F-22 vs J-20 - aka USA-made jet fighters vs China-made jet fighters

[gambit]

How am I supposed to know what context you're talking about?

Your problem, not mine. When you debate on a subject that you have no experience in, not even at an academic level, you runs a high risk of not understanding what others -- who do have relevant experience -- wrote and said, even when they tries their best to tone down their language.

I was saying that speed is a compromising factor, and it is (my source agreed). You brought up the rather irrelevant MTI radars yourself.

Further proof that you do not read or have a reading comprehension problem.

When you used the 'Pulse-Doppler' phrase, I bet you were full of yourself that you have something over me.

When you mentioned 'Pulse-Doppler', it was YOU who brought up the MTI radar. It was relevant, but you just did not know it.

A pulsed-Doppler radar does not have to be a physically distinct radar. Doppler processing is a MODE OF OPERATION. Whether the radar transmission is pulsed or continuous-wave (CW) is not the point. If a body travels, there is a Doppler component in its radar return. So when you mentioned 'Pulsed-Doppler', you unwittingly brought in the MTI radar because the MTI radar is a dedicated radar designed to maximize the Doppler processing part of the overall radar operation.

Here is the proof that pulsed-Doppler processing is a component of a radar system...

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4102752/

The AN/APG-66 is a digital, multimode, fire control radar that is the primary sensor for the F-16 air combat fighter. The detection and false alarm performance of this radar are described when it operates in its medium PRF pulse Doppler downlook mode. Descriptions are included of medium PRF clutter, the AN/APG-66 signal processing, the flight tests used to obtain performance data, a computer simulation of the radar, and the calibration of the simulation. The detection performance presented is based on both flight tests and the output of the flight test calibrated simulation. The false alarm performance is based on flight tests and is accompanied by a discussion of the sources of false alarms.

The -66's system does everything listed. It is the radar computer that switches between modes. And that means the PD processing is a component of the -66's many operations. Do you see where you are short in understanding now?

You are too late in this game of trying to defeat the F-22. The PD argument have been tried yrs ago and so far, nothing in the real world gained any effort at making the Doppler component as a viable defense against 'stealth'.

Moore's Law is based on observed trend of all electronics and it's widely accepted as the prevailing principle in the electronics industry. To base military advancement on this law is my opinion, and it's an opinion that no one has yet to able to refute with substance and say why would military electronics won't follow it.

And your opinion is wrong. Not because I have to refute it, but because it is inapplicable as an argument.

Here I'll give you an article from phys.org to further clarify what Moore's Law really entails

Buddy, I am currently in the semiconductor industry, Probe and Functionality testing, and with direct engineering participation in Intel's new 3DXP phase change memory product. I know Moore's Law before you have heard of it.

The point is military and civilian market constantly exchanges technologies and they are not far from each other. In some areas, military might have more advanced technologies, but for some areas the civilian markets also have more advanced (more mature) technologies. Good point?

The problem with debating people like you -- who not only do not have relevant experience but is filled with a particular agenda -- is that you people tends to make sweeping claims that takes no considerations into nuances or conditions that are often inside the subjects under discussion.

It is extremely rare that the military will come up with a new technology. We are talking about DARPANET kind of rarity. DARPANET became the Internet as we know it today. DARPANET was a true military originated idea and transfer of technology.

What the military does -- most of the time -- is adapting current civilian technologies to suit military needs and in doing so, it creates the illusion that there is a 'military technology' side of technology in general. Military needs are often non-usable for civilians. Not non-applicable, but simply non-usable. Take the afterburner part of the jet engine, for example. No civilian airliner have afterburning engines, and please do not bring up the Concorde.

When I worked for Micron, we have a DRAM line specifically for military applications. There was nothing special about manufacturing from wafer start to functionality testing. The only thing that made the line, to use the cliche 'military grade', is that the client was willing to pay top money for the highest yielding wafers, as in double-digits percentage over what any civilian company would bid in order to secure the supply, the extracted dies would have extra thick encapsulation at Assembly, and extended testing under increased temperature and data injection cycles at Burn-In. We would make the same accommodations to any civilian client willing to pay the same high prices for the same product lines. There were no technological advances in this DRAM line.

So you are wrong in using the word 'constantly'. There is no two-way street here. Just another thing you are wrong about simply because you have no relevant experience but is filled with a particular agenda.

 

[jhungary]

Even gambit don't dare to say I'm totally wrong on this topic. That's because he knows I'm right. I'm definitely correct that you don't need to know an aircraft radar signature to design a system to shoot it down.

Radar signature really doesn't mean a lot. If you're unidentified, you'll get targeted.

If they are at an imminent war, the security would already be on high alert. Anything will get shot down without normal warnings. And yes, in times of war, "you just indiscriminately shooting down EVERY radar contact you have." However, as I've said before, all civilians aircrafts are required to have transponders and to identify themselves, if not they will get shot down. This protocol is common elsewhere in the world.

Comparing i5 and i7 is like comparing an advanced trainer to a fighter. Why are you doing this? Again, We're reaching the limits of Moore's Law, but if you look at the trend in the past, Moore's Law has always been right. Also, if it's not right, why would every make a big deal out of it? The trend is there for you to see in the graph I've provided you. It's clear as day, if you're still refusing it, I'm really just wasting my time.
At least gambit has real knowledge and he doesn't argue against facts, that I can deal with. lmao

How can I not compare? The point is you can study many stuff such as the stealth coating used on the aircraft even from wreckages. Ok you want better comparison?

" It’s similar to the MiG-15, in that we were looking at modeling and simulations, and developed threat assessments long before we got our hands on one.” During the Korean War, NASIC’s predecessor, the Air Technical Intelligence Center, recovered parts of crashed MiG-15s and studied the wreckage to learn more about that game-changing MiG’s performance." (airspacemag)

I really don't know why I have to spend so much time finding quotes to proof my points, which are relatively common sense. And to think that I started getting into this stuff years after you.

You still don't get it.

If you do not know what you are looking for, then you cannot claim you can shoot down Stealth, you "CAN" shoot down something, but the question is, HOW DO YOU KNOW what yo had shot down, when you are talking about SAM or alike BVR weapon?

Civilian Aircraft or not, the problem is, you don't know whether or not that is a stealth plane like F-22 or F-35 or a B-2, or a conventional fighter such as F-15, F-16, F-18 or Eurofighter, or even Civilian Jet that a B-2 can mimic. You just know you shot down an UNKNOWN BOGEY, just because you indiscriminately shoot something down does not mean you can shoot down everything, stealth included.

You do know a Stealth Flight could and most likely would accompanied by non-stealth flight, right?

As for moore's law. That's because you use Moore's Law to explain a thing that build later is superior than things that build before that. Which is wrong, because.

1.) Moore's Law only applies on Transistor, you need a good set of arithmetic to detect stealth
2.) Moore's Law only mean the later the method, the more Transistor can be put into a die, it does not suggest superiority of item, that is from the design point of view.
3.) Moore's Law is not constantly observed, and it is NOT actually a law.

 

[gambit]

If you do not know what you are looking for, then you cannot claim you can shoot down Stealth, you "CAN" shoot down something, but the question is, HOW DO YOU KNOW what yo had shot down, when you are talking about SAM or alike BVR weapon?

His 'logic' is this: Even though I do not know what I shot at, since I shot it down, because I cannot identify it, the target must have been 'stealth'.

In a way, he is correct that we cannot 'refute' his argument. It is a 'logic' not of normal understanding.

 

[rcrmj]

J-20 was deisgned to meet future air threat, and to ensure air-superiority```if J-20 and future J-31 cant deal with F-22 and F-35, then what is the point of designing them?

to us, America's 5th gen information centric warfare system is the only threat to us```so, to defeat them is the only purpose```F-35 places primary threat to us atm, and do not mistake that F-35 is "less advanced" than the F-22```and also do not mistake that we can only make "inferior" 5th gen to the U.S because we are "lack" of experience```

PLA is infact the only army that has the most extensive experiences in dealing with America's 5th gen information centric warfare system, but those two clueless self-claimed army boy Aermican wanabes dont know anything about it````to put it straight, electronic face offs, or should we call "interfacial frictions" are monthly business between the USAF/USAN to PLAAF/PLAN in East China Sea and South China Sea````

 

[gambit]

J-20 was deisgned to meet future air threat, and to ensure air-superiority```if J-20 and future J-31 cant deal with F-22 and F-35, then what is the point of designing them?

...also do not mistake that we can only make "inferior" 5th gen to the U.S because we are "lack" of experience```

You are not facing just the hardware. Between two fencers who have the same weapons, who is going to win? The one with the higher level of training, sparring, and wile. But in this case, one of them actually have killed in real combat, and killed more than thrice.

 

[Gomig-21]

To admit I don't know why you come up to that idea that I violate the rules ...

Because you moved an entire discussion just because some guy took a hissy fit. That's not moderation, that's making your own rules, hence breaking the rules.

and what "pertinent discussions" I was removing?

All the discussions about the J-20 weapon's bay? So you actually didn't read through them which is your job? If you don't wish to deal with all the responsibilities a moderator has to take on, give it up then. If you felt things were off-topic, you delete the posts that are off topic, not move an entire discussion and start another thread because you were lazy or too busy to do your job and catered to another member you seem to have an affection for along with his mood swings and temper tantrums.

I asked you to sight me the FORUM RULES that the discussion which you thought violated the topic which is "J-20 NEWS AND DISCUSSIONS" and you haven't done that yet. When are we going to get an answer from you?

I was exactly moving this nasty part of the discussion into a separate thread since I do not want to read each post and flame bait.

No you weren't. You were removing 2 pages of subject matter that related to the thread title like I've mentioned 3 times already without a valid reason or explanation. If there were nasty posts, you do your job as a moderator and delete the nasty posts, not move all the posts INCLUDING THE NASTY ONES TO A NEW THREAD! You gotta be kidding me. Don't forget you even participated in that discussion in defense of @gambit and then you catered to the guy who hates him! I know you see exactly what I'm saying...

I'm right now on the highway to France in summer-vacation with the family and I'm very much more busy in driving than to care about the Kindergarten here; by the way, why always me? There are other moderators too....

When I arrived I will take a look, but please have a bit patient.

I hope so. If you forget I will keep reminding you. And BTW, @waz & @The Eagle are way too busy with the rest of the entire forum and that's why you're the designated international moderator for the Chinese military section. So it's your job, not theirs. I really hope you actually give a good answer and reason why the discussion wasn't related to the thread topic and why you moved it so impulsively, but I think you realize you screwed up and there isn't anything much you can say at this point except for just to admit you over-reacted and catered to your buddy's temperamental whims. It's too bad.

If you read closely, I wasn’t calling you a troll and was instead referring to Gambit, whom we can all agree fits that definition. In fact, I tried to tell you to stop arguing pointlessly with such trolls ... which I guess you took as an insult.

Couple of things (and this is exactly why I called you a youngling) is that your troll accusation was for everyone involved in that discussion which included @Deino looool and myself. Don't try cherry-picking now you'll only look worst.

Second, you don't get to tell anyone, least of all me who to discuss and who not to discuss things with. That's not so difficult to understand, right?

Dude calm down. Moderator @Deino is a highly respected member of this community ... even if some express different opinions than him. The fact is you’re not a moderator ... you don’t get to decide what’s wrong and what’s right. Clearly, nobody has expressed interest in constantly/pointlessly arguing with Gambit. No one wants to click on the J-20 thread only to see dozens of argument postings between you and Gambit ... which is why the moderator was kind enough to grant you a separate thread.

Don't worry about @Deino, he's a big boy and he can handle the criticism and questioning of his actions on his own, he doesn't need you to white-knight for him. He screwed up royally by removing an entire discussion without an explanation and now is being called out by me (there is absolutely nothing wrong with that) and I don't have to be a moderator to call one out for abusing his power and the forum rules lol. Another part of "growing up" that you will eventually learn.

Just a word of advice ... when you request moderator action, perhaps accusing him or her of breaking the rules without adequate justification shouldn’t be the first step.

Thank you for the advice. Now, here's a word of advice from me. DON'T WORRY ABOUT ME and how I handle my business. I will accuse him of breaking the forum rules until he proves me wrong. Get it? That's the way things work. Just because he's the local mod doesn't mean he's exempt from being challenged for what I see as an abuse of power. I come from a generation that always questions authority if we see some unjust action and all I need is an explanation which he has FAILED to give until now. Hopefully you understand this.

@Figaro @Gomig-21 and @gambit not doing useless troll/discussions about weapon bays for J-20 and F-22, they are discussing the technical aspects for weapon bays of J-20 and what is concepts behind such weapon bays of J-20 what is the advantages/disadvantages of such systems and

FINALLY, someone who gets it!

 

[gambit]

Btw if you guys
@gambit @jhungary @Gomig-21 @Okarus and any one else having so much appetite to PROLONG such exchanges, why don't you just create a NEW THREAD for that purpose, perhaps titled "F-22 vs J-20" or in broader sense "USA-made jet fighters vs China-made jet fighters"??? I can care less what you guys are going to exchange there!!

This is a military oriented forum. None of you Chinese ever served in the PLA, not even the minimum of 2 yrs term of service.

Now...If all you guys do is post pictures of the PLA, nothing else would happen. The Americans would leave you alone.

But nooooooo...!!! You guys are not content to remain in your ignorance of military affairs. You guys have to make comparisons and opinions. And you expect us to be silent and accept your ridiculous and often physics defying claims?

Or, is this is a Wild Wild West FORUM with no rules ???

You guys made it that way. Not only do you guys make ridiculous claims, you slings personal and racist insults against those who challenge your claims. The Chinese members turned this forum into that 'Wild Wild West' condition.

 

[Gomig-21]

Now...If all you guys do is post pictures of the PLA, nothing else would happen. The Americans would leave you alone.

And it was even an American who proposed that the bracket and missile extracted with the bay door closing was an advantage to the J-20 over the F-35 and F-22! lol.

But of course, you're trolling and the subject matter is off-topic since you challenged that notion of mine with technical information. How dare you do that, dude!

 

[gambit]

And it was even an American who proposed that the bracket and missile extracted with the bay door closing was an advantage to the J-20 over the F-35 and F-22! lol.

If that is true, it is still irrelevant to me.

There is nothing wrong with that idea from purely an engineering perspective. Engineers can build practically anything you want regardless of its conceptual/philosophical origin and justifications. Pay me enough and I will do it.

But when you have pneudraulics that can move mechanical structures in 10ths of seconds, engineering this idea of prepping the missile seems awfully redundant and unnecessary. Plus the fact that so far, there is not a single real life image and/or video of this method in action make those of us who have relevant experience in military aviation -- suspicious.

I mean...The Internet Chinese post with unabashed joy and give props to each other over every image of the J-20 in afterburner, spectacular take-offs, and weapons bay doors actuation. But not a single image or this missile mounting method outside a closed weapons bay door.

Again...So far I have NEVER said this is not technically possible. But please...

 

[Gomig-21]

I mean...The Internet Chinese post with unabashed joy and give props to each other over every image of the J-20 in afterburner, spectacular take-offs, and weapons bay doors actuation. But not a single image or this missile mounting method outside a closed weapons bay door.

I totally agree. We actually haven't officially seen it despite the visible signs and much previous talk about it.
And that was the end of it, lol. Could've easily moved on to another piece of news or nice pic or whatever.

 

[Pepsi Cola]

This is proof that even though you read, you did not understand.

An RCS value is not the same thing as an RCS signature.

Look at this illustration again...And try to spend more than just one second at it...

A 'signature' is unique in the sense that it contains features that nothing else has, whereas a value is just a numerical assignment.

Look at it this way...

Two men have the same name of 'John Smith', but would their handwritten signatures be exact? No. The value of their common name would be the same of 4 for 'John' and 5 for 'Smith'. But it would take an expert forger to sign their names exactly the same way.

So you did not understand what I responded to you. I did not say it "won't allow". In fact, I gave you the clue as to how signatures WOULD -- not could -- be used as a viable counter-stealth method. I said: "All airliners have the same RCS signature, but not all fighters. On the other hand, fighters that have large delta wings like the Typhoon, Vigen, and Rafale WILL exhibit similar RCS signature at every radar aspect, most commonly the top and bottom views."

You gave an overly broad claim in post 46 pge 4: "so I'm saying you don't need to know what it's radar signature to design a counter systems,..."

I gave you an explanation on why an RCS signature, not an RCS value, is needed.


I understood it better than you have and can. But did you understood what I said about beam width and how much a radar can process at any moment? Guess not since you are still harping on the buzz words 'Pulse Doppler' and quoting someone from quora.com.

I really think you're purposely trying to be ambiguous.

"I did not say it 'won't allow'"

Ok, so without F-22's radar signature, China can still design counter measure systems? Good. That's it, don't need all those rather irrelevant explanations.

I don't have to understand it, my points are already nicely explained and supported by my source from quora.com. Yes, way more reputable than a source from defence.pk. lmao

Your problem, not mine. When you debate on a subject that you have no experience in, not even at an academic level, you runs a high risk of not understanding what others -- who do have relevant experience -- wrote and said, even when they tries their best to tone down their language.


Further proof that you do not read or have a reading comprehension problem.

When you used the 'Pulse-Doppler' phrase, I bet you were full of yourself that you have something over me.

When you mentioned 'Pulse-Doppler', it was YOU who brought up the MTI radar. It was relevant, but you just did not know it.

A pulsed-Doppler radar does not have to be a physically distinct radar. Doppler processing is a MODE OF OPERATION. Whether the radar transmission is pulsed or continuous-wave (CW) is not the point. If a body travels, there is a Doppler component in its radar return. So when you mentioned 'Pulsed-Doppler', you unwittingly brought in the MTI radar because the MTI radar is a dedicated radar designed to maximize the Doppler processing part of the overall radar operation.

Here is the proof that pulsed-Doppler processing is a component of a radar system...

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4102752/

The -66's system does everything listed. It is the radar computer that switches between modes. And that means the PD processing is a component of the -66's many operations. Do you see where you are short in understanding now?

You are too late in this game of trying to defeat the F-22. The PD argument have been tried yrs ago and so far, nothing in the real world gained any effort at making the Doppler component as a viable defense against 'stealth'.


And your opinion is wrong. Not because I have to refute it, but because it is inapplicable as an argument.


Buddy, I am currently in the semiconductor industry, Probe and Functionality testing, and with direct engineering participation in Intel's new 3DXP phase change memory product. I know Moore's Law before you have heard of it.


The problem with debating people like you -- who not only do not have relevant experience but is filled with a particular agenda -- is that you people tends to make sweeping claims that takes no considerations into nuances or conditions that are often inside the subjects under discussion.

It is extremely rare that the military will come up with a new technology. We are talking about DARPANET kind of rarity. DARPANET became the Internet as we know it today. DARPANET was a true military originated idea and transfer of technology.

What the military does -- most of the time -- is adapting current civilian technologies to suit military needs and in doing so, it creates the illusion that there is a 'military technology' side of technology in general. Military needs are often non-usable for civilians. Not non-applicable, but simply non-usable. Take the afterburner part of the jet engine, for example. No civilian airliner have afterburning engines, and please do not bring up the Concorde.

When I worked for Micron, we have a DRAM line specifically for military applications. There was nothing special about manufacturing from wafer start to functionality testing. The only thing that made the line, to use the cliche 'military grade', is that the client was willing to pay top money for the highest yielding wafers, as in double-digits percentage over what any civilian company would bid in order to secure the supply, the extracted dies would have extra thick encapsulation at Assembly, and extended testing under increased temperature and data injection cycles at Burn-In. We would make the same accommodations to any civilian client willing to pay the same high prices for the same product lines. There were no technological advances in this DRAM line.

So you are wrong in using the word 'constantly'. There is no two-way street here. Just another thing you are wrong about simply because you have no relevant experience but is filled with a particular agenda.

What?? you just straight up said MTI doesn't work and you said it's my fault for not understanding what context it doesn't work in? lol

How did I even brought up MTI at first, before this discussion I've never even heard of it.

No, I don't think I'm anything above you, or anyone in this forum. Again, please stop assuming things. I simply brought up Pulse Dropper because I saw many forums and articles say that it can measure velocity of stealth fighter and thus it supports my claim that even though the radar signature of stealth aircrafts are small, the speed make them identifiable.

You just keep saying I'm wrong and that my Moore's Law isn't applicable, but you never explain why.

You keep saying you have background in this. I don't care about your background gambit, I only care about what points you can make.

Ok you're just attacking me now and not even trying to refute any of my points.

Can we go back to debating Moore's Law, rather bringing up your background or my background. Honestly, you should even feel more ashamed that with all those experiences, you still can't make any good point against me with credible evidence and resorting to personal insults.

OTE]

Hi don't twist your words, I continuously following your and @gambit debates @gambit didn't said ahow me his post number or copy paste his post @Okarus

click the up arrow next to gambit's name, it takes you there. You've been on this forum way longer than me, you should know how to use it.

You still don't get it.

If you do not know what you are looking for, then you cannot claim you can shoot down Stealth, you "CAN" shoot down something, but the question is, HOW DO YOU KNOW what yo had shot down, when you are talking about SAM or alike BVR weapon?

Civilian Aircraft or not, the problem is, you don't know whether or not that is a stealth plane like F-22 or F-35 or a B-2, or a conventional fighter such as F-15, F-16, F-18 or Eurofighter, or even Civilian Jet that a B-2 can mimic. You just know you shot down an UNKNOWN BOGEY, just because you indiscriminately shoot something down does not mean you can shoot down everything, stealth included.

You do know a Stealth Flight could and most likely would accompanied by non-stealth flight, right?

As for moore's law. That's because you use Moore's Law to explain a thing that build later is superior than things that build before that. Which is wrong, because.

1.) Moore's Law only applies on Transistor, you need a good set of arithmetic to detect stealth
2.) Moore's Law only mean the later the method, the more Transistor can be put into a die, it does not suggest superiority of item, that is from the design point of view.
3.) Moore's Law is not constantly observed, and it is NOT actually a law.

Of course you know what you're looking for, a small bird like radar signature traveling at impossible speed.

I don't even know how these questions are relevant to our argument on whether the Chinese can design a radar against stealth characteristics. A lower frequency radar is already a more suited radar against stealth aircrafts.

1.Are radars not made with transistors? You tell me.
2. It suggests more computing power (and strongly links to advancements in digital electronics) (Wikipedia)
3.Moore's Law is observed enough to be seen as a real law for the whole electronics industry.

 

[gambit]

I really think you're purposely trying to be ambiguous.

"I did not say it 'won't allow'"

Yes, you did. Right here...

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/f-22...made-jet-fighters.566560/page-7#post-10620597

"Please explain how does "since each shape is unique it means that given the variations of a shape, all members of that group bears the same basic signature." won't allow the Chinese to design an AA system against stealth aircraft? Because that's the whole point of my statement."

I never claimed that using signatures will not allow China to try to create a countermeasure. YOU were the one that implied I said so with "won't allow". In fact, my post 92 was a counter-argument to your posts 85 and 46.

Here is post 46...

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/f-22...made-jet-fighters.566560/page-4#post-10615999

"so I'm saying you don't need to know what it's radar signature to design a counter systems,..."

You were partially wrong to say so.

I tried to explain to you -- obviously in vain -- that there is a great difference between an RCS value vs an RCS signature.

When you have no experience in the subject in discussion, other than googling Internet forums, you run the danger of using words and phrases that are common in that field that have unique contexts that laymen often do not understand. That is what happened here.

An RCS value is not unique. It is a numerical assignment based upon raw signal return.

An RCS signature is unique from body to body, even when -- not if -- the bodies have the same shape and dimensions. It is based upon analyzing detailed features of the body.

An effective countermeasure should have both in order to be -- what else -- effective.

Ok, so without F-22's radar signature, China can still design counter measure systems? Good. That's it, don't need all those rather irrelevant explanations.

I don't have to understand it

The highlighted is why you guys are continuously wrong. What you dismissed as irrelevant is the equivalent of dismissing basic education. This is why we often see 'Chinese physics' in this forum.

What?? you just straight up said MTI doesn't work and you said it's my fault for not understanding what context it doesn't work in? lol

Yes, and that is true.

How did I even brought up MTI at first, before this discussion I've never even heard of it.

You have never heard of the phrase 'Pulsed-Doppler' in radar detection but have no problems using it -- CARELESSLY -- to make your point.

You indirectly brought up the Moving Target Indicator (MTI) radar when you brought in the PD argument. I merely preempt you from trying to use the Doppler component argument as a viable countermeasure against 'stealth'.

I simply brought up Pulse Dropper because I saw many forums and articles say that it can measure velocity of stealth fighter and thus it supports my claim that even though the radar signature of stealth aircrafts are small, the speed make them identifiable.

And when I tried to explain why not using details that other sources either do not know or ignored, you dismissed my argument.

This is typical behavior of you Chinese on this forum. You found something on the Internet %99.999 of the time in vague terms and use it here. Then when I tried to explain those terms as to why so-and-so claim does not work or not as effective, you guys dismissed my arguments. The Pulsed-Doppler phrase is the latest and perfect example.

You just keep saying I'm wrong and that my Moore's Law isn't applicable, but you never explain why.

Of course I did. Here...

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/f-22...made-jet-fighters.566560/page-3#post-10613392

Nowhere have I said Moore's Law does not exist, never mind that it is not a 'law' in the first place. But just like the phrase Pulsed-Doppler, you are carelessly using the phrase Moore's Law in this discussion.

Bottom line: YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

You keep saying you have background in this. I don't care about your background gambit, I only care about what points you can make.

You should care about my background in this.

I have posted things about military aviation in general, air forces in more specifics, the USAF in even more specifics, and what goes on with an aircraft in even more specifics, that you will not find on the Internet, that can only come from personal experience. Or that the info is available but in hard to find sources unless one knows the appropriate search words.

For example, I busted a guy who claimed to have been on the F-111, like I was. I asked him about the 'kidney panel' and he fled the discussion. Never to return. If you search for 'f-111 kidney panel', you will get mostly medical related returns. But anyone, pilots to maintenance, who have done any time on the F-111 would know exactly what I am talking about.

Same for semiconductor. I have posted explanations about certain aspects of manufacturing that NO ONE on this forum knew before I came on. How many of you guys who posts so often about China's semicon industry knew that there is such a thing as a 'probe card'? None of you. Can YOU explain what the word 'recipe' in semicon manufacturing means? What does 'parametric' testing do? What is data injection cycling and for what end?

And you are trying to argue that I do not know about Moore's Law?

 

[rcrmj]

You are not facing just the hardware. Between two fencers who have the same weapons, who is going to win? The one with the higher level of training, sparring, and wile. But in this case, one of them actually have killed in real combat, and killed more than thrice.

so far the situation I know is 50.50````i bet you wont get any of these infos````the Japs are dying to by F-18G, you'd better ask them why````because it is one way slaughter to the japs air force, when PLAAF's electronic warfare planes "entered" their "turd"```they have to call in Daddy Sam, as at least the outcome will be half and half```

 

[Pepsi Cola]

Yes, you did. Right here...

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/f-22...made-jet-fighters.566560/page-7#post-10620597

"Please explain how does "since each shape is unique it means that given the variations of a shape, all members of that group bears the same basic signature." won't allow the Chinese to design an AA system against stealth aircraft? Because that's the whole point of my statement."

I never claimed that using signatures will not allow China to try to create a countermeasure. YOU were the one that implied I said so with "won't allow". In fact, my post 92 was a counter-argument to your posts 85 and 46.

Here is post 46...

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/f-22...made-jet-fighters.566560/page-4#post-10615999

"so I'm saying you don't need to know what it's radar signature to design a counter systems,..."

You were partially wrong to say so.

I tried to explain to you -- obviously in vain -- that there is a great difference between an RCS value vs an RCS signature.

When you have no experience in the subject in discussion, other than googling Internet forums, you run the danger of using words and phrases that are common in that field that have unique contexts that laymen often do not understand. That is what happened here.

An RCS value is not unique. It is a numerical assignment based upon raw signal return.

An RCS signature is unique from body to body, even when -- not if -- the bodies have the same shape and dimensions. It is based upon analyzing detailed features of the body.

An effective countermeasure should have both in order to be -- what else -- effective.


The highlighted is why you guys are continuously wrong. What you dismissed as irrelevant is the equivalent of dismissing basic education. This is why we often see 'Chinese physics' in this forum.


Yes, and that is true.


You have never heard of the phrase 'Pulsed-Doppler' in radar detection but have no problems using it -- CARELESSLY -- to make your point.

You indirectly brought up the Moving Target Indicator (MTI) radar when you brought in the PD argument. I merely preempt you from trying to use the Doppler component argument as a viable countermeasure against 'stealth'.


And when I tried to explain why not using details that other sources either do not know or ignored, you dismissed my argument.

This is typical behavior of you Chinese on this forum. You found something on the Internet %99.999 of the time in vague terms and use it here. Then when I tried to explain those terms as to why so-and-so claim does not work or not as effective, you guys dismissed my arguments. The Pulsed-Doppler phrase is the latest and perfect example.


Of course I did. Here...

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/f-22...made-jet-fighters.566560/page-3#post-10613392

Nowhere have I said Moore's Law does not exist, never mind that it is not a 'law' in the first place. But just like the phrase Pulsed-Doppler, you are carelessly using the phrase Moore's Law in this discussion.

Bottom line: YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.


You should care about my background in this.

I have posted things about military aviation in general, air forces in more specifics, the USAF in even more specifics, and what goes on with an aircraft in even more specifics, that you will not find on the Internet, that can only come from personal experience. Or that the info is available but in hard to find sources unless one knows the appropriate search words.

For example, I busted a guy who claimed to have been on the F-111, like I was. I asked him about the 'kidney panel' and he fled the discussion. Never to return. If you search for 'f-111 kidney panel', you will get mostly medical related returns. But anyone, pilots to maintenance, who have done any time on the F-111 would know exactly what I am talking about.

Same for semiconductor. I have posted explanations about certain aspects of manufacturing that NO ONE on this forum knew before I came on. How many of you guys who posts so often about China's semicon industry knew that there is such a thing as a 'probe card'? None of you. Can YOU explain what the word 'recipe' in semicon manufacturing means? What does 'parametric' testing do? What is data injection cycling and for what end?

And you are trying to argue that I do not know about Moore's Law?

Well that was statement, my statement was that radar signature is not required, so if it's not required. It's not required. That was me asking you a question, see the question mark? And before that was me quoting you, see the quotation marks?

You don't need either RCS values or RCS signature to design counter systems. Your weapons might be more effective when you know those parameters, but you don't have to in order to design something to shoot any stealthy aircraft down. You're talking about it being effectiveness, I'm talking about requirements. Because the Chinese or the Russian won't know those values, and if they know, then even better.

PD argument was brought up later than MTI. lmao I was talking about bird sized radar signature traveling at impossible speed, it doesn't have to MTI and it doesn't have to be PD, it can be any other radar operational modes that take account of speed. The point is speed is a compromising factor, that's it.

I'm simply using PD because your argument focused on MTI. However, my source, which is a traceable and credible person confirms that both MTI and PD works, hence going directly against your statement.

Well I've already made a rebuttal that all those computing speed does matter, and in the end you even agreed. lmao. Greater computing speed can increase radar signal steregth, how does that not help with detecting stealth fighters?

Hahaha I'm just gonna ignore your rant on your background or whatever. In the end you're just another forum poster, wasting away your life responding to forums. This forums a joke by the way, why do you feel so proud of yourself trying to educate people on Pakistan Defence. Honestly, I'm just here for pictures. lmao

 

[jhungary]

Of course you know what you're looking for, a small bird like radar signature traveling at impossible speed.

I don't even know how these questions are relevant to our argument on whether the Chinese can design a radar against stealth characteristics. A lower frequency radar is already a more suited radar against stealth aircrafts.

1.Are radars not made with transistors? You tell me.
2. It suggests more computing power (and strongly links to advancements in digital electronics) (Wikipedia)
3.Moore's Law is observed enough to be seen as a real law for the whole electronics industry.

Dude, the bird is just an example, even so, which bird you are looking at? There are 1400 different spiece of small bird? And as I said, Radar won't pick up speed and direction, so you won't know how fast it is travelling.

1.) Not all made with transistor. In fact, only the processor made with transistor. Everything else made of something else.
2.) It does not suggest more computing power, look at how US and China build their Supercomputer? Even so, what can you do with more computing power, first of all, it's NOT A LOT faster, second of all, it's depends on how you calculate the result, not how FAST you calculate the radar contact.

If you are talking about computing power advantage, that mean if YOU ARE USING THE SAME Algorithm, you will only get there faster and nothing else, the important bits is ALWAYS the Algorithm, not processing power.
3.) It was not follow enough and some even said we had abandoned moore's law anyway.