J-10A & J-11B: Join Air Exercise

[Akasa]

Let us see if you can follow...


Got that...??? The 'it' mean 'my explanations', not any third party sources.


I will put up my sources and standards against any of you Chinese boys' any day.

Great, maybe you can sign up as a columnist for AviationWeek.

Just make sure you don't treat your employer the way you treat forum members.

 

[tanlixiang28776]

Great, maybe you can sign up as a columnist for AviationWeek.

Just make sure you don't treat your employer the way you treat forum members.

Well he would be an employee so yeah its probably an bad idea.

 

[Akasa]

As much as I respect Kopp, the man has never worked in the aviation industry. His crowd over at APA is a self appointed 'think-tank', not any organization that is endowed or actually earned any accolades for their...eerrr...'research'...or...aahhh...'development'. It is not lost on the readers that you have no rebuttal against what I explained to be a possible replication of the French's SPECTRA system.

You don't need to be a pilot in order to give a good explanation of an aircraft's capabilities.
And we don't even know the J-20's full capabilities. You can only look at the J-20's pictures and base an opinion on that. That's what Kopp did.

Which is why many people believe him.

SPECTRA is a ECM suite for missile warning as well as jamming capabilites. Nowhere does it say the SPECTRA is able to manipulate the electromagnetic waves in such a way that enemy radar sees it as something else.
The one under development at Nanjing University does not rely on jamming or ECCM, unlike that of the SPECTRA. Heck, even the roles are different.

The SPECTRA uses a combination of techniques to reduce radar signature. The Chinese device tries to manipulate radar waves so the radar sees something else. For example, they can make the enemy think there's a cruise missile when in reality there's nothing. They can also make a bomber aircraft appear as a swan. The SPECTRA can't do that. The two systems are different in both purpose and capability.

Try comparing their roles and capabilities first before blurting out your claims.

 

[S10]

People should not be reading too much into Carlo Kopp's article. It would be unfair to say he has no experience in aviation, since he did for a time ran a company that serviced Australia's F-111. However, since those planes were retired in favour of Super Hornets, Kopp personally suffered financial losses as a result. Also, he proposed to RAAF to purchase F-22 and tankers, which he wanted money in return because it was "his" idea. He's been shitting on the F-35 program as well as F/A-18E/F for some time now. While I am certain he knows a fair bit more than most of us, I don't trust his objectivity in this case. He's ignored/scorned by most people working in the field from what I can observe in other forums.

As far as that "radar changing" goes, I'm quoting from a Bill Sweetman article.

This technique is a special type of "stealthy" ECM based on the principle of wave superposition. According to the article, Rafael has two antennas separated by the length of the aircraft. The antennas emit electromagnetic waves half a wevelength out of phase with the reflected radar signal, thus effectively reducing its intensity, making the aircraft virtually disappear from the radar's screen.

Active cancellation is a highly advanced and extremely complex process. This method is not known to be used on any military aircraft, though there were speculations that Russians may be using this technique on their S-37 and possibly MiG 1.42 prototype fighters. Also it is believed that the Northrop Grumman ZSR-63 defensive aids equipment installed on B-2 bombers may be using active cancellation.

Just how complicated it is to cancel a reflected radar signal can be seens from the fact that the original incoming signal from the radar will be reflected from many spots on the aircraft's body. Each spot will produce an individual reflection with its own, often unique, amplitude and phase. The amplitude of the reflection (high amplitude means that the relection would be easier to pick up than the one with lower amplitude) would depend on many factors, such as incident angle, particular type of material, geometrical form of a certain location on the aircraft's body that produced the reflectio and some other factors. The phase shift will be dictated by the wavelength of the radar signal and the location (and geometrical form) of the particular spot that produced the reflection in question.

The return signal, picked up by the radar, would look somewhat chaotic, consisting of background noise and "spikes". Background noise is produced by ionization levels of atmosphere, particular atmospheric conditions affecting scattering of electromagnetic waves of a given frequency, secondary reflections (weak signals). The "spikes" are produced by the strong reflections off the certain parts of the aircraftof a particular design.

These "spikes" is, presumably, the main target for active cancellation system. By removing these "spikes" from the radar screen the aircraftmay blend in with the background noise, which is normally ignored by the radar operators. It is important to understand, however, that in case of an effective active cancellation system we are dealing with an immensly complicated issue. Something that can be popularly explained with a single wave sinusoidal signal will become progressively more complex in real life situations.

 

[CardSharp]

People should not be reading too much into Carlo Kopp's article. It would be unfair to say he has no experience in aviation, since he did for a time ran a company that serviced Australia's F-111. However, since those planes were retired in favour of Super Hornets, Kopp personally suffered financial losses as a result. Also, he proposed to RAAF to purchase F-22 and tankers, which he wanted money in return because it was "his" idea. He's been shitting on the F-35 program as well as F/A-18E/F for some time now. While I am certain he knows a fair bit more than most of us, I don't trust his objectivity in this case. He's ignored/scorned by most people working in the field from what I can observe in other forums.

As far as that "radar changing" goes, I'm quoting from a Bill Sweetman article.

The lack of objectivity does come across in Kopp's writing. But on things like the F-35 Bill Sweetman is also in agreement and I kind of like his writing.

 

[S10]

The lack of objectivity does come across in Kopp's writing. But on things like the F-35 Bill Sweetman is also in agreement and I kind of like his writing.

I respect Sweetman's work a little more than Kopp, but you also gotta remember he's in the printed media business. For an aviation magazine, F-35 controversy sells. Lockheed Martin's advertising and Kopp are two extreme ends of the spectrum, with Sweetman being slightly more moderate.

 

[Secret Service]

any pics of exercise ....???

 

[gambit]

You don't need to be a pilot in order to give a good explanation of an aircraft's capabilities.
And we don't even know the J-20's full capabilities.

Yes you do. If you are not a pilot, the best you can do is give the most superficial speculation, not explanation, of what an aircraft can do. You do not know what you are talking about.

You can only look at the J-20's pictures and base an opinion on that. That's what Kopp did.

Which is why many people believe him.

And if other people who looked at the same pictures and disagree? What if they are pilots or even test pilots and they disagree with Kopp? Are you intellectually honest enough to take a neutral stance? I doubt it. You already are too emotionally invested in the J-20. You will grasp at any straw, no matter how speculative, in order to support that investment.

SPECTRA is a ECM suite for missile warning as well as jamming capabilites. Nowhere does it say the SPECTRA is able to manipulate the electromagnetic waves in such a way that enemy radar sees it as something else.

Wrong...The SPECTRA suite is more than just for missile warning and ECCM. Its purpose is also to analyze impinging radar signal and to create a false target impression of itself, if possible, based upon the analyzed data.

The one under development at Nanjing University does not rely on jamming or ECCM, unlike that of the SPECTRA. Heck, even the roles are different.

The SPECTRA uses a combination of techniques to reduce radar signature. The Chinese device tries to manipulate radar waves so the radar sees something else. For example, they can make the enemy think there's a cruise missile when in reality there's nothing. They can also make a bomber aircraft appear as a swan. The SPECTRA can't do that. The two systems are different in both purpose and capability.

Okey dokey...For the highlighted...If there is nothing then how can that nothing create a false impression? If there is something to analyze the impinging radar signals then that something can create a false impression of 'nothing'. It does not work the other way around.

Try comparing their roles and capabilities first before blurting out your claims.

Try to read up on basic radar detection before you make these ridiculous claims.