Its Official: JXX is going to test fly in the next few days

[TheWarriorIndian]

if not posible take a bath?

thats his choice, Who am I to ruin his privacy?

 

[below_freezing]

Educate yourself : From Wootz Steel to modern day composites, India has mastered material technology in various domains.

Anyway, I don't want to waste my time educating you as the chances of that making any impact on a nut is minimal.

SJR - International Science Ranking

India is ranked 9th in materials science, China is ranked 2nd.

Russia is ranked 6th.

Spain and Netherlands are not even in top 10.

 

[ptldM3]

Waht acceptable limits?

acceptable by whom? by you? lol.

I mislead readers? You not?

Yes you do misslead the readers, and this is how, you base everything on material science. Now you are claiming that Russia's RAM is inferior to China's because of material science, the less informed and narrow minded readership might actually beleive you.

Let's see what details you know to claim your inferiority then?

Makes no sence much like your other claims.

So Russia got her own "area 51" and some research institutions? Cool !

Do you know that China doesn't ?

I never said China doesn't, my point was that Russia has goverment insitutions or goverment funded institutions that conduct research and come up with new technologies opposed to just incorporating civilian technologies, thus not every scientific breakthrough that comes out of Russia is publicly revealed. Moreover, not all of the civilian projects have a use in the military world, so material science as a whole doesn't allways apply to the military.

The same can be said with ANY major millitary power. China will publicise the fomulas of all her millitary techonologies derived from materials Science research, huh?

Or the US will do so? Or France will do so? ...

The US won't let you have a closer LOOK at F-22 , for god's sake.

China even doesn't claim to have J-XX project. (Well, China's deputy air chief did it once before got criticised)

Russia doesn't disclose secrets. Fine. But which country does so, apart from India D) ? What's your point here?

Bingo--militaries don't disclose their technologies and this can be said for everyone, the point is Russia doesn't relly on civilian institutions as much as other countries, instead Russia has goverment institutions that usually receive more funding and have better access to technology than civil institutions, thus these goverment institutions can creat superior products--products that don't make it to the internation science gournals. Look at it this way do you think that Japan which is ranked 3rd in material science can create better engines than Rolls Royce which is owned by this British and the British are ranked #7 in material science. Yes Japan has the brilliant minds, available funds, and is a science leader but because of Britan's experience in mlitary jet engines, Japan would have a difficult time building equivilants, the same apples for Russia, Russia has the experience.

Spain and Ned top the ranking on Materials Science? What are you smoking?

Spain is ranked 12th out of 174 countries and the Netherlands is ranked 2nd in material science journals, which i made very clear.

SJR - International Science Ranking

03.01.2009 - National Rankings in Materials Science 1998-2008 - ScienceWatch.com

On the statements:

Both you and I know close to nothing on the detailed ram tech ( millitarised materials Science) from the US, China and Russia;

All we argue here is "a general guess" based on personal opinions,ok?

But our common stance stops here.

Well if this is the case then why are you saying Russia's RAM techology is inferior to China's?

To support my arguement that China likely has better ram tech than Russia, I used General level of each country's Materails Science known to scientific community as a rough measure tool, which is the best public-available toolkit one can get, as no country reveals the top millitary scerate derived from its science. But still, one can have an educated guess at what levels they are at by eaxming its correspoding civilian tech and research achievments wihtin scientific communities.

So far, what educated guess you have offered to support your argument?

Zero!

i don't go by "educated guesses" I already mentioned Russia has established defence institutions that have extensive experience, you really think that some country that may be higher ranked in material science is going to be able to produce superior technology eve though that country has less experience and less established defence institutions? Moreover, i gave you an actual link discribing Russia's RAM development...you, however, have gave me nothing other than "educated guesses".

humm...probably yes. And? That was more than half a century ago...

It doesn't matter that it was half a centry ago, what matters is Russia was able to achieve what the US coundn't and did Russia rank higher in material science?

India? Did you just say India? It's just me or ... since when "India" and "world-class Materials Science" these 2 phrases have been linked together by anyone, even Indians?

Man, I am starting to have a serious doubt on the nationality you said you have after this. Are you a Russian or an Indian indeed hiding behind other people's flag? PDF is packed with the latter.


Since you are so eager to brand India's materials science as world-class to give "your" Russia an extra boost, why not to make Laos and Vietnam (no pun inteneded) into Russian-indian 5th gen project too,as you'll have "combined materials science of 4 countries"

Yea you got me, i'm Indian . and there is no need to degrade India they are ranked 9th in material science although still considerabally less than the top 3 countries, but this is not the point, the point is India and Russia can share their findings, and as everyone knows India has some of the brightest minds in the world.

For the last 7 years, China's materials science occupies more than 20% of world's total output, in both research papers publiched in reputed scientific journals and patents granted. Yes, this doesn't equal to her level of millitary RAM tech, but this is the best indication one can come up with in such an argument, telling you the general strenghth of a country in this area.

Having a high ranking in material science doesn't mean you can go around and say China is superior to Russia, well you can but you'll look ignorant. I guess since China is superior to Russia than it has to be superior to Germany, France, and the UK.

I didn't say that USA is the undisputed leader in everything.

But we are talking about 5th gen here, in which it most likely is for the moment until real evidences suggest otherwise. e.g. 300m price tag of F-22 with a big chuck of its cost on its delicate coating and maintanance, compared with 80m-100m worth T-50, one could generally see the quality difference in ram, after normalised for labour costs etc.

What's your point with the cost? Sukhoi is a state owned company and Lockheed Martin is private, meaning they try to make as much pofit as possible, this means having high price tags, the economics are allso different, it's cheaper to produce an aircraft in Russia than it is in the US.

rocket is another thing. don't mix it. And your logic here is wrong also.

My logic is not wrong, a US scientists stated that Russia had superior rocket engines, thus the US uses them to power the Atlas rockets, and this fits in perfectly with my logic of material science and the ability to produce competitive products.

Russia used to be so, but as lack of funding since Soviet collaped has severely crippled Russia's R&D, what Russia shows now mostly come from residual dividends of Soviet era. We see Russia struggles in many areas, e.g. on T-50, from next-gen engine tech, ram tech, real deployable small-sized AESA radar, to general stealthy design, eletronics, etc.

Sorry the engines for the T-50 have been able to produce as much as 40,000lbs thrust, and we alrady have engines in the SU-35 that can acheive supercruise as well as maintain a very long service life before overhauls are needed.

Now for your rediculous radar claim, the ZHUK-A AESA is 575mm, this should be small enough to fit in the nose of the JF-17 which is 640mm. Now lets look at the ZHUK's capabilities, the new model has a range of 200km and can track 60 targets and last i heard it should be able to engauged up to 18 targets at once.

And as for the "gerneral stealth designe" of the PAK-FA it has all the features that a stealth aircraft should, granted it's a prototype and things such as engine nozzles are still not 'stealthy' but it's a prototype and development work on Rapptor style nozzles is underway, so don't jump to any conlusions.

Radar is related to materials science to a certain degree,

No it's related to a very high degree, look up all aspects of material science then go study the elements of a radar.

that's why Russia has yet to come up with a decent small-sized AESA radar which she doesn't have because Russia's materials scientists still can't developed certain minimised GaAs MMIC crystallography tube with an exceptionally agile beam required, even though IBRIS is one of the best out there in terms of distance detection.

I think i already blew that claim out of the water when i mentioned the ZHUK-A, its size and its performance.

Reducing an aircraft's rcs up to 15 times is impressive. But that's not the point. The point is in comparison. What if other/s can reduce it even further, and do it better?

What if Santa Claus is real? I gave you a link proving Russia's capabilitie in RAM developmnt, you, on the other hand, still maintain that China is superior to Russia based on material science. Either post a link proving China' RAM techology is superior or don't post at all, and i'm not interested in your "educated guesses".

 

[Sanchez]

@ ptldM3

The link on Russian RAM tech doesn't seem to have any information. Can you repost one?

 

[ramu]

SJR - International Science Ranking

India is ranked 9th in materials science, China is ranked 2nd.

Russia is ranked 6th.

Spain and Netherlands are not even in top 10.

Now please don't get me started on the murky world of these rankings and citations. If you are not from a research background you won't be able to comprehend the pressure to publish at a masters level. People add a twist to every known / working model and make it a new piece of work just to get a degree. That is remote and not the best measure for independent research. This ranking is nonsense to say the least but I am not someone who will argue for the sake of argument.

China at this point will edge both Japan and India in most field and material science is one of them. That however does not give a license for someone with a nut brain to ridicule Indian prowess. Check his post and read my reply. I was not comparing and neither was I saying anything about China.

When the Russians are partnering with India, some of you thought it was a joke. And my response was to show that the theory of material science first came about in India from the steel produced in south India for the material of the sword. It is unfortunate that China may have the aptitude for being the best but from this forum, I get a sense that they lose out on the attitude.

 

[below_freezing]

Now please don't get me started on the murky world of these rankings and citations. If you are not from a research background you won't be able to comprehend the pressure to publish at a masters level. People add a twist to every known / working model and make it a new piece of work just to get a degree. That is remote and not the best measure for independent research. This ranking is nonsense to say the least but I am not someone who will argue for the sake of argument.

China at this point will edge both Japan and India in most field and material science is one of them. That however does not give a license for someone with a nut brain to ridicule Indian prowess. Check his post and read my reply. I was not comparing and neither was I saying anything about China.

When the Russians are partnering with India, some of you thought it was a joke. And my response was to show that the theory of material science first came about in India from the steel produced in south India for the material of the sword. It is unfortunate that China may have the aptitude for being the best but from this forum, I get a sense that they lose out on the attitude.

of course. many scientists in the US get funding for purifying some useless protein and x-raying its structure, that is a new article. ever think about the huge inflated number of US biochemistry articles? materials science is a bit different in this regard.

 

[ptldM3]

@ ptldM3

The link on Russian RAM tech doesn't seem to have any information. Can you repost one?

The artical was written in 2003; unfortunately, the original website no longer has a working link, google: Andrey Lagarjkov and you should find the same artical quoted by various sources.

 

[Speeder 2]

Yes you do misslead the readers, and this is how, you base everything on material science. Now you are claiming that Russia's RAM is inferior to China's because of material science, the less informed and narrow minded readership might actually beleive you.

What? who is misleading readers?

RAM is based on materials science ! Yes or no?

And you tell me no.

When talking about RAM, one must talk about underlying materials science, not vodka unfortunately.

Makes no sence much like your other claims.

yeah right, talking about "area 51' like you do does make a hell lot of sense.

I never said China doesn't, my point was that Russia has goverment insitutions or goverment funded institutions that conduct research and come up with new technologies opposed to just incorporating civilian technologies, thus not every scientific breakthrough that comes out of Russia is publicly revealed. Moreover, not all of the civilian projects have a use in the military world, so material science as a whole doesn't allways apply to the military.

Even though this point of yours might be true , it is invalid in this argument, because, as I said, most sensitive Chinese military tech(sci-tech breakthrus) neither have been put into cilvilian industry, just like Russia , like USA, like France, etc, etc. Most extremely high tech industry have always been controled by govenements, not only in russia, also everywhere else. So your point here is irrelevant.

Bingo--militaries don't disclose their technologies and this can be said for everyone, the point is Russia doesn't relly on civilian institutions as much as other countries, instead Russia has goverment institutions that usually receive more funding and have better access to technology than civil institutions, thus these goverment institutions can creat superior products--products that don't make it to the internation science gournals.

Bin what go? the same can be said on China.

Look at it this way do you think that Japan which is ranked 3rd in material science can create better engines than Rolls Royce which is owned by this British and the British are ranked #7 in material science. Yes Japan has the brilliant minds, available funds, and is a science leader but because of Britan's experience in mlitary jet engines, Japan would have a difficult time building equivilants, the same apples for Russia, Russia has the experience.

Japan is NOT China. Hello? You need a map or not? This example is invalid for discussion at hand.

Spain is ranked 12th out of 174 countries and the Netherlands is ranked 2nd in material science journals, which i made very clear.

many sci-tech journals do various kinds of rankings with different criteria, that's why i don't quote one. But commone sense prevails. Leasve Spain aside, which is outiste top 5 anyway, I spent considerable part of my life in Nederlands - partially grew up there. I know very well that Uni Eindhoven, Technische Uni Delft and Uni Utrecht are very good in this field, but tell me they are world #2 according to whatever ranking? Don't be ridiculous!

Well if this is the case then why are you saying Russia's RAM techology is inferior to China's?

i don't go by "educated guesses" I already mentioned Russia has established defence institutions that have extensive experience,

But you are "educated guessing" too !!!

Otherwise, you must have security clearance of Russian millitary,huh? because as you said repeatedly that Russia doesn't reveal its secrets?

you really think that some country that may be higher ranked in material science is going to be able to produce superior technology eve though that country has less experience and less established defence institutions?

Yes I do, even for countries having relatively less prior experiences.

Because:

1. RAM tech is cutting edge; which share little common knowledge with how you produce AK-47 alikes of the 20th century.

2. Modern technologies like materials science, unlike the knowldge how you launched your first satellite in the 50s ro 60s, is solely behind ram.

3. Since neither you nor I have security clearance of either Russia army or PLA, a country's general level of materials science is the BEST publicly avalaible proxy of RAM in an argument ( how many times I said this??? ), not other vague excuses such as "area 51".

Moreover, i gave you an actual link discribing Russia's RAM development...you, however, have gave me nothing other than "educated guesses".

I don't need to know it , because you youself have already discredited your own source by saying that "Russia doesn't reveal its sci-tech findings to the public or to civilian industries". So whatever source you post here must NOT be the real Russian army ram tech !

Got it?

It doesn't matter that it was half a centry ago, what matters is Russia was able to achieve what the US coundn't and did Russia rank higher in material science?

it doesn't matter ? then I must introduce you to the Guiness record holder of materials science experiences, the Grandpa of ALL materials science of human civlisation ------>

gun powder that China invented !


At that time if one had asked those ancient Chinese inventors "whom are Russians? ", I bet they would have had pointed at some random trees in the North direction, murmuring " Russians? do you mean those creatures on the top? ".

Now seriously, Russia might did sth better than yanks even ranked below them in Materials science, but that was NOT a norm! That was pure luck. In statistics, whoever ranks at the top should almost always be better.

The very same statistics backs my claim (don't change my words) that

China is arguablely at 2rd place on RAM tech IMO

, hence

most likely better than T-50 on the related stealth tech".

Yea you got me, i'm Indian

Now time for bingo! I knew it. So honestly, which caste you belong to? A low caste by any chance ?

. and there is no need to degrade India they are ranked 9th in material science although still considerabally less than the top 3 countries, but this is not the point, the point is India and Russia can share their findings, and as everyone knows India has some of the brightest minds in the world.

I was not aiming at degrading India/indians per see. It was you who draged them into the topic. I just followed your logic...

Having a high ranking in material science doesn't mean you can go around and say China is superior to Russia, well you can but you'll look ignorant.

Disagree.

1. Statistically, one can says so. It doesn't show ignorance, but prudence. The ones who say otherwise are actually ignorant, because they go arguing against statistics.

2. I never said China is superior to Russia or otherwise (in general sense). What I said : LOOK ABOVE QUOTE!

I guess since China is superior to Russia than it has to be superior to Germany, France, and the UK.

???

My logic is not wrong, a US scientists stated that Russia had superior rocket engines, thus the US uses them to power the Atlas rockets, and this fits in perfectly with my logic of material science and the ability to produce competitive products.

Sorry the engines for the T-50 have been able to produce as much as 40,000lbs thrust, and we alrady have engines in the SU-35 that can acheive supercruise as well as maintain a very long service life before overhauls are needed.

Now for your rediculous radar claim, the ZHUK-A AESA is 575mm, this should be small enough to fit in the nose of the JF-17 which is 640mm. Now lets look at the ZHUK's capabilities, the new model has a range of 200km and can track 60 targets and last i heard it should be able to engauged up to 18 targets at once.

And as for the "gerneral stealth designe" of the PAK-FA it has all the features that a stealth aircraft should, granted it's a prototype and things such as engine nozzles are still not 'stealthy' but it's a prototype and development work on Rapptor style nozzles is underway, so don't jump to any conlusions.

No it's related to a very high degree, look up all aspects of material science then go study the elements of a radar.



I think i already blew that claim out of the water when i mentioned the ZHUK-A, its size and its performance.

There're many claims on ZHU-AR out there by some engineers.

Any official confirmations? I am afread no.

Is Zhuk-AE radar operational? If no, wait until it is and confirmed, then come back to claim that.

The same with T-50 engine. It's almost universally recognissed that Russia must keep working on the next gen engine ( from the core, not a simple upgrade) to fit it. After you've done that, come back to convince me.

What if Santa Claus is real? I gave you a link proving Russia's capabilitie in RAM developmnt, you, on the other hand, still maintain that China is superior to Russia based on material science. Either post a link proving China' RAM techology is superior or don't post at all, and i'm not interested in your "educated guesses".

I won't bother to provide any link, I won't look at your related source link neither, because ALL are non-official (without " top secret " marking) , ALL are "educated guesses" and opinion hersays. Clear enough?

 

[SinoIndusFriendship]

What? who is misleading readers?

RAM is based on materials science ! Yes or no?

And you tell me no.

When talking about RAM, one must talk about underlying materials science, not vodka unfortunately.



yeah right, talking about "area 51' like you do does make a hell lot of sense.




Even though this point of yours might be true , it is invalid in this argument, because, as I said, most sensitive Chinese military tech(sci-tech breakthrus) neither have been put into cilvilian industry, just like Russia , like USA, like France, etc, etc. Most extremely high tech industry have always been controled by govenements, not only in russia, also everywhere else. So your point here is irrelevant.








Bin what go? the same can be said on China.




Japan is NOT China. Hello? You need a map or not? This example is invalid for discussion at hand.





many sci-tech journals do various kinds of rankings with different criteria, that's why i don't quote one. But commone sense prevails. Leasve Spain aside, which is outiste top 5 anyway, I spent considerable part of my life in Nederlands - partially grew up there. I know very well that Uni Eindhoven, Technische Uni Delft and Uni Utrecht are very good in this field, but tell me they are world #2 according to whatever ranking? Don't be ridiculous!





But you are "educated guessing" too !!!

Otherwise, you must have security clearance of Russian millitary,huh? because as you said repeatedly that Russia doesn't reveal its secrets?





Yes I do, even for countries having relatively less prior experiences.

Because:

1. RAM tech is cutting edge; which share little common knowledge with how you produce AK-47 alikes of the 20th century.

2. Modern technologies like materials science, unlike the knowldge how you launched your first satellite in the 50s ro 60s, is solely behind ram.

3. Since neither you nor I have security clearance of either Russia army or PLA, a country's general level of materials science is the BEST publicly avalaible proxy of RAM in an argument ( how many times I said this??? ), not other vague excuses such as "area 51".







I don't need to know it , because you youself have already discredited your own source by saying that "Russia doesn't reveal its sci-tech findings to the public or to civilian industries". So whatever source you post here must NOT be the real Russian army ram tech !

Got it?






it doesn't matter ? then I must introduce you to the Guiness record holder of materials science experiences, the Grandpa of ALL materials science of human civlisation ------>

gun powder that China invented !


At that time if one had asked those ancient Chinese inventors "whom are Russians? ", I bet they would have had pointed at some random trees in the North direction, murmuring " Russians? do you mean those creatures on the top? ".

Now seriously, Russia might did sth better than yanks even ranked below them in Materials science, but that was NOT a norm! That was pure luck. In statistics, whoever ranks at the top should almost always be better.

The very same statistics backs my claim (don't change my words) that , hence






Now time for bingo! I knew it. So honestly, which caste you belong to? A low caste by any chance ?





I was not aiming at degrading India/indians per see. It was you who draged them into the topic. I just followed your logic...






Disagree.

1. Statistically, one can says so. It doesn't show ignorance, but prudence. The ones who say otherwise are actually ignorant, because they go arguing against statistics.

2. I never said China is superior to Russia or otherwise (in general sense). What I said : LOOK ABOVE QUOTE!





???




There're many claims on ZHU-AR out there by some engineers.

Any official confirmations? I am afread no.

Is Zhuk-AE radar operational? If no, wait until it is and confirmed, then come back to claim that.

The same with T-50 engine. It's almost universally recognissed that Russia must keep working on the next gen engine ( from the core, not a simple upgrade) to fit it. After you've done that, come back to convince me.







I won't bother to provide any link, I won't look at your related source link neither, because ALL are non-official (without " top secret " marking) , ALL are "educated guesses" and opinion hersays. Clear enough?

I was going to keep quite on this for strategic reason, but now I can speak my mind. Some Russians are finding it difficult to accept the reality that they are less advance than Chinese in most fields, and at best competitive in a few select areas. After listening to numerous Russian laypeople and scientists I am convinced.

Seasons change, and time changes my friends. It's a competitive world out there, you don't stay at #1 spot for long, especially when others strive harder than you. Why not join us and together we can become better?!

 

[no_name]

Thread is getting morbid.

Since we all held our nations dear to our hearts, when we talk about news from one country we should try not to bring up unnecessary comparisons.

As hardly an agreement can be achieved, this is a time-tested result proven everytime.

regards

 

[Moscow]

Its Official: JXX is going to test fly in the next few days

it has been while since the thread started any pics still of the event i did not go through the 11 pages of mine is better so asking or is the " official " claim another story

 

[gambit]

This is a concept art from the Shanghai Expo:

Pretty strong resemblance to the other pics I posted. Again, it's just speculation, so don't jump on me for it

Also, Gambit, I won't pretend to understand everything you said, but I do have a degree in EE and I can understand some of it. I can see from your explanation how simply making the canard in line with the wings isn't enough, but it seems to me that there isn't a strong case for the canard being a distinct element by itself. It is, after all, connected to the rest of the plane and could, at least theoretically, be made to "conduct" the creeping wave along the fuselage and the wings to allow it to degenerate. I noticed on the fanart/concept arts I posted that the fuselage extends out a bit to cover up a portion of the canard from the top, perhaps that is made in an effort to this end?

I would not place too much value on those 'fan art' depictions. The majority of them focus on aerodynamics over RCS.

This is what an aircraft look like as far as radar detection goes...



I posted the above illustration here before.

Each dot represent a 'scattering point' and the ovals represent the radar reflectivity level of each scattering point. In radar detection, against a background, like the sky for example, those scattering points would stand out and would be in a cluster.

Subspace-based localization and inverse scattering of multiply scattering point targets

The nonlinear inverse scattering problem of estimating the locations and scattering strengths or reflectivities of a number of small, point-like inhomogeneities (targets) to a known background...

This is what 'knife edge diffraction' look like...



It does not matter if the signal source is a music radio transmission or a seeking radar. A canard's position would be dictated more by aerodynamic needs than for RCS contribution factor. This is evident by the many shapes and angles, or dihedral, of the canards in different designs...

Dihedral (aircraft) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dihedral angle is the upward angle from horizontal of the wings or tailplane of a fixed-wing aircraft. Anhedral angle is the name given to negative dihedral angle, that is, when there is a downward angle from horizontal of the wings or tailplane of a fixed-wing aircraft.

The EF-2000's canards has a downward, or anhedral, as seen below...

File:Eurofighter Typhoon line drawing.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We cannot have the canards interfere with the air flow over the wings. But on a 'normal' tailed aircraft, it is the rear stabs that changes the aircraft's angle-of-attack so they can be inline with the wings with little or no negative effects. Even so, the F-15 still has its rear stabs on a lower horizontal plane than the wings. For the F-16, the rear stabs are on a relatively same horizontal plane but they have a downward cant, or anhedral. The Rafale's canards are quite horizontal but they are on a higher horizontal plane than the wings. So it is very possible that canards can create distinct radar returns based upon the 'knife edge diffraction' effect.

 

[ptldM3]

What? who is misleading readers?

RAM is based on materials science ! Yes or no?

And you tell me no.

When talking about RAM, one must talk about underlying materials science, not vodka unfortunately.

No one said RAM wasn't based on material science, my problem is that you label countries that are high on material science as "superior" and at the same time dissmiss countries that are ranked lower on material science----explain Israel, how does Israel come up with some of the best technologies?

yeah right, talking about "area 51' like you do does make a hell lot of sense.

You have poor reading comprehension, i used Kopustin-Yar to demonstate that Russia doesn't always rely on civilian firms which usually patent their finds for marketing and profit, thus their work is know by everyone---and don't say China also has these firms because everyone know that already. My point is that established military firms usually create superior products compared to most civilian firms. Moreover, material science can mean anything from recycable toothbrushes to the soles in your shoes, so don't brag.

Japan is NOT China. Hello? You need a map or not? This example is invalid for discussion at hand.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious--captain obvious but i used Japan as an example, let me repeat myself since you couldn't understand the first time around. Japan is ranked 3rd in material science, the UK is ranked 9th, so can Japan create superior jet engines compared to the UK?

many sci-tech journals do various kinds of rankings with different criteria, that's why i don't quote one. But commone sense prevails. Leasve Spain aside, which is outiste top 5 anyway, I spent considerable part of my life in Nederlands - partially grew up there. I know very well that Uni Eindhoven, Technische Uni Delft and Uni Utrecht are very good in this field, but tell me they are world #2 according to whatever ranking? Don't be ridiculous!

Don't pick and choose what suits you best, by your logic me and everyone else can dissmiss China as not being ranked 2nd and claim it's all all lie just like you just did.

But you are "educated guessing" too !!!

Otherwise, you must have security clearance of Russian millitary,huh? because as you said repeatedly that Russia doesn't reveal its secrets?

My grandfather spend most of his life in the KGB and an old family friend was in the FSB, not to mention i knew people in the Russian military everyone from pilots to tankers so i know a thing or two but how does this relate to anything? And how am i using uducated guesses when i say Russia has esstablished military institutions? That's not a guess but rather reality.

1. RAM tech is cutting edge; which share little common knowledge with how you produce AK-47 alikes of the 20th century.

No one is arguing RAM tech is not cutting edge, and i fail to see what you're trying to prove, Russia has RAM and very good RAM, parts of the SU-35 even utilizes RAM and if Russia can build cutting edge radars, engines and other technologies than why would Russia have problems with RAM?

I don't need to know it , because you youself have already discredited your own source by saying that "Russia doesn't reveal its sci-tech findings to the public or to civilian industries". So whatever source you post here must NOT be the real Russian army ram tech !

Got it?

Don't put words in my mouth, although Russia has RAM and other technologies Russia doesn't reveal the science behind it, thus the technology doesn't get to scientific journals. Got it?

it doesn't matter ? then I must introduce you to the Guiness record holder of materials science experiences, the Grandpa of ALL materials science of human civlisation ------>

gun powder that China invented !


At that time if one had asked those ancient Chinese inventors "whom are Russians? ", I bet they would have had pointed at some random trees in the North direction, murmuring " Russians? do you mean those creatures on the top? ".

Now seriously, Russia might did sth better than yanks even ranked below them in Materials science, but that was NOT a norm! That was pure luck. In statistics, whoever ranks at the top should almost always be better.

The very same statistics backs my claim (don't change my words) that , hence

Gun powder was discovered accidentally correct? Was the first rocket that reached outerspace accidental? Was the first satelite accidental? Was the first space station accidental? Was a Mars probe accidental? And don't compare something as simple as gunpower to space exploration.

Disagree.

Statistically, one can says so. It doesn't show ignorance, but prudence. The ones who say otherwise are actually ignorant, because they go arguing against statistics.

Statistics mean nothing, how are countries such as France, Germany and the UK so advanced? Hell the UK is barely ahead on India on the material science ranking and their scientific discoveries and technologies are amazing, the same thing goes for Israel, so i think your argument is mute.

???

Let me repeat myself. Since China is well ahead of countries such as Israel, France, German, and the UK in material science shouldn't Chinese technology be way ahead of the said countries? According to you they should be, unfortunately things arn't black and white.

There're many claims on ZHU-AR out there by some engineers.

Any official confirmations? I am afread no.

Is Zhuk-AE radar operational? If no, wait until it is and confirmed, then come back to claim that.

The same with T-50 engine. It's almost universally recognissed that Russia must keep working on the next gen engine ( from the core, not a simple upgrade) to fit it. After you've done that, come back to convince me.

The official range of the early ZHUK was 148km and it's an official quote. The 200km range was quoted by the companies general director. As for the radar being operational it was installed on a RAF Mig-29 and it's installed on a fleet of Mig-35's although they are not operational in the sence that they serve under the RAF, and full scale production of the radar has already begun earlier this year, so it's likely that the radar is equiped on operational fighters.


ASIAN DEFENCE: New Fazotron Zhuk-ME radars enter production

New Fazotron Zhuk-ME radars enter production, Ready for India

The Fazotron-NIIR corporation has launched the serial production of Zhuk-ME onboard radar systems designed to be installed on the export version of Russia’s MiG-29 fighter jet.“The enterprise is expected to deliver approximately ten Zhuk-ME onboard radar systems in 2010,” Anatoly Kanashchenkov, Fazotron-NIIR first deputy general director and general designer, told Interfax-AVN.

Before the end of the year, the corporation will also have to manufacture spare parts sufficient to make “another ten Zhuk-ME radars,” Kanashchenkov said.Newly made MiG-29K/KUB and MiG-29SMT fighter jets will be fitted with such radars, he said.Fazotron-NIIR has also been “participating in the modernization of 64 MiG-29 fighter jets owned by the Indian Air Force,” he said.

“Flight tests of India’s modernized MiG-29 planes are expected to begin in Russia at the end of 2010 or at the start of 2011,” Kanashchenkov said.“In 2010, the corporation will also continue efforts to fine-tune Zhuk-ME radars installed on MiG-29SMT airplanes under a contract with Algeria,” he said.“The aforementioned MiG-29SMT planes have been returned to Russia by Algeria and will be sent to the Russian Air Force’s units after all the necessary adjustments are made,” he added.

Russia claims 200 km range for MiG-35's Phazotron Zhuk AE

Vyacheslav Tishchenko, the company's general director, says the detection range of the radar could be increased from 148 km to 200 km.

I won't bother to provide any link, I won't look at your related source link neither, because ALL are non-official (without " top secret " marking) , ALL are "educated guesses" and opinion hersays. Clear enough?

Again, stop picking and choosing what sources suit you best, the link i provided was with someone that actually worked on Russia's RAM technology. By your standards i can dissmiss 80% of the Chinese claims because most are not official.

 

[Sanchez]

Before the May 1 holidays a top secret meeting has been held at CAC. No maiden flight took place as planned.

 

[gambit]

Gun powder was discovered accidentally correct?

Yes.

Was the first rocket that reached outerspace accidental? Was the first satelite accidental? Was the first space station accidental? Was a Mars probe accidental?

Not to all.

And don't compare something as simple as gunpower to space exploration.

The issue is not whether <something> is 'simple' or 'difficult' but on whether or not a CONSCIOUS effort was behind that <something>. Like it or not, the argument that an invention is an intellectual superior to a discovery has merit. Usually in the process of producing an invention, many peripheral discoveries are made and this make more valuable that invention. An invention imply foresight of a need, realized or not, that supposedly should be met by exploiting the current repository of human knowledge. If that current repository of knowledge prove inadequate, that does not mean the effort cease but rather the effort is intensified to satisfy that need and the result is a product and many peripheral discoveries about nature added to the current repository of human knowledge, leading to many more inventions, some of them can be met by the newly increased store of knowledge, some cannot and those efforts are intensified...And so on...And uncomfortably enough, there really is no legitimate comparison between the accidental discovery of gunpowder to space exploration where the latter is an effort from foresight and produced many inventions and discoveries.