Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[Martian2]

Exported/Downgraded F-35 has beach ball-size RCS of 0.15 m2

Let's address the obvious question. Why would the United States downgrade exported F-35s?

Well, the U.S. Congress banned the export of F-22s. The F-35 is close to the F-22 in stealth. Therefore, if foreign countries obtain the full stealth version of the F-35 and make incremental upgrades then foreign countries would possess a fighter close in performance to the F-22.

Hence, to avoid foreign countries from obtaining stealth technology comparable to U.S. performance, the United States downgraded the exported F-35 to a RCS of 0.15 m2.

This means the 42 exported/downgraded F-35s expected to be bought by Japan can be easily detected and shot down by China's stealthy J-20 Mighty Dragons or modern overlapping air defense system.

Stealth rankings:

1. F-22: 0.0001 m2 RCS (from GlobalSecurity)
["size of marble" on radar]

2. J-20: 0.0001 m2 (frontal) to 0.005 m2 (rear) (from Australia Air Power)
[intermediate size between marble and golf ball]

3. F-35: 0.005 m2 (from GlobalSecurity)
["size of golf ball"]

4. Exported F-35: 0.15 m2 (see citations below)
["size of beach ball"]

5. T-50/Pak Fa: 0.5 m2 (from official Russian Embassy in India website)
[size of a gigantic beach ball]

----------

Not so stealthy: the $15b fighters - National - smh.com.au

"Not so stealthy: the $15b fighters
By Craig Skehan and Tom Allard
March 14, 2006

Like a beach ball on the radar … the former defence minister Robert Hill with a mock-up of the fighter. (Photo: Jason South)

THE ability of Australia's new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to evade detection and enemy attack has been substantially downgraded by the US Defence Department.

And a Liberal MP and former senior defence analyst, Dennis Jensen, warns that the fighters - at $15 billion the most expensive defence purchase in Australia's history - will be unable to maintain air combat dominance.

"Do we really want our pilots to be caught in a knife fight in a telephone booth with an aircraft that, aerodynamically, is incapable of mixing it with the threat?" he said in a submission to a parliamentary inquiry.

A crucial aspect of the fighter's "stealth capability" - radio frequency signatures - has been downgraded from "very low observable" to "low observable", according to the US Defence Department website.

Peter Goon, a former RAAF flight test engineer, said that would mean the difference between it appearing as a "marble and a beach ball" on enemy radar. The problem with the fighter, Dr Jensen says, is that it can be relatively easily detected from the rear.

A Federal Government source conceded yesterday that the stealth capability definitions had been changed, but maintained that the "design requirements" for the fighter to "avoid detection" had not.

Signs that the stealth capability had been lowered first emerged last year, when key performance indicators on the US Defence Department Joint Strike Fighter website changed. The manufacturer of the aircraft, Lockheed Martin, insisted repeatedly to the Herald that the reported shift was an error. Australia's Defence Department also maintained there had been no change.

But those assurances have proven false. When the Herald contacted the US Defence Department Joint Strike Fighter program office in Washington, a spokeswoman said the latest table on its website was correct. "There is no reason to pull it from there," she said.

A Lockheed Martin spokesman said yesterday: 'We will have to defer to our clients, the US Government, if that is their decision.'"

----------

eurofighter @ starstreak.net • View topic - Typhoon for South Korea?

"Export model F-35 is revealed to have a frontal RCS rating in 0.1~0.25 m2 (Hence the LO rating) class thanks to Canada's Defense Ministry disclosure."

"Scribd
In the page 2.

F-35 has a 95% RCS reduction over 4th-gen jets according to Julian Fantino, the vice defense minister of Canada. Going by the standard RCS of a generic 4th gen fighter used by radar vendors (5 m2), that would be 0.25 m2. If he was going by CF-18's RCS of 3 m2, then it would be 0.15 m2."

Canadian government defense document page 1

Canadian government defense document page 2

Canadian government defense document page 3

Canadian government defense document page 4

 

[amalakas]

Antonius, these clowns have been annoying me for years. I suggest you just ignore them.

I ask them for reputable citations and they don't have any. They make ridiculous claims with no relation to reality.

You can keep arguing with them if you want to, but there is no end.

Instead of wasting my time with these numbskulls, I made a YouTube video on the J-20 Mighty Dragon with over 92,763 views. I got my message out and these anti-China clowns can only vent their frustration in here. I won and they lost. Too bad for these dummies.

Anyway, that's just my two cents.

Your resorting to insults again will have no bearing.

You are once again talking about citations. Let us all examine what happened last time you asked me for some!


In post #2260 in the J-20 5th Generation Aircraft: Updates & Discussions I posted:

oh .. and because you usually ask for citations ... here they are .. i wonder if you are going to read them.. .

D.Curtis Schleher, Electronic Warfare in the Information Age, Artech House, Inc.

George W. Stimson, Introduction to Airborne Radar

Yang Jing, Lv Youxin, Efficient Digital Channelized IFM Receiver Research

have fun man..

Your amazingly intellectual answer to that was :

post #2261

Jesus Christ, what's wrong with you guys? You never post a reputable citation to back up your crap. It gets annoying.

Do you see my post above? It has a reputable citation. Do you understand the difference between my post and your crappy rhetoric?

The F-35 has a smaller AESA radar and its jamming capability is consistent with all AESA radars. It can jam a narrow frequency range. Big deal. All AESA radars can do that. The F-22 has a bigger AESA radar and it hops over a wide range of frequencies.

Since my citation already informed you the F-35 can only jam "selectively," it means the F-35 cannot jam the larger frequency-hopping F-22 radar.

I'm getting tired of repeating myself to you trolls over and over again. This is the last time.

And in my response to that amazing comment by you was :
post #2262

Just because I knew you were going to say that ... and you fell right into the trap .. here are the full citations ...

D.Curtis Schleher, Electronic Warfare in the Information Age, Artech House, Inc. 1999;

George W. Stimson, Introduction to Airborne Radar (Second Edition), SciTech Publishing, Inc, Raleigh, NC, USA, 1998;

Yang Jing, Lv Youxin, Efficient Digital Channelized IFM Receiver Research, Journal of UEST of China, Vol.34, No.4, Aug.2005;

Source: J-20 5th Generation Aircraft: Updates & Discussions


You never came back to us with more explanation as to why you consider the above references for that topic as non reputable, especially seeing as a particularly important one for my arguments was actually Chinese ! ..

you only attacked again asking for exact word phrases that mention what only you understand, not realising that the Chinese citation had been written for exactly what you were asking for!!!


In other words you have been busted .. and you have lost all (if any) credibility you might have had in asking for citations , because when they are given to you , you lack the proper education and understanding to use them and evaluate them.

end of story.

unfortunately for you, a forum is a timeline of all the things we post. And guess what, it exposes YOU, not us.

keep it up exposing yourself ..

 

[Esc8781]

Antonius, these clowns have been annoying me for years. I suggest you just ignore them.

I ask them for reputable citations and they don't have any. They make ridiculous claims with no relation to reality.

You can keep arguing with them if you want to, but there is no end.

Instead of wasting my time with these numbskulls, I made a YouTube video on the J-20 Mighty Dragon with over 92,763 views. I got my message out and these anti-China clowns can only vent their frustration in here. I won and they lost. Too bad for these dummies.

Anyway, that's just my two cents.

No offence, earlier in the forum people called Gambit the copy and paste guy and now you want citations from him, gee

 

[gambit]

Antonius, these clowns have been annoying me for years. I suggest you just ignore them.

I ask them for reputable citations and they don't have any. They make ridiculous claims with no relation to reality.

You can keep arguing with them if you want to, but there is no end.

Instead of wasting my time with these numbskulls, I made a YouTube video on the J-20 Mighty Dragon with over 92,763 views. I got my message out and these anti-China clowns can only vent their frustration in here. I won and they lost. Too bad for these dummies.

Anyway, that's just my two cents.

Now that is delusional and an outright lie. It was YOU who once admitted the importance of providing sources to support one's arguments and that you learned it from me. And now you are telling the forum that I do not provide sources. You continue to prove yourself dishonest.

You won nothing but the dunce cap. Your claims are repeatedly debunked with sources that you do not understand, just like your Indonesian friend. It is you who are frustrated because you keep coming back here. You are frustrated because...

1- Your playground is intellectually dead and your ego is tired of being stroked by Chinese who are obligated to do so.

2- And because of (1) you must try to convince non-Chinese to your claims, which unfortunately for you, real physics and real experience trumps fantasies.

No offence, earlier in the forum people called Gambit the copy and paste guy and now you want citations from him, gee

Intellectual consistency has never been real to these yay-hoos.

 

[ptldM3]

I can explain my quote, and ready to do that for you.

Really? That’s funny since I’ve asked you dozens of times in the past two months and each time you have came up with excuses. Now is no different, now you want me to explain parts of your source.

But I demand you to explain me your own version after I explain to you.

Fine, explain it than. If you actually know what you are talking about than there would be no need for my own version. If you are wrong or too vague than I can give you ‘my version.’ But don'e expect that i will give you the answers to questions that you do not know.

Why do you mind, and afraid of the challenge?

You seriously have some nerves. I have been asking you for months to explain your quote and you have refused to do so. First you just ignored my request, than you called me names, than you tried to play cute with me by pulling a, “what you don’t know?”, afterwards you said you, “needed more time”, and then you wanted me to explain your source.

You just claim again above that you have more knowledge than me, so you should not be afraid. You test me and I test you.

More like you want me to give you the answers because you can’t find the information you need from Wekepedia.


You know why I know your full of it? Because earlier you claimed you needed “more time”, which means you quoted something that you did not understand thus you stated you needed time for research. Funny how that goes against everything you have claimed. What happened to ‘you guys don’t understand your sources’? And ‘only a qualified person can explain their sources’? The hypocrisy is amazing.

Not only that, you have had your time, where is an explanation to your source?

I am using the same source that you were referring.

I never offered a source to your quote.

Why should I elaborate my quoted source to you, while you -with the same source - are debating me and claiming know more than me?

Jee, I don’t know because of all the trash you have been talking. You claimed we don’t understand our sources, do you? Can you prove it? You claimed that only a qualified person can explain their sources. So explain it than.

You make provocative comments in which you portray yourself as a know it all. You open yourself up to challenges when you make bold statements about you knowing your sources and us not knowing ours. So prove it instead of running away like you have been for the last two months.

Instead I am wondering if you know your own resource? because you keep debating and refusing while claiming you know more than me.

You are describing yourself

You posted the source not me, you claimed you know more than me. And you have been refusing to answer for the past two months. You have a psychological disorder.

Why you are evading while demanding me to answer?

Why are you demanding I explain your source for you? Especially after all the bragging you have been doing about being qualified to answer sources. You seem to brag about having knowledge about your source. So where is it?

Again I challenge you: I will explain what I understand about the citation I quote, and you should do the same too because you are confronting me using the same citation, even you claim you know more than me.

Go ahead and explain the whole quote, we’ll see if you know.

 

[gambit]

Exported/Downgraded F-35 has beach ball-size RCS of 0.15 m2

Let's address the obvious question. Why would the United States downgrade exported F-35s?

Well, the U.S. Congress banned the export of F-22s. The F-35 is close to the F-22 in stealth. Therefore, if foreign countries obtain the full stealth version of the F-35 and make incremental upgrades then foreign countries would possess a fighter close in performance to the F-22.

Hence, to avoid foreign countries from obtaining stealth technology comparable to U.S. performance, the United States downgraded the exported F-35 to a RCS of 0.15 m2.

A reasonable enough speculation. It is reasonable because there are no hard data for either aircrafts regarding each RCS value. What this mean is that the speculator can go to either extremes

This means the 42 exported/downgraded F-35s expected to be bought by Japan can be easily detected and shot down by China's stealthy J-20 Mighty Dragons or modern overlapping air defense system.

No, it does not mean. It is only your hope so. We can safely assume that if a 'degraded' version does exist, it will be through shaping and it is well known in the radar community, one that we can safely assume YOU are not a member, that diverse quality of radar systems results in diverse detection range on the same body. You have no hard data but only a hard-on for the J-20 on which to make this weak claim.

Stealth rankings:

1. F-22: 0.0001 m2 RCS (from GlobalSecurity)
["size of marble" on radar]

2. J-20: 0.0001 m2 (frontal) to 0.005 m2 (rear) (from Australia Air Power)
[intermediate size between marble and golf ball]

3. F-35: 0.005 m2 (from GlobalSecurity)
["size of golf ball"]

4. Exported F-35: 0.15 m2 (see citations below)
["size of beach ball"]

5. T-50/Pak Fa: 0.5 m2 (from official Russian Embassy in India website)
[size of a gigantic beach ball]

----------

Not so stealthy: the $15b fighters - National - smh.com.au

Your liberal interpretation of 'citation' does not fly with me. What you brought on is an opinion. A true citation would have hard data. I see nothing of the sort.

 

[Martian2]

My reputable citations from GlobalSecurity, Australia Air Power, and Russian Embassy in India

I have no idea what you're mumbling about.

I've posted my reputable citations many times in the past. Anyway, I don't intend to spend any more time on your anti-China rhetoric. I came into this thread to save Antonius from you clowns.

----------

References:

GlobalSecurity (F-22 and F-35 RCS): Radar Cross Section (RCS)

Australia Air Power (J-20 RCS): The Chengdu J-20: Peace in Our Time?

Official Russian Embassy in India website (T-50/Pak Fa RCS): India, Russia close to pact on next generation fighter

 

[gambit]

I have no idea what you're mumbling about.

I've posted my reputable citations many times in the past.

References:

GlobalSecurity: Radar Cross Section (RCS)

Australia Air Power: The Chengdu J-20: Peace in Our Time?

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

How convenient...

Show me where you explained to the readers something foundational as the '10-lambda rule'. More likely prior to reading me, you have never heard of such a rule and how important is it in radar detection. More likely prior to reading me, you have never heard of things like the 'corner reflector' or 'bi-static' or many others. All of these foundational principles I presented to the readers are accompanied by credible third party sources. Unimpeachable ones. Not only that, I often gave the readers keyword searches for them to go and verify me. To date, NO ONE ever came back and told me I lied. Not the same can be said for you.

You brought on Kopp? I want you to tell the readers right now that I never provided a Chinese source on why APA was wrong on using only Physical Optics.

Got balls?

 

[Kesang]

My reputable citations from GlobalSecurity, Australia Air Power, and Russian Embassy in India

I have no idea what you're mumbling about.

I've posted my reputable citations many times in the past. Anyway, I don't intend to spend any more time on your anti-China rhetoric. I came into this thread to save Antonius from you clowns.

----------

References:

GlobalSecurity (F-22 and F-35 RCS): Radar Cross Section (RCS)

Australia Air Power (J-20 RCS): The Chengdu J-20: Peace in Our Time?

Official Russian Embassy in India website (T-50/Pak Fa RCS): India, Russia close to pact on next generation fighter

wow. According to GlobalSecurity, the rcs of Mki is 4 m2 and according to website of Official Russian Embassy in India, RCS of mki is 20 m2,

 

[ptldM3]

Official Russian Embassy in India website (T-50/Pak Fa RCS): India, Russia close to pact on next generation fighter

This was from your link:

Compiled from the article of Ajai Shukla, Business Standart, January, 2010

Copied and pasted from a fanboy blogger


By the way where was that source were you claimed that the F-35 used cheap materials? Funny that you had no source, you simply claimed that it is 'cheaper' and had a bigger RCS thus it had to use cheap materials. Funny how you simply bolted after i posted a source where Lockheed claimed that the F-35 is the first production aircraft to use nanocomposites and that nanocomposites are the most advanced composite know and the most costly. I would probably bolt too if a source shot down every single claim i have made.

wow. According to GlobalSecurity, the rcs of Mki is 4 m2 and according to website of Official Russian Embassy in India, RCS of mki is 20 m2,

His source are about as reputable as a con artist. It's nothing more than guesses cobbed together by bloggers with too much time on their hands. One source claims one thing, another claimes something totally different.

 

[antonius123]

Really? That’s funny since I’ve asked you dozens of times in the past two months and each time you have came up with excuses. Now is no different, now you want me to explain parts of your source.

See.. you are demonstrating idiocy and ignorance with your repost that has been answered.

I've explained you that I have no obligation to answer any question you throw, whether i want to answer or not is up to me; if your motive is good I am willing to give answer. If your motive is to test then i expect you want to be tested too.

Dont you understand that? I am dragging me to low level if i serve your idiotic debate.

Fine, explain it than. If you actually know what you are talking about than there would be no need for my own version. If you are wrong or too vague than I can give you ‘my version.’ But don'e expect that i will give you the answers to questions that you do not know.

See .. you are such a coward.

You want to test me but dont dare to be tested likewise even for the same source we refer. Even I let you to be tested later after me

You seriously have some nerves. I have been asking you for months to explain your quote and you have refused to do so. First you just ignored my request, than you called me names, than you tried to play cute with me by pulling a, “what you don’t know?”, afterwards you said you, “needed more time”, and then you wanted me to explain your source.

See .. this repeated idiocy.

I've told you many times that I have no obligation to serve question with unclear motive.
I've explained you many times why I dont care with your test if you dont want to accept test too, but you are to coward.

You claim that you have answered my challenges satisfactory while i dont see yet except repeated idiocy. Similar to the repeated idiocy above.

More like you want me to give you the answers because you can’t find the information you need from Wekepedia.

Why everything has to be there in wikipedia? I can give you my answer without that, and I am willing to give my answer first then followed by your turn.

Why are you so afraid to do likewise?
We have wasted our time in debating this so far, so why dont you just take my fair challenge?
Why are you so afraid with that challenge?

You know why I know your full of it? Because earlier you claimed you needed “more time”, which means you quoted something that you did not understand thus you stated you needed time for research. Funny how that goes against everything you have claimed. What happened to ‘you guys don’t understand your sources’? And ‘only a qualified person can explain their sources’? The hypocrisy is amazing.

Not only that, you have had your time, where is an explanation to your source?

Dont lie, you lie to much.

I dont answer your question with unclear motive - because I dont feel to have obligation on that.

But since you admit that the purpose is to test me, then I am willing to answer but require you to be tested too, and this is regarding the quote on the wikipedia which was the same source we use.

And the more we debate this, the more evidence that you dont know the answer and dont dare to take the challenge to be tested. Admit it!

I never offered a source to your quote.

So what source were you using then? in debating me about DSI and Cone?

Jee, I don’t know because of all the trash you have been talking. You claimed we don’t understand our sources, do you? Can you prove it? You claimed that only a qualified person can explain their sources. So explain it than.

You make provocative comments in which you portray yourself as a know it all. You open yourself up to challenges when you make bold statements about you knowing your sources and us not knowing ours. So prove it instead of running away like you have been for the last two months.

See .. you finally admit that you dont know what you are debating
If you dont understand yet, why dont you ask clarification? instead debating and judging other argument as trash while claiming you know better.

If you dont know the answer about the thing we are debating and the quote of the source we together refer, then you prove you have no idea about what you are debating, then prove that you dont know, then prove that you dont deserve to test me and debating me. Gee...

You are describing yourself

You posted the source not me, you claimed you know more than me. And you have been refusing to answer for the past two months. You have a psychological disorder.

Dont you claim yourself know more too??
Dont you refer to the same source too?
If you demand me to answer, dont I deserve to demand likewise to you too?

It is you who are the one with psychological disorder, since you are asking me the clue at the same time claiming you know better than me and debating me like hell

Why are you demanding I explain your source for you? Especially after all the bragging you have been doing about being qualified to answer sources. You seem to brag about having knowledge about your source. So where is it?

Because
- you claim you know more, and
- you use/refer to the same source too

:p

Go ahead and explain the whole quote, we’ll see if you know.

Are you taking my challenges or not?
Will you explain to me your own answer too after that?

You have psychology disorder then, if you want to test me but refused to be tested likewise even after me first.
You have psychology disorder then, if you want my explanation and refuse to give your own explanation while at the same time claiming yourself know better than me and debating me

 

[antonius123]

No offence, earlier in the forum people called Gambit the copy and paste guy and now you want citations from him, gee

You are right that people already called him so

He like to drag citation, unfortunately he doesnt really understand the citation he drags.

I bet he will drag another citation that he misunderstanding too

 

[amalakas]

You are right that people already called him so

He like to drag citation, unfortunately he doesnt really understand the citation he drags.

I bet he will drag another citation that he misunderstanding too

.............................................


you are the funniest person on this forum.

keep on twisting words buddy.... it cracks me up ..

 

[gambit]

You are right that people already called him so

He like to drag citation, unfortunately he doesnt really understand the citation he drags.

I bet he will drag another citation that he misunderstanding too

And yet we do not see you grabbing on to those sources that I alleged do not understand and explained to the readers what those sources really mean.

Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
A: Power.

Why do I or you need sources to answer that question? Why did you not know it despite claiming an aviation 'background' and 'study'? Why did you lied about answering it?

...if you want to test me but refused to be tested likewise even after me first.

I already tested you and the grade is: F for Failure and L for Liar.

I've posted my reputable citations many times in the past.

And just like him, you do not understand your own sources at the foundational level.

Anyway, I don't intend to spend any more time on your anti-China rhetoric. I came into this thread to save Antonius from you clowns.

He shot himself in the foot, head, and just about every place else -- a long time ago.

But if you want to save him...

Q: What are the forces that have direct physical effects on a body that enable their exploitations and resulting in flight, in other words, what are these forces that help create what is called 'kinematics'?

kin·e·mat·ics (Noun):
1- The branch of mechanics concerned with the motion of objects without reference to the forces that cause the motion.
2- The features or properties of motion in an object, regarded in such a way.

Keep in mind that your Indonesian suck-up failed to answer a dozen first year Basic Aerodynamics and eight flight controls engineering questions. Arrogant ignoramuses need to be saved from those who have genuine experience? Here is your chance to save him. Keep in mind the highlighted definition of 'kinematics'. It is important because it allows us to study those forces independently.

 

[grey boy 2]

J-20 updates