What's new

China officially admitted "Red B2"!

@gambit:

Sir,is it necessary for 5th generation fighter to have smooth under-fuselage and S-duct intakes to shield GT compressor blade in order to be in VLO regime.IIRC YF-23 did'nt had smooth under-fuselage and had radar blockers for shielding GT compressor.

Sir,can you share us your opinion on stealthiness of AMCA latest design.
Advanced+Medium+Combat+Aircraft+%2528AMCA%2529+Medium+Combat+Aircraft+%2528MCA%2529+single-seat%252C+twin-engine+fifth-generation+stealth+%25283%2529.jpg

Advanced+Medium+Combat+Aircraft+%2528AMCA%2529+Medium+Combat+Aircraft+%2528MCA%2529+single-seat%252C+twin-engine+fifth-generation+stealth+%25284%2529.jpg

%253D%253Futf-8%253FB%253FSU1HLTIwMTMwMjA1LTAxMjA4LmpwZw%253D%253D%253F%253D-733211

images
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@gambit:

Sir,is it necessary for 5th generation fighter to have smooth under-fuselage...
If the requirement is narrow, like how the F-22 is, then you SHOULD have as smooth an underside as possible. That is 'should' not 'must'. And again, it depends on customer requirements.

...and S-duct intakes to shield GT compressor blade in order to be in VLO regime.IIRC YF-23 did'nt had smooth under-fuselage and had radar blockers for shielding GT compressor.
Radar blockers interferes with air flow to the engine and it will affect engine performance. That does not mean the engine will not fly. It simply mean its performance will not be as if there are no interference. The radar blocker is just an alternative to the serpentine intake. So if your fuselage design present the engine face to the seeking radar, and you cannot reshape to include the serpentine intake, then you must install the alternative if you want to control frontal RCS.

Contrary to what the Chinese members here may say, the diverterless inlet (DSI) bumps are not to control RCS at the inlets. The DSI bump is for simplification of structure to control air flow to the engine tunnel. Any RCS related issue is purely coincidental.

To give you an example of how complex a radar blocker can be, here is the design from the F-117...

f-117_rcs_intake_grill.jpg


Each grid element must be precisely controlled in shaping and size. Never mind what the Chinese members may interpret the word 'control', they are proven technical illiterates. Anyway, we do not know how effective is this radar blocker compare to the serpentine intake regarding engine radar returns. For all we know, it could be that the F-117 is far superior to the F-22 in this regard. But because the -117 is subsonic, the US decided to use the serpentine intake over the radar blocker.

I will stress that what I just said is purely speculative. Unless the USAF release relevant technical data, anyone who present any hard numbers is a liar. It could be the serpentine intake is proven to be superior to any radar blocker design. We do not know in the absence of hard technical data.

Sir,can you share us your opinion on stealthiness of AMCA latest design.
Just from looking, it looks 'stealthy' enough. But unless we have hard technical data from both isolated EM anechoic chamber and open range radar testings, it would be foolish to make any definitive judgment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is why you repeatedly failed logical thinking: The Germans knew about RCS but they did not have the knowledge on HOW TO CONTROL THE RADIATING STRUCTURES AND MECHANISMS THAT CREATED THE CONCEPT OF RADAR CROSS SECTION.

wtf? what the germans had anything to do with sr-71? which year was sr-71 made? 1942?:rofl:

here you go perpetually, "I knew about physics, but just dunno how physics works", is that your gambitic logical thinking? say give yourself a break.



More like all the time. You guys just do not like the fact that someone have experience where you do not.

what is that? random dripping? show us anytime. :lol:
 
wtf? what the germans had anything to do with sr-71? which year was sr-71 made? 1942?:rofl:
It was in response to your insinuation that I implied that the Germans did not know of the concept of radar cross section (RCS). They did. But they did not know how to control it. Just like how Lockheed was aware of the concept but did not know how to control it.

here you go perpetually, "I knew about physics, but just dunno how physics works", is that your gambitic logical thinking? say give yourself a break.
Actually that is how the Chinese members here. :lol:
 
Indian AMCA lacks S-duct stealth design

m6PfTVP.jpg

Indian AMCA lacks S-duct stealth design. Red arrows show straight airflow.

At member "S-duct," it is ironic you do not see the straight airflow on the current AMCA design. With the lack of a S-duct design, radar will reflect off of the engine fan blades and the current AMCA will look like a fourth-generation fighter to radar.

I would have pointed this out earlier in the Indian thread, but the moderators would have just deleted my post due to Indian complaints.
 
If the requirement is narrow, like how the F-22 is, then you SHOULD have as smooth an underside as possible. That is 'should' not 'must'. And again, it depends on customer requirements.


Radar blockers interferes with air flow to the engine and it will affect engine performance. That does not mean the engine will not fly. It simply mean its performance will not be as if there are no interference.
Sir,but using S-DUCT intakes during high angles of attack it would starve the engine of adequate air flow leading to either suboptimum option or flame out or would prevent the aircraft from performing at very high AOA.Though its increases internal volume but it is helpful to store more AAMs.

Contrary to what the Chinese members here may say, the diverterless inlet (DSI) bumps are not to control RCS at the inlets. The DSI bump is for simplification of structure to control air flow to the engine tunnel. Any RCS related issue is purely coincidental.
Yep,DSI bumps are made to prevent any incoming turbulent aeroflow.

To give you an example of how complex a radar blocker can be, here is the design from the Each grid element must be precisely controlled in shaping and size. Never mind what the Chinese members may interpret the word 'control', they are proven technical illiterates. Anyway, we do not know how effective is this radar blocker compare to the serpentine intake regarding engine radar returns. For all we know, it could be that the F-117 is far superior to the F-22 in this regard. But because the -117 is subsonic, the US decided to use the serpentine intake over the radar blocker.
Sir,i was pointing out that many 5th programs had(YF-23,X-32) and will(ATD-X) used/use radar blockers.IIRC,F-22 also uses radar blocker to hide its turbine section.Cleary even YF-23 used radar blockers.
images

yf22nozzle.jpg
 
The DF-21D is a chinese thing, but to your accusation, yea China copies US, so what?

The key is to achieve enough military power to protect interests and project influence, as long as China does that, who cares how it does it.

Only idiots care about ingenuity, when the end result could be lose of independence and/or humiliation.

It's called the lesser of two evils.

LOL a Chinese thing. You know the concept of Global Strike Missile was from the U.S. but the program was denied by Rumsfeld because it was impractical since it would be identified as a nuclear missile launch. Which by the way the DF 21 is. So who can tell whats nuclear and not? Those missiles are useless.
 
Indian AMCA lacks S-duct stealth design

m6PfTVP.jpg

Indian AMCA lacks S-duct stealth design. Red arrows show straight airflow.

At member "S-duct," it is ironic you do not see the straight airflow on the current AMCA design. With the lack of a S-duct design, radar will reflect off of the engine fan blades and the current AMCA will look like a fourth-generation fighter to radar.

I would have pointed this out earlier in the Indian thread, but the moderators would have just deleted my post due to Indian complaints.
Buddy this image is to show edge alignment thing nothing more.Just by looking at top view ,you can't say what is beneth it.BTW,by your logic even F-22 will not have Serpentine intakes.
images


and here soming official to confirm also.
AMCA%2Bfeatures.JPG

Tarmak007 -- A bold blog on Indian defence: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft
MCA+CUTAWAY+4.JPG
 
LOL a Chinese thing. You know the concept of Global Strike Missile was from the U.S. but the program was denied by Rumsfeld because it was impractical since it would be identified as a nuclear missile launch. Which by the way the DF 21 is. So who can tell whats nuclear and not? Those missiles are useless.

So you are taking credit for things that didn't materialize too? One day an American kid draws a line does that make all linear weapons American property too?

Well if they are so useless why didn't the experts say useless? Or did you just mean anything Chinese made is useless?

We can't win, we make our own stuff it's useless, what's not considered useless is copied.

Do you guys store your important data on dropbox or something? Do you have no confidence in your own security? You give us too much credit in our copying skills, you make us sound like god, while discredit us at every turn on our innovation skills.

How can we be so good at computer hacking but no skills anywhere else? These fields are connected in a lot of ways.
 
Sir,but using S-DUCT intakes during high angles of attack it would starve the engine of adequate air flow leading to either suboptimum option or flame out or would prevent the aircraft from performing at very high AOA.
Depends on by what do you mean by 'high'. The F-22 is capable of 60 deg AoA. Inlet curvature design does take possible angle-of-attack into consideration.

Sir,i was pointing out that many 5th programs had(YF-23,X-32) and will(ATD-X) used/use radar blockers.IIRC,F-22 also uses radar blocker to hide its turbine section.Cleary even YF-23 used radar blockers.
It depends on the blocker's design and the F-22 does not have blockers. As for the YF-23, its exhausts are topside, effectively hiding the engines from seeking radars, or at least from ground stations. Its intakes curvatures partially hide the engines from full frontal view.
 

Real AMCA doesn't have room for S-duct

You Indians should stop drawing ridiculous cartoons. I had the same argument with Indians regarding the Pak-Fa. You can't use cartoons to draw in a serpentine air duct. There is no room.

In the following diagram for the AMCA, it is clear there is very little room for the airduct and the weapon bay.

kpQimgH.jpg

AMCA has straight airducts.

In any case, if the AMCA is ever built, I will use the real photographs and prove to you that it has straight airducts.

TSOlNEx.jpg

In your own illustration, I can draw a straight line for a direct radar reflection.

----------

Right now, AMCA is vaporware

Tejas grounds Medium Combat Aircraft project | The Sunday Standard

"Tejas grounds Medium Combat Aircraft project
By NC Bipindra - NEW DELHI
Published: 21st Apr 2013 10:16:44 AM

5hRt3P9.jpg


Troubles in India’s ambitious Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) project has inflicted gaping wounds where it would hurt the Indian Air Force (IAF) the most—the future plans for an Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA).

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has “put on hold” the AMCA project that is being spearheaded by Defence Research and Development Organisation’s (DRDO) Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA).

The reason for the sudden decision to send the AMCA project—which began in right earnest in 2006 as the Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA) development in 2006—to cold storage is to help ADA to focus all its energies to first work on completing the much-delayed LCA project. “The AMCA has been put on hold for the moment. This decision was taken recently to let the ADA focus on the LCA project,” top Defence Ministry sources told The Sunday Standard. The AMCA project, for which the IAF provided the final Air Staff Qualitative Requirements (ASQR) in April 2010, may be taken up at a later date, sources said. But that will still be far away in the future.

India will buy Rafale planes from the French Dassault Aviation as part of its 126 Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA); in the tender there is a provision to buy another 63 as a follow-on order. That apart, India is working on the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) in collaboration with Russia. With the final agreement on the design and development of the FGFA three months away, India will get at least 140 FGFAs for induction by 2027. Considering that most of the capabilities of AMCA will be covered by the MMRCA and FGFA planes, the revival of the AMCA will be a well thought-out one, sources said.

The AMCA’s envisaged features include stealth, multi-role operations, adequate precision strike capabilities, including critical first-day missions such as Suppression of Enemy Air Defence (SEAD) and Destruction of Enemy Air Defence (DEAD).

The much-touted Tejas has taken 30 years already, at an escalated project cost of Rs 5,489 crore. Since the LCA project was sanctioned in 1983 at a cost of Rs 560 crore, the time overrun has resulted in a 10-fold increase in the project cost. The plane is yet to get even its Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) so that the IAF could take the plane for a spin. But sources pointed out that the LCA still lacks certain critical capabilities, including a reliable radar, and is deficient in at least 100 technical parameters. “The plane cannot fly on its own. It needs a lifeline in the form of support and monitoring of its systems from the ground by technicians,” they said.

The LCA, in fact, gave creditable flying displays during the AeroIndia show in Yelahanka in Bangalore in February this year, and followed it up with weapons firing to hit both ground and aerial targets during the Iron Fist fire power display by the IAF in the Rajasthan’s Pokhran ranges, again in February this year. “The common man thinks the plane is doing fine, its engine sounds great and the manoeuvres are perfect. But those flying and weapons firing displays are done with ground monitoring and support. The plane is still not ready to flying on its own,” sources stressed. Their guess is the LCA may not meet its schedule of obtaining the IOC before July this year and it could take till December this year or early next year before it is ready. To give an example of LCA’s troubles, the sources noted that LCA was grounded for three months between September and December 2012 following problems with its landing gear. “Normally, a combat plane is ready for its next sortie following a 30-minute attention from ground service personnel soon after it has returned from a mission. In the case of LCA, after a single sortie of about an hour or so, it needs three days of servicing before it can go for its next sortie,” they said.

At present, the IAF has placed an order for 40 LCAs Mk1 to raise two squadrons by 2016-17 with HAL which is the nodal agency for production of Tejas. But these will be delivered with the American General Electric F404 engines which provide only 80 Kilo Newton power.

Later, 80 more LCAs of its Mk2 version will be ordered for raising four more squadrons. The LCA Mk2 will be powered by the GE F414 engines that provide a 90 Kilo Newton thrust."
 
LOL a Chinese thing. You know the concept of Global Strike Missile was from the U.S. but the program was denied by Rumsfeld because it was impractical since it would be identified as a nuclear missile launch. Which by the way the DF 21 is. So who can tell whats nuclear and not? Those missiles are useless.
Ain't that a gas? He is desperate in trying to make anything -- ANYTHING -- to be as uniquely 'Chinese' as possible given how much the PLA emulate the US military in practically all things that made up a modern military.
 
Real AMCA doesn't have room for S-duct

You Indians should stop drawing ridiculous cartoons. I had the same argument with Indians regarding the Pak-Fa. You can't use cartoons to draw in a serpentine air duct. There is no room.

In the following diagram for the AMCA, it is clear there is very little room for the airduct and the weapon bay.
First of all,if something is presented by official so it will be right so i have right to believe them.2nd you did'nt tell me from where you concluded all that just by seeing its top view.


kpQimgH.jpg

AMCA has straight airducts.
Poor Attempt to prove someting,even bottom view of j-20 and F-22 will be same,for concluding this you need its side view and is made by same person who has made the pic you had posted.BTW,the person has created these both pics horribly wrong,you don't have S shapes in vertical direction.
AMCA3.jpg

MCA+CUTAWAY+3.JPG

amca2.jpg


In any case, if the AMCA is ever built, I will use the real photographs and prove to you that it has straight airducts.
Ok i'll wait for that day then.:)
TSOlNEx.jpg

In your own illustration, I can draw a straight line for a direct radar reflection.
There Nothing wrong with you illustration,but it does'nt mean intakes are straight.But after reflecting back from GT compressor,it will bounce back and forth within intake and will get absorbed by RAM inside there and these is plenty of space between intakes to carry AAMs in internalweapon bay.

don't take that BS article seriously by stupid desi journos,he is wrong about LCA in every parameter,leave alone AMCA.
AMCA is in PSD.
LCA is in test phase.
 
Ain't that a gas? He is desperate in trying to make anything -- ANYTHING -- to be as uniquely 'Chinese' as possible given how much the PLA emulate the US military in practically all things that made up a modern military.

I have yet to see anything unique about the Chinese since Communist China came to being.
 
LOL a Chinese thing. You know the concept of Global Strike Missile was from the U.S. but the program was denied by Rumsfeld because it was impractical since it would be identified as a nuclear missile launch. Which by the way the DF 21 is. So who can tell whats nuclear and not? Those missiles are useless.

Hey genius, and who can tell whether the Tomahawk and ALCM are nuclear or not?

Maybe China should respond with nukes the moment a Tomahawk is detected. :lol:

cj-10.jpg


oXBPN5e.jpg


H-6K_CJ-10K.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom