an F-117 and no one has a functional bi-static air defense radar system. The fool's argument regarding side RCS is also irrelevant in that radars sweeps and in their motions, if an F-117 or F-22 happens to be within that sweep in an ideal position, the 'stealth' aircraft's detection would be so fleeting that it would be dismissed as an anomaly, not likely a valid target.

But when an aircraft, 'stealth' or not, is in a head- or tail-on radar collision, then that sweeping motion is dangerous for the aircraft because the aircraft would be heading directly towards the radar, or a valuable target, or exiting an area after it dropped its bombs, and that head- or tail-on position would be constant, not transient like an aircraft flying across one's vision. So the F-117 designers focused more on how to reduce head- or tail-on RCS than they did for side-on RCS. The result is the signature 'bow-tie' radar reflective graph so popular among US 'stealth' aircraft critics who do not know what the hell they are talking about.

Back to edge diffractions...

For the F-117, aerodynamic necessities demanded that no matter what, the angled facets must allow airflow in certain paths over the body. So the engineers created multiple triangular facets to accommodate aerodynamic laws. But facets, or panels, must meet and when they do, their joints created edges and the edge diffraction effects contributed to the RCS figure. The solution was to reorient these edges, no matter their lengths, so that none would be perpendicular to a radar signal in a head- or tail-on radar collision.

It is not difficult to imagine.






In the above B-2 head-on radar collision, the wavefront will never be perpendicular to the aircraft's wing leading edges. The wave will travel over the body and when it meet the trailing edges, edge diffraction effects result. That is why the B-2's have precisely calculated 'sawtooth' trailing edges, to reduce the odds of any edge diffracted energy going back to the seeking radar.

Now mentally rotate the aircraft, in any direction, until the wavefront impact one wing straight on. The wing now is the greatest RCS contributors. But that would also make the B-2 in an off-angle to the radar's scan direction, effectively making the bomber crossing the radar's scan 'face'. Not only that, the radar is also sweeping and as it sweeps, that angle will increase. At several hundreds km/h, that ideal wavefront-to-wing position will be too short in duration for most air defense radars to trigger an alert. This is also why, for the F-22 and F-35, the wings and other leading edges have absorbers and not the rest of the bodies.

The man is already a 'moron' several times over. He is too stupid to realize it.


----------



## siegecrossbow

below_freezing said:


> so you're a US bachelor's in engineering? know how many PHDs are out there? what do you want, a medal or something?



More precisely just how many PhDs are Chinese . In the research center that I worked during the summer Chinese was the second most commonly spoken language, after Chinglish.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> ...he is showing poor professionalism in this forum as he is publishing papers that are copyrighted by authors and institutions. What does that tell you?


It tells us that he is dishonest.

Very seldom do I ever post paywalled sources and whenever I did, I only posted the summary teaser and made sure it contains keywords relevant to the discussion. If the reader has access to paywalled contents, he can verify my argument for himself. If the reader does not have access, at the very least, he can see that there are reputable professional and educational institutions that touched the subject, and that he can use the keywords to research further on his own.

*NEVER* have I posted parts of the paid contents themselves. It raises too many questions -- legal and ethical. The legal issue is obvious for places like this forum. The ethical issue is that if you control the paywalled sources, you can selectively post passages that appears to support your argument when it is always possible that the authors have caveats or cautions regarding the passages that you screen captured and posted.


----------



## aj_tech123

inddef said:


> russian equiment isn't trash. but its not going to allow us to match china in my opinion.
> 
> if you think about 2020-25 timeframe, if pak-fa doesn't deliver good enough stealth but j-xx does, that won't be good news for us.
> 
> maneuverability, which is the russian strength doesn't mean much anymore. plus american / euro bvraams are going to be much better than russian ones too.
> 
> the jsf program is looking for more commitment of orders afaik.




Wow wen did china learn to make aircraft better than russians????
but chinese have made a cheapest fighter aircraft..which u could get at $15million..


----------



## aj_tech123

inddef said:


> the chinese defense budget is already 2x russia and will get to 3x or more within 5 years.
> 
> russia is the wrong bet in the long term.



do u think increased budget will also increase aircraft technology?????


----------



## below_freezing

siegecrossbow said:


> More precisely just how many PhDs are Chinese . In the research center that I worked during the summer Chinese was the second most commonly spoken language, after Chinglish.



yes, i am amazed at how often mere bachelors degrees from the US (or even in the case of gambit, a high school diploma holder) would think they're superior to MSs and PhDs, who have done cutting edge research and published articles in their field.

its like some associate army paramedic trainee say he's superior to a neurosurgeon.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

below_freezing said:


> yes, i am amazed at how often mere bachelors degrees from the US (or even in the case of gambit, a high school diploma holder) would think they're superior to MSs and PhDs, who have done cutting edge research and published articles in their field.
> 
> its like some associate army paramedic trainee say he's superior to a neurosurgeon.



Sometimes PhD's are overated. Trust me.. I have one.


----------



## Laughing_soldier

we will get chinese advanced fifth generation fighter j-xx.


----------



## below_freezing

amalakas said:


> Sometimes PhD's are overated. Trust me.. I have one.



what do you have it in? my father has one in physical and materials chemistry with work on phizoelectric ceramics... supposedly a project sponsored by Wuhan Shipbuilding for submarine sonars.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tang0

below_freezing said:


> so you're a US bachelor's in engineering? know how many PHDs are out there? what do you want, a medal or something?



Nope, if you read the post: an explanation. The mention of the engineering degree was to make the point that you need not avoid advanced math. I am not an idiot, there are millions of engineers the world over, who are also not idiots. I was merely saying, if Gambit's supposed lack of an advanced degree made his insight irrelevant, ChinaOwnsEverything was welcome to try to give a more thorough explanation to a "Better Educated" (Only by his own admission) doubter. 


ChinaOwnsEverything might be very well educated, but he said a bunch of stuff that was wrong, and then refused to back down. Which makes you sound at the very least bullheaded and dishonest, if not downright stupid. 

Bringing up the culture stuff was mostly a satirical response to certain member of the forum, and the boasting done in Chinese/DPRK military propaganda. 
Many of my professors back in the day were Chinese, and many of my friends and coworkers are of Chinese descent. In general, from what little I have seen in the US, those educated in China make excellent engineers, although they are not very big on innovation. Generalization and stereotyping could go on from here, but it is outside the scope of the conversation, and really not important, so I will leave it at that.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Tang0 said:


> In general, from what little I have seen in the US, those *educated in China make excellent engineers, although they are not very big on innovation. *Generalization and stereotyping could go on from here, but it is outside the scope of the conversation, and really not important, so I will leave it at that.





Do you know the difference between an engineer and a technician?

An engineer, for your information, is someone who has extensive understanding of theories. Those are the guys who help design circuits or processes because they spent 10-20 f-ing years in Universities studying day and night while the frat boys partied day and night. A technician is someone who are less knowledgeable (with a basic understanding, of course) who listens to what the Engineers tell them and perform all the grunt works in a laboratory (undergrads like me are going to be doing that until we get into grad schools). 

Thank you for insulting my profession .


----------



## gambit

Chinaownseverything said:


> I know that it is conical, but in reality that cone is extremely large compared to the object that it is locating. So relative to the object the waves will be straight lines. Just like how relative to the size of a human the face of the earth is flat.


The reason you can make that kind of blanket assertion, which I deliberately led you into making, is that you know nothing about radar detection other than what you can scrambled up from your paywalled sources, which you do not understand anyway. Radar antennas are not universal in dimensions and *SHAPES*. Some are wider than they are tall. In this case, azimuth beamwidth is narrower than elevation beamwidth.

Radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Most 2D surveillance radars use a spoiled parabolic antenna with a *narrow azimuthal beamwidth and wide vertical beamwidth*. This beam configuration allows the radar operator to detect an aircraft at a specific azimuth but at an indeterminate height. Conversely, so-called *"nodder" height finding radars* use a dish with a *narrow vertical beamwidth and wide azimuthal beamwidth* to detect an aircraft at a specific height but with low azimuthal precision.


In other words, beamshapes depends on antenna shapes, they are not always conical.

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.*


I mentioned this before here and now you can learn another new thing from me. If the radar cannot distinguish two objects inside a cell, then yes, the beam is large enough to encompass two or more objects. But the fact that we can distinguish multiple objects inside a cell means that such distinction depends on target distance. Cell depth do not increase with distance but cell dimensions do. So for you to make that comment mean one thing, that you do not know of the complex relationship between 3 major elements: antenna dimensions, antenna shape and transmit frequency.



Chinaownseverything said:


> Attacking strawman again are we? I never claimed that creeping wave only existed on spherical bodies.


I posted that for the readers' benefits so they can see where you are wrong.



Chinaownseverything said:


> Creeping wave only applies to surface waves, they are not independent of each other


Of course they are. If surface wave can exist without creeping wave, they are independent of each other.



Chinaownseverything said:


> Again you don't seem to realize how radars work, the radar only sees the waves that comes back to it. I have stated before that when a surface wave creeps around the object that it loses most of its energy, this energy is conserved by leaky waves. These leaky waves will never make it back to the receptor due to low energy and wrong orientation.


I understand how radar works better than you do -- 21 yrs worth -- in and out of the military.



Chinaownseverything said:


> I already explained to you in my nicely drawn pictures why creeping wave appears to come from behind the actual object. Because the wave that ends up making it back to the receptor due to having the proper orientation having traversed around the object and thus reversing its direction the lower energy signature that it carries implies that the object is further away.


Am going to explain the truth in better terminologies so people can see how you are wrong. But first...

Attenuation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> In physics, *attenuation* (in some contexts also called extinction) *is the gradual loss in intensity* of any kind of flux through a medium. For instance, sunlight is attenuated by dark glasses, X-rays are attenuated by lead, and light and sound are attenuated while passing through seawater.


Attenuation: A loss of intensity. Or loss of energy to simplify it some.

On a curve, there is a relationship between the curve's radius and the creeping wave's energy loss, aka attenuation. As the radius decreases, attenuation increases. The greater the radius, the less energy loss for the creeping wave. This is why a creeping wave does not exist, or cannot exist, on a planar but a surface wave can, assuming the incident angle is other than perpendicular. We know that surface and creeping wave create leaky wave. So if a spheroid's diamter is sufficiently large, both SW and CW will completely attenuate before they are able to completely traverse the circumference. Their energy loss via leaky waves can, not must, create a false target spatial location. An aircraft is a complex body and in a head- or tail-on radar collision, the aircraft offers zero odds of any surface wave traveling the upper, over the end and under the body.

Now...There is another conducting body versus traveling wave relationship that involve magnetic and electrical fields that will make you look equally silly as everything else so far but I will leave it out for now.


----------



## gambit

Tang0 said:


> ChinaOwnsEverything might be very well educated, but he said a bunch of stuff that was wrong, and then refused to back down. Which makes you sound at the very least bullheaded and dishonest, if not downright stupid.


Anyone who has spent time in front of a group of people, either in a classroom environment, or in a field training condition, can recognize when an 'explanation' is theoretically wrong or when it is (overly)simplified for a specific audience. This guy's arguments are wrong enough in many areas that from the language he used, I can tell that those arguments were hobbled together from data mining his paywalled sources.


----------



## siegecrossbow

gambit said:


> Anyone who has spent time in front of a group of people, either in a classroom environment, or in a field training condition, can recognize when an 'explanation' is theoretically wrong or when it is (overly)simplified for a specific audience. This guy's arguments are wrong enough in many areas that from the language he used, I can tell that those arguments were hobbled together from data mining his paywalled sources.



Yet you, the educated one, chooses to answer/debunk the poor fellow's every point. You must have done that out of the goodness of your heart .


----------



## Tang0

siegecrossbow said:


> Do you know the difference between an engineer and a technician?
> 
> An engineer, for your information, is someone who has extensive understanding of theories. Those are the guys who help design circuits or processes because they spent 10-20 f-ing years in Universities studying day and night while the frat boys partied day and night. A technician is someone who are less knowledgeable (with a basic understanding, of course) who listens to what the Engineers tell them and perform all the grunt works in a laboratory (undergrads like me are going to be doing that until we get into grad schools).
> 
> Thank you for insulting my profession .



Yes actually, I do know the difference between an engineer and a technician. My degree says engineer...So for the benifit of my Alma Mater, I hope I do...
And actually, you can be an excellent engineer without being "Innovative", in the strictest sense. Was the 486 a better processor than the 386? Certainly. Did it require mountains of new "Innovation" to produce? I don't know for certain, but probably not. You can spot inefficiency without being an "Innovator", you can apply equations correctly without being an "Innovator". You can interpret lab results from an experiment preformed by a technician without being an "Innovator". Innovator does not strictly mean quantitative problem solver in my mind. Engineer in my mind is simply someone who designs things or solves problems using quantitative methods.

The majority of problems don't require brilliant new ideas to solve, just the correct application of existing principles. 

Note that there is some linguistic vagueness in the English term for innovator. It can be anywhere from"inventor" (As in total new idea), to just finding a good hack or application of an existing tool. I use the term to mean Inventive. Hence my characterization of Chinese Engineers as good engineers, but not big on innovation. I also point out that it is a massive generalization, and it would be easy to point to counterexamples. 

This is all semantics (What does "Big on Innovation" mean?), and circular at that, so after this post I am done heading down this path. 

Again, beyond the scope of the conversation, but you know as well as I do the stigma against standing out/going against convention in East Asian cultures. As a friend from South Korea once told me.."The nail that sticks up gets hammered down first."


----------



## Tang0

Also, off topic, but important to note. Most of the top level design work at places like LM and Boeing is not done by people with PHD's, but by people with Bachelors and Masters who have spent 20+ years in the industry and can bring together very desperate ideas from different fields..IE, not super-specialist who spent 10 years in a lab working on fluid dynamics/RCS/Whatever. Those people stay in Academia, and if they are very good, make a bunch of money consulting for companies like Boeing and LM when the right time rolls around.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Tang0 said:


> Also, off topic, but important to note. Most of the top level design work at places like LM and Boeing is not done by people with PHD's, but by people with Bachelors and Masters who have spent 20+ years in the industry and can bring together very desperate ideas from different fields..IE, not super-specialist who spent 10 years in a lab working on fluid dynamics/RCS/Whatever. Those people stay in Academia, and if they are very good, make a bunch of money consulting for companies like Boeing and LM when the right time rolls around.



You seem have more knowledge about the engineering field than I do. My apologies for my rash statements.


----------



## Tang0

> You seem have more knowledge about the engineering field than I do. My apologies for my rash statements.



Eh, I brought it on my own head. First multi-layered sarcasm, which does not go down well for non-native English speakers, and then generalization and pop psychology, which is just silly to bring up if you are not drunk.

As for knowing more, eh, not really. I had some relatives at the top end of Aerospace back in the 60's and 70's, listened to my professors gossip about who was rolling in the dough from grant money or consulting, and generally talk shop with friends who got jobs in big aerospace. Course, most of them won't say precisely what they are doing, but they drop hints. Me, I am on the mundane side. Or well, probably not any more mundane, but nobody makes me sign more than the usual number of Non-Disclosure agreements.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amalakas

below_freezing said:


> what do you have it in? my father has one in physical and materials chemistry with work on phizoelectric ceramics... supposedly a project sponsored by Wuhan Shipbuilding for submarine sonars.



Autonomous Robotics and Machine learning.


----------



## no_name

Not digging at anyone but PhDs are like bachelors, there are good ones and so-so ones.

Actually the same can be said of just about any titles.


----------



## amalakas

no_name said:


> Not digging at anyone but PhDs are like bachelors, there are good ones and so-so ones.
> 
> Actually the same can be said of just about any titles.



Dude, the same can be said about anything in life.


----------



## 500

Chinaownseverything said:


> Why is F-22 spherical?


Who said its scheprical?


----------



## below_freezing

amalakas said:


> Dude, the same can be said about anything in life.



agreed but a PhD, no matter how stupid, is usually better in his/her own field, than a bachelor's in that same field, due to receiving double the training. 5 years is the difference between a middle school dropout and college student after all.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

500 said:


> Who said its scheprical?



I think Chinaowns is trying to say that the plane isn't very angular, or has a lot of facets, like the F-117.


----------



## no_name

I do think it is angular, just that the edges has been smoothed over rather than a distinctive angular turn. Edges are generally a major source of scattering.

F-117 were designed at a time when computer has limited computational power. If looks as if it is made out of low resolution triangular mesh.


----------



## gambit

Chinaownseverything said:


> I have debunked all of your arguments, while you spout gibberish to waste my time digging through sources to disprove you and making nice little MS paint diagrams to try and educate you. And ignoring the arguments that you can't disprove.
> 
> 
> Not once have you posted a source, this entire conversation has been one sided. You make CRAZY CLAIM, I pull up a paper telling you wrong. You ignore it, strawman by stating things and claiming that I said them just to debunk them yourself (most of the time getting many theories completely wrong).
> 
> *According to your crazy pseudoscience theories (WITHOUT ANY SOURCES)* stealth helicopters and stealth ships should all be spherical. Obviously you know more than all the engineers at Raytheon,Northrop etc...


In another response to someone else, I said that *NEVER* before have I posted parts of any paywall sources. To show the readers how wrong you are about this subject, how your pride got in the way of fruitful debate and how the same pride make you look stupid over and over, I am going to break my rule just this one time.



> Time Domain Analysis of Creeping Wave (1997 Asia Pacific Microwave Conference)
> Jinkui Yan Changlong Xu Deming Xu
> Shanghai University
> Chengzhong Road 20, Jiading, Shanghai, 201800, China
> 
> Creeping wave is an important concept of stealth technique. It originated from scattering problem of metal cylinder. In fact it generally exists in shading region of ordinary smooth objects. When the geometric dimension of an object is large enough (>10lambda), the quantity of creeping wave on the backward region can be neglected. But it may cause secondary scattering when an object exists in the shading region, and give a considerable backward scattering wave indirectly. To study propagation properties of creeping wave and to seek an effective method to reduce it are very important for stealth technique.


We will examine that paragraph...

- *Creeping wave is an important concept of stealth technique.*
Why?

- *It originated from scattering problem of metal cylinder.*
What is so special about a cylinder? It has a circumference, which contain curve radii. In radar detection, the sphere is the simplest body. A flat plate or a cylinder is a complex body and assuming finite dimensions because we live in the real world, either is electrically much more complex than the sphere. Since we know that the creeping wave does not exist on a planar, that mean we can rule out the flat plate, the cube, the pyramid, and any complex body that is an assembly of planar surfaces. For them, we have specular, surface and edge diffraction waves. Edge diffraction waves come from where the planar surfaces connect to each other.

- *In fact it generally exists in shading region of ordinary smooth objects.*
If the surface of the object -- a flat wall, a ball or a brick -- is not 'smooth' and if said surface is sufficiently 'rough', like sandpaper or the surface of a tree or a rock, then it is very possible that cumulative edge diffraction effects from all the surface 'rough' points will radiate enough off the surface that no creeping wave can exist. The 'shading' region is the side that is not touched by the radar signal. So the sentence is saying that if there is a sphere or spheroid object and if the surface of this object is 'smooth' enough, a creeping wave can come to be on the opposite side of radar signal collision.

This lead us back to the first question on why is the creeping wave important for creating a radar low reflective body. If it is important that mean curvatures are important and if curvatures are important, that mean curvatures *MUST* be incorporated into the design. Not just merely in and for parts of the aircraft but that curvatures are *THE* most important consideration in the aircraft's shaping itself. The F-117 is retired. Its angled faceting technique worked well enough that its RCS remains publicly unknown. But that technique is also aerodynamically limiting. Aerodynamics works best when the complex body of an aircraft contains curves at strategic points to give us the great variety of performane levels we have today in aviation. So when we add the two demands together, that of the need for as low radar reflective as the F-117 and with superior aerodynamic performance, curvatures as the major component in body shaping is inevitable, hence the need to study creeping wave behavior.

- *When the geometric dimension of an object is large enough (>10lambda), the quantity of creeping wave on the backward region can be neglected.*
First...The 'object' here is neutral. It could mean a true sphere or a spheroid. But since we are talking about the creeping wave, it could not imply an object that is an assembly of planar surfaces.

Second...Lambda &#955; is the symbol for wavelength and it looks like an inverted letter 'y'.

Third...Which is 'backward' and which is 'forward'...






In the illustration above, the radar is radiating away from itself -- forward. Any reflections off the aicraft would be back towards the direction of the seeking radar. It does not matter if the reflected signals actually reach the radar or not. Only the direction matter and that is called 'back scatter'. If the reflected signal is off the aircraft's underside, topside, or broadside and travels *AWAY* from the seeking radar, that is called 'forward scatter'. So the terms 'back scatter' and 'forward scatter' depends on perspective and the default understanding among radar engineers is the radar's position perspective.

What this sentence is saying and meaning are that if the body's dimensions, usually length and width, is greater than 10 times the wavelength of the impinging signal (>10lambda) then we need not worry about the initial creeping wave quantity because as the creeping wave travels on this curvatures enriched complex body, it will continue to lose energy via leaky waves, which would be dismissed as part of the clutter region if any are detected. The greater than 10 lambda ensures it. But the next sentence is also important...

- *But it may cause secondary scattering when an object exists in the shading region, and give a considerable backward scattering wave indirectly.*
The word 'object' here can be problematic in understanding what the authors meant. Since we know that a creeping wave exist only when there is a curve that create a 'shadow region', if there is a sharp interruption of path in this region, like a gap between panels or a hole created by a rock stuck on the bottom of someone's shoe, this is called 'curvature discontinuity' and will create edge diffraction effects *FROM* the creeping wave. That is why maintainers on the B-2, F-22, and F-35 must wear 'booties' over their footwear if they have to be on the aircraft's topside. It is even more important for the fighters because they are much more likely than the bomber to expose their topsides to seeking radars.

I told you that there is a direct relationship between object dimension and incident wavelength. If angled faceting is the superior path to RCS controls, then China would have had an F-117 equivalent flying by now. Instead, everyone in the world is going the F-22 alike path. The '>10lambda' where the creeping wave dies before completing circumference is well known. I make fun of 'Chinese physics' here but I have no doubt that Chinese engineers are smart enough to realize the F-117 is not what China should aspire to build. Your own countrymen, senors Jinkui Yan, Changlong Xu, and Deming Xu debunked you.



Chinaownseverything said:


> And this is why some people in life work designing machines while others (similar to you) are working cleaning toilets. I bet that you are one of those scum that go around telling girls that they are engineers when really they are "sanitation engineers"


I have no problems calling myself a 'sanitation engineer' among you clowns. Too bad for you that I used your own countrymen to clean up your BS. May be it is *YOU* who have been trying to impress women with your lies? Considering how pathetic your performance have been here, when you cannot even support your claim that the F-117 is 'much larger' than the F-22, you must still be a virgin. Whatever money you make, I recommend regular visits to the local cathouse wherever you are.

*Readers...*

There is a caveat to this (>10lambda) condition. We are talking about a pulsed radar system here. Take a meter measuring stick and assume that this is a pulse train. A 'pulse train' is a finite period of time of transmission where there is a grouping of pulses. The V/UHF (mhz) frequencies are meters long. The X-band frequencies (ghz), common to fighter aircraft radars, are centimetric -- centimeters long. At 40+ ghz and and we have millimetric -- millimeters long. That meter measuring stick should be helpful in visualization. A 'pulse' is also a finite period of time of transmission -- leading and trailing edge -- a characteristic called 'finite pulse length', which also mean finite amount of energy.

Many of these radar detection experiments are not actual experiments but rather theoretical against perfect electrical conducting -- PEC -- surfaces and materials. They establish various baselines of attenuation in circumferential waves and that 'lossy' surfaces and materials are introduced later. All surfaces and materials are 'lossy' to some degrees. Since it is not possible to perform experiments on nonexistent perfect anything, these 'lossy' materials and their estimated attenuation factor must be physically verified. This is one avenue in developing radar absorbent material (RAM).

Fire that pulse train of X-band frequency pulses at the Goodyear blimp. As each pulse impact the blimp, a portion of the pulse's energy will create the initial specular reflection because there is always a small spot on any curve that is flat enough to reflect directly back to incident direction. The rest of the pulse's energy will become circumferential waves. The blimp's circumference is much greater than '10lambda'. Finite amount of energy per pulse. Finite amount of energy per pulse train. The blimp's surface material, as a 'lossy' material, will absorb and convert to heat some of each pulse's energy. The result is that each pulse will die on the blimp's surface via tangentially radiated leaky waves and material related loss before it will make any significant distance in travel.

The caveat here is if we go to a continuous wave (CW) transmission mode, where there are no pulses, hence a continuous amount of energy hitting the blimp, then there will be a creeping wave that will complete the blimp's circumference and emerge from the shadow region.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> The caveat here is if we go to a continuous wave (CW) transmission mode, where there are no pulses, hence a continuous amount of energy hitting the blimp, then there will be a creeping wave that will complete the blimp's circumference and emerge from the shadow region.



And that is why the F22 is designed the way it is. Because a lot of russian Anti aircraft systems utilise X and L and K band radars that have CW modes. This is suprisingly effective to a degree most people do not realise. It does take a lot of power and it does advertise the seeker radar location to SEAD planes but if you are looking for a needle, it finds it. (where needle /= F22)


----------



## gambit

amalakas said:


> And that is why the F22 is designed the way it is. Because a lot of russian Anti aircraft systems utilise X and L and K band radars that have CW modes. This is suprisingly effective to a degree most people do not realise. It does take a lot of power and it does advertise the seeker radar location to SEAD planes but if you are looking for a needle, it finds it. (where needle /= F22)


Air defense radars, guns or missiles, have always the benefit of producing multiple antennas and assigning them different function. The counter to that is the low altitude approach because ground radars are limited to line-of-sight. It depends on who has the better intel and response time.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> Air defense radars, guns or missiles, have always the benefit of producing multiple antennas and assigning them different function. The counter to that is the low altitude approach because ground radars are limited to line-of-sight. It depends on who has the better intel and response time.



The also have the advantage of utilising each cell in a multi cell arrangement forming a pseudo-"multi static" configuration. The S-300 is such an example. 

As I said before, a lot of people do not realise the amount of factors designers have to take into account in making a "low observability" asset. 

The F22 was not made out of thin air or anyones' *ss. A lot of very clever people put a lot of man hours into it. despite of what i think about stealth as a pursuit .. I cannot dismiss the effort and brain power behind these things.

perhaps our asian friend is a bit wiser now....


----------



## SQ8

gambit said:


> Air defense radars, guns or missiles, have always the benefit of producing multiple antennas and assigning them different function. The counter to that is the low altitude approach because ground radars are limited to line-of-sight. It depends on who has the better intel and response time.



But then again.. isnt the fact that the F-22 will have to get very close to any one of these sensors for them to actually pick it up its greatest strength??
It can stay at medium altitude and simply take out emitting systems via JDAMS... too bad the production cap will keep the F-22 as a silver bullet force.


----------



## amalakas

santro said:


> But then again.. isnt the fact that the F-22 will have to get very close to any one of these sensors for them to actually pick it up its greatest strength??
> It can stay at medium altitude and simply take out emitting systems via JDAMS... too bad the production cap will keep the F-22 as a silver bullet force.



I did say "where needle /= (does not equal) F22" , I was talking about semi stealth or semi low observable targets, such as the EF2000, Rafale and any (if any) potentially low observable choppers, also UAVs and cruise missiles are kind of hard to pick up. 

The F22 will not be easily picked up by these sensors whatever its flight path. And even if it is, it'll be way too close for comfort.


----------



## STD

India's gotta get a high no. of these russian 5th gen fighters in about 1-2 years after they are developed.
India's gotta get it at a time,when Pakistan and China would not be having 5th gen fighters.


----------



## STD

Lambda is also the symbol of wavelength,ask any questions if you want related to military,i have a great knowledge of military related things and have a doctorate in Applied Mechanics from IIT DELHI


----------



## Patriot

STD said:


> Lambda is also the symbol of wavelength,ask any questions if you want related to military,i have a great knowledge of military related things and have a doctorate in Applied Mechanics from IIT DELHI


and you still act like a retard.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Patriot said:


> and you still act like a retard.



IQ is very different from EQ. A man could get be a genius and get high degrees in Engineering but still act like a child.


----------



## somebozo

numerics dont mean anything....tactis and lethality does.


----------



## ambidex

somebozo said:


> numerics dont mean anything....tactis and lethality does.



All three are complementary to each other.


----------



## KingOfGods

somebozo said:


> *numerics dont mean anything*....*tactis* and lethality does.





All are directly proportional to each other. Tactics will be different with superior numbers that can increase or decrease the lethality.

No one can claim that only he/she command tactics and no one other can use better one.

Thank God, you didn't type *testis*


----------



## faithfulguy

Devianz said:


> That is so common. Everyone boasts about their machine. But still the Russians are no where near LM when it comes to boasting.



Its not boasting when you can back it up. For example, when Muhammad Ali said that he is the greatest, he was not boasting. He was just stating a fact.


----------



## amalakas

faithfulguy said:


> Its not boasting when you can back it up. For example, when Muhammad Ali said that he is the greatest, he was not boasting. He was just stating a fact.



Muhammad Ali, was not trying to sell planes though! He was easily checked, only needed to be challenged to a fight. 

We are not going to start a war with the US just to see if LM's planes are better than the rest!!!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------

