Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[antonius123]

^^^^^

The clue:

From:
Radar cross-section enhancement of dihedral corner reflector using fractal-based metallo-dielectric structures
Chandran, A.R.; Gopikrishna, M.; Aanandan, C.K.; Mohanan, P.; Vasudevan, K.
Electronics Letters
Volume: 42 , Issue: 20
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1049/el:20061712
Publication Year: 2006 , Page(s): 1135 - 1136

 

[gambit]

Then now explain us: why that non 90 degree corner behave like corner reflector? show us the ray path of those non 90 degree corner! just like many people here have explained and show the the ray path like bellow picture, or you are just able to drag article without capability to explain?

Remember "corner reflector" here meant the corner that return the radar wave back to its origin. We are talking about stealth right? IF the corner only reflect but not returning to its origin, it must be the corner reflector in other meaning.

This is how stupid you are...Over and over again...

Those lines and arrows do not represent what the actual transmission look like. The real transmission look like this...

Those lines and arrows simply indicate general directions of travel. In the real aviation world, the one that you have no experience but lied about and got busted, there is always a part of that conical beam that will return directly to origin direction. That is why non-90 deg reflector are used to calibrate receiver capability in terms of gain and reflected signal strength.

So what is your aviation 'experience' and 'study' again?

 

[gambit]

Martin,

You are making a mistake by over-emphasizing the flat-nozzles. Let me explain it simply: From the rear, the greatest giveaway is the heat signature. To escape from AAM, manuevability is essential.

Marty,

You might want to educate your friend on how wrong he is. And I will be generous and not demand that you attribute this lesson from me when you rebut him in your playground...

Infrared detection is passive, meaning you are at the mercy of the target in terms of characterization.

Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Engine exhaust passes over the aircraft's horizontal stabilizer and between the twin tails, decreasing the A-10's infrared signature and lowering the likelihood that the aircraft can be targeted by heat-seeking missiles fired from the ground.

Infrared detector detects infrared radiation, not heat. We humans feel heat but can neither see nor feel infrared radiation. So when there are plates blocking the detector's view of the infrared radiation source, it is as if the aircraft is not there. That is why we designed the A-10's engines the way they are located. The location REDUCES but not totally eliminated the odds of infrared radiation. In other words, the target is in control of the detection medium: infrared radiation.

On the other hand, radar detection is active in the sense that you -- not the target -- control the detection medium: radar signals. The more objects there are in the path of the medium's travel path, the greater the odds of detection via reflections. No matter what angle of approach, with radar detection, you will always have reflections. Whether those reflections reaches you or not is another issue. So with infrared detection, the best location for detection is DIRECTLY behind the aircraft with gradual decrease in detected strength when there is an increase in off angle view. With radar detection, it really does not matter whether you are facing directly the engines or not because there will always be some reflections that will return to you thanks to the flight control surfaces and the engine nozzles. Of course, facing the engines directly is the greatest.

That is why your friend is waaaaaayyyy off the mark.

 

[amalakas]

This is how stupid you are...Over and over again...

Those lines and arrows do not represent what the actual transmission look like. The real transmission look like this...

Those lines and arrows simply indicate general directions of travel. In the real aviation world, the one that you have no experience but lied about and got busted, there is always a part of that conical beam that will return directly to origin direction. That is why non-90 deg reflector are used to calibrate receiver capability in terms of gain and reflected signal strength.

So what is your aviation 'experience' and 'study' again?

Where I come from, this guy would be in special care. I think he has a serious learning deficiency...

For the most part I consider him "done for". Now I am waiting for the other "scientist" of the lot to come and repeat his dislike of "unreliable" references .. when the references come directly from IEEE!

 

[gambit]

Where I come from, this guy would be in special care. I think he has a serious learning deficiency...

That and he is probably a 'tweenager'.

For the most part I consider him "done for". Now I am waiting for the other "scientist" of the lot to come and repeat his dislike of "unreliable" references .. when the references come directly from IEEE!

What these yay-hoos do not understand that is that ray tracing shows the HIGHEST intensity from the main lobe's reflection, which then create its own main and side lobes. In reality, incidental side lobe reflections are often enough to give the target away because in the real world, ideal situations rarely exists. May be not enough for tracking and targeting, but would be enough to alert the operator. No wonder they believe those straight lines and arrows to be definitive of what a radar transmission look like.

 

[Esc8781]

This is how stupid you are...Over and over again...

Those lines and arrows do not represent what the actual transmission look like. The real transmission look like this...

Those lines and arrows simply indicate general directions of travel. In the real aviation world, the one that you have no experience but lied about and got busted, there is always a part of that conical beam that will return directly to origin direction. That is why non-90 deg reflector are used to calibrate receiver capability in terms of gain and reflected signal strength.

So what is your aviation 'experience' and 'study' again?

Does the shape depends on the band like X-band?

 

[amalakas]

Does the shape depends on the band like X-band?

"The radiation pattern is a graphical depiction of the relative field strength transmitted from or received by the
antenna. Antenna radiation patterns are taken at one frequency, one polarization, and one plane cut. The patterns are
usually presented in polar or rectilinear form with a dB strength scale."

The main contributor to the radiation pattern is the antenna type.

hope that helps.

 

[gambit]

Does the shape depends on the band like X-band?

What he said...

The side lobes' intensity depends on transmitter's quality such as hardware and increasingly software in the case of digital phase arrays. But for general purposes, low side lobes -- good. You will always have side lobes. The main beam is where the majority of the work get done.

Beam broadening or beam spread is inevitable with distance so for high resolution systems, like targeting X bands or greater ghz, 2-3 deg main beam is desirable but at the cost of time if there is a volume of space to be searched. Then the inverse applies, if time over a volume is a necessity, then a wide beam is desirable but at the cost of target resolutions like speed, altitude, heading and aspect angle (to you). The wider the main beam, the lower those resolutions.

Then we get into beam shapes with that volume criteria...

A main beam's shape is always 90 deg of its antenna's shape.

The left antenna is for sheer volume search as the antenna rotates in 360. We will have some elevation resolution but that depends on antenna height off the ground. So an AWACS will have greater elevation resolutions of targets than an airport's antenna doing the same motion. The right antenna is what we see as typical at the airport. It usually does not rotate but just 'nod' up-down in one direction. Runway approach is important for this.

A round antenna will produce a conical main beam as previously illustrated.

 

[ptldM3]

That is your assumption?

No it is your assumption--knucklehead. You are the one under the impression that Russia wants DSI by asking why they have not incorporated it.

As I said because you have no clue about DSI but thinking as if you knew.

More like you don’t know, I find it utterly sad that you still think a cone intake, half cone, and DSI are different apart from the shape.

As usual your talking is demonstrating your clueless about the topic you intend to debate.

The size matters. Manufacturing small single canopy require small mold; while big 1 piece canopy like that of J-20/F-22 require huge mold. And the huge piece/mold require more complicated technology.

You cannot distinguish the size, as you cannot distinguish the shape (remember you cant distinguish curvature vs round, and cone / ovoid vs cylinder)

Where are you getting at? All I see is a whole lot of ranting, much of the time unrelated. Stop diverting from the subject by spouting a bunch of incoherent crap. And yes I know the difference between curvature and something that is round, you are just too brain dead to know what a contour is, as in contour of a circle.

Your claim that Mirage already use DSI just because they share some similarity - more demonstrating your clueless and idiocy.

My claim? Your source busts your nonsense out of the water. The Main purpose of the DSI is to slow airflow down to subsonic speed before it enters the intake. Similarly, a cone intake or half cone is built for the same purpose, so the only clueless idiot is you.




I know the response that will come from you; deny, deny, call me an idiot, twist the subject and make some unsubstantiated claims, tell me I don’t understand, call me an idiot again and than change the subject.

The same type of intake doesnt mean the intake of Mirage meets the requirement to be DSI, if the intake doesnt have the feature of DSI.

You should read and learn again:

More like you should read again before you get publicly embarrassed via your own sources. A cone intake or half cone does not need the curved features of the DSI, a half cone or cone intake have their own features but all three intakes do the same job.

It consists of a "bump" and a forward-swept inlet cowl, which work together to divert boundary layer airflow away from the aircraft's engine while compressing the air to slow it down from supersonic speed. The DSI can be used to replace conventional methods of controlling supersonic and boundary layer airflow, such as the intake ramp and inlet cone, which are more complex, heavy and expensive
Diverterless supersonic inlet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You don’t say, thanks for stating the obvious genius. We all know that a DSI intake consists of a bump, what is your point? To me it sounds like you are dragging in a bunch of irrelevant crap in order to stay relevant. It’s clear you have nothing, you’re on empty and you are desperate. You should also bring up an article stating wheels are round too.

CONE has NO bump and a forward-swept inlet cowl, which work together to divert boundary layer airflow away from the aircraft's engine while compressing the air to slow it down from supersonic speed.

Those things which are unavailable on Mirage/Mig21 air intake - which create DSI and give high performance, high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching

Really? You are a miserable liar.



Inlet cone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The main purpose of an inlet cone is to slow the flow of air from supersonic flight speed to a subsonic speed before it enters the engine.


---The boundary layer on the cone is stretched as it moves up the cone---

Owned

It is you who dont know the meaning and have no clue about that sentence.

If you have a brain even if a little, you should realize that JF-17II and F-35 wont use DSI if the performance is the same as Mirage/Mig 21 style CONE

Answer the question, self proclaimed expert. Funny how you accuse people of dragging in articals without explaining them yet you quote something and tell everyone to ‘check it out’ with out any explanation, and now someone asks you explain your quote and you outright avioid it. It's clear you don't know what the hell your talking about.


So now again, explain what:



‘high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching’ means.
Afterall you quoted it.

 

[antonius123]

This is how stupid you are...Over and over again...

Those lines and arrows do not represent what the actual transmission look like. The real transmission look like this...

Those lines and arrows simply indicate general directions of travel. In the real aviation world, the one that you have no experience but lied about and got busted, there is always a part of that conical beam that will return directly to origin direction. That is why non-90 deg reflector are used to calibrate receiver capability in terms of gain and reflected signal strength.

So what is your aviation 'experience' and 'study' again?

How idiot you are. We are not talking about transmission, but reflection.

Sorry, mine is from SOLID source and evidence, not fake from me like yours; i gave you the link, and you can track the citation in that wikipedia.

You havent proven anything yet to support your claim about how non 90 degree reflection wave, and show us the ray path at the non 90 degree corner to return the wave.

You not only FAIL, but demonstrating idiocy and FAKE.

While your claim is not only contradictive to solid evidence, but there is no credible source. You are FAKE.

Where I come from, this guy would be in special care. I think he has a serious learning deficiency...

For the most part I consider him "done for". Now I am waiting for the other "scientist" of the lot to come and repeat his dislike of "unreliable" references .. when the references come directly from IEEE!

You havent answered my challenge. You like always only cheerleading your master and evading other people challenge.

Read again carefully your own article. The non 90 degree corner reflector happen only because of fractal-based metallo-dielectric structures, and you are idiotic if you think that metallo-dielectric structure exist on J-20 surface.

You are the one who have a serious learning deficiency... internet boy...

 

[antonius123]

No it is your assumption--knucklehead. You are the one under the impression that Russia wants DSI by asking why they have not incorporated it.

I showed you evidence how DSI is better in performance.
So the only reason Russia has not applied it yet because of the technology they have to mastered yet.

More like you don’t know, I find it utterly sad that you still think a cone intake, half cone, and DSI are different apart from the shape.

By naked eye you should be able to see the difference!
DSI show "bump" and a forward-swept inlet cowl.

This is Cone

How amazing you cant see the glaring difference.

Where are you getting at? All I see is a whole lot of ranting, much of the time unrelated. Stop diverting from the subject by spouting a bunch of incoherent crap. And yes I know the difference between curvature and something that is round, you are just too brain dead to know what a contour is, as in contour of a circle.

Sorry, but your inability to difference glaringly different shape is so amazing!

This happen not only now, but in the previous case like round vs curvature, cylinder vs cone, etc.

My claim? Your source busts your nonsense out of the water. The Main purpose of the DSI is to slow airflow down to subsonic speed before it enters the intake. Similarly, a cone intake or half cone is built for the same purpose, so the only clueless idiot is you.

I know the response that will come from you; deny, deny, call me an idiot, twist the subject and make some unsubstantiated claims, tell me I don’t understand, call me an idiot again and than change the subject.

Only that?
Then you have reading comprehension problem.

Read again the article!

More like you should read again before you get publicly embarrassed via your own sources. A cone intake or half cone does not need the curved features of the DSI, a half cone or cone intake have their own features but all three intakes do the same job.

Who said no need? you?

It no need, OK, but the performance will be difference. The citation said DSI offer better performance. Why you deny deny and deny??

You don’t say, thanks for stating the obvious genius. We all know that a DSI intake consists of a bump, what is your point? To me it sounds like you are dragging in a bunch of irrelevant crap in order to stay relevant. It’s clear you have nothing, you’re on empty and you are desperate. You should also bring up an article stating wheels are round too.

As I said you are idiot and having severe reading comprehension problem.

My point is obvious: DSI is different from Cone intake, both from the shape, and subsequenly the performance.

The bump and forward-swept inlet cowl work together to divert boundary layer airflow away from the aircraft's engine while compressing the air to slow it down from supersonic speed. This things doesnt exist on cone inlet. It doesnt mean cone would not totally do that, but of course the performance will be different.

Really? You are a miserable liar.



Inlet cone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia






Owned

I said Cone doesnt have "bump and a forward-swept inlet cowl" idiot... you are demonstrating reading comprehension problem.

As explained above, It doesnt mean cone would not totally do that, but of course the performance will be different.

The point is : "Performance difference".
*** be too idiotic.

Answer the question, self proclaimed expert. Funny how you accuse people of dragging in articals without explaining them yet you quote something and tell everyone to ‘check it out’ with out any explanation, and now someone asks you explain your quote and you outright avioid it. It's clear you don't know what the hell your talking about.

You are so histeric; that is one reason you are not reading and comprehending the article you drag and my explanation.

So now again, explain what:
‘high total pressure recovery, low integrated distortion and good engine/intake matching’ means.
Afterall you quoted it.

You dont know that? Then why you are so sure that Cone offer the same performance with DSI?

 

[gambit]

How idiot you are. We are not talking about transmission, but reflection.

And this just goes to show further what a fraud and liar you are when you claimed to have aviation 'experience' and 'study'.

In radar detection, a reflection is the same thing as a transmission. The surface radiate, whether that radiation is of its own internal generation or from an external source, it qualifies as a transmission.

So what was your aviation 'experience' and 'study' again, little boy?

 

[gambit]

Read again carefully your own article. The non 90 degree corner reflector happen only because of fractal-based metallo-dielectric structures, and you are idiotic if you think that metallo-dielectric structure exist on J-20 surface.

You are the one who have a serious learning deficiency... internet boy...

Holy Sh1t...!!! This is amazing...!!! This is a definite must-save of someone who the Chinese boys 'Thanked' for 'useful' posts.

The idiot completely misunderstood what this mean...

From:
Radar cross-section enhancement of dihedral corner reflector using fractal-based metallo-dielectric structures
Chandran, A.R.; Gopikrishna, M.; Aanandan, C.K.; Mohanan, P.; Vasudevan, K.
Electronics Letters
Volume: 42 , Issue: 20
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1049/el:20061712
Publication Year: 2006 , Page(s): 1135 - 1136

And the Chinese boys actually thinks this kid is worth their praise.

 

[antonius123]

And this just goes to show further what a fraud and liar you are when you claimed to have aviation 'experience' and 'study'.

In radar detection, a reflection is the same thing as a transmission. The surface radiate, whether that radiation is of its own internal generation or from an external source, it qualifies as a transmission.

So what was your aviation 'experience' and 'study' again, little boy?

Wrong!

It is not. Prove me if i am wrong! no more fake please.

What is your real education?

Holy Sh1t...!!! This is amazing...!!! This is a definite must-save of someone who the Chinese boys 'Thanked' for 'useful' posts.

The idiot completely misunderstood what this mean...

From:
Radar cross-section enhancement of dihedral corner reflector using fractal-based metallo-dielectric structures
Chandran, A.R.; Gopikrishna, M.; Aanandan, C.K.; Mohanan, P.; Vasudevan, K.
Electronics Letters
Volume: 42 , Issue: 20
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1049/el:20061712
Publication Year: 2006 , Page(s): 1135 - 1136

And the Chinese boys actually thinks this kid is worth their praise.

Explain and elaborate please...

No more pretend, fake and deceiving anymore

 

[gambit]

Wrong!

It is not. Prove me if i am wrong! no more fake please.

What is your real education?

A transmission is a METHOD or MECHANISM of/for radiation. Same if the radiation is generated by a reflecting METHOD or MECHANISM. You are beyond any doubt a moron as well as a fraud.

Wrong!
Explain and elaborate please...

No more pretend, fake and deceiving anymore

Sure...Metallo-dielectric is material. A corner reflector is physical orientation of structures. But it looks like you have no real technical education at all to understand the difference.