Report On Indian MMRCA IN CHINESE..

[SamantK]

More mature? They were flown one year apart and have planned induction of a year apart. They would both have complete systems by then and by the time India start receiving them after Russia China would have far more than India in the early years and far more later on. How does your logic work again?

I see you just wanna prove one thing, China is better, take it dude. In any case, PAK-FA will definitely be more mature than j-20 Russia is known for its aircrafts which have been copied by you as well.. and one more thing, what Russia is doing is hardly the point here. We will get them by the time you get, Pak FA is at 3rd iteration and j-20 is on 2nd... So I guess the development of both these re not very far from each other..

 

[SamantK]

The Tejas is a complete failure. If it was a success, they would have built the follow-up plane and not purchased an expensive foreign fighter like:

F-22 => F-35
J-10 => J-20
Seawolf => Virginia
Su-30 => T-50

Also ToT is a big joke for India. Name one that worked.

Oh and I believe u that LCA is a failure. Grow up man, if u r grown up rub your eyes and remove the thick coating of fanboyism from your eyes.

LCA is and was meant to replace MIG's not Sukhois genius! Hey we are talking about India not China. The first version got IOC recently, do you think our guys at IAF are as dumb as you to induct the next version when the first one has not earned FOC? Maybe Chinese work like what you say but sorry India goes the full cycle for their aircraft to be air worthy.

---------- Post added at 02:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:32 AM ----------

The Tejas is a complete failure. If it was a success, they would have built the follow-up plane and not purchased an expensive foreign fighter like:

F-22 => F-35
J-10 => J-20
Seawolf => Virginia
Su-30 => T-50

Also ToT is a big joke for India. Name one that worked.

Tell me one which did not work?

 

[below_freezing]

The Tejas is more of a low cost plane. That's how it was planned to be. It doesn't necessarily have the best features of any 4th generation plane. It's a start. And frankly, it is far too early to conclude anything solid. And obviously, they didn't develop the whole thing all by themselves in-house.

The Rafale deal would certainly give them advantages, including ToT and know-how along with that.

And China still use a healthy number of Russian-made SU-30s. It's not industrialized enough to be in the same position as the US and Russia. But, it appears to increasingly likely that China would get into that stage at some point in the not too distant future.

It is an undeniable fact that China is far ahead in terms of technology and self-sufficiency compared to India. The latter will always count on foreign help for their programs for a long time to come.

Su-30s are there because we've already bought them in 90's and early 2000's and they can fly. We can throw them all away but that would be a great waste wouldn't it? Our first Su-27s have already been retiring.

I think we are overall, at the same level of Russia, ahead in some areas such as electronics, optics and sensors, and behind in others like heavy industry, metallurgy and machinery.

 

[beggingwalker]

Su-30s are there because we've already bought them in 90's and early 2000's and they can fly. We can throw them all away but that would be a great waste wouldn't it? Our first Su-27s have already been retiring.

I think we are overall, at the same level of Russia, ahead in some areas such as electronics, optics and sensors, and behind in others like heavy industry, metallurgy and machinery.

may be in electronics,optics but not in aviation industry and missile tech.
most of your aircraft are cheap copies of russian planes,you hired the soviet engineers during collapse of soviets and they gave what they learned earlier

 

[rcrmj]

may be in electronics,optics but not in aviation industry and missile tech.
most of your aircraft are cheap copies of russian planes,you hired the soviet engineers during collapse of soviets and they gave what they learned earlier

Japan used to copy lots of western stuff and making improved version based on those, this is what china was doing for last few decades to Russian weapons, only recently we took off with our own designs, JH-7, JF-17, J-10, J-20 and more.

 

[SamantK]

Japan used to copy lots of western stuff and making improved version based on those, this is what china was doing for last few decades to Russian weapons, only recently we took off with our own designs, JH-7, JF-17, J-10, J-20 and more.

You cannot be serious comparing Japanese tech with yours right?

 

[Aramsogo]

Indians, don't duck the questions. Name one ToT that India ran with and worked.

 

[SamantK]

Indians, don't duck the questions. Name one ToT that India ran with and worked.

Su-30 MKI, INS Shivalik, INS Arihant, so many navy projects.. u asked for one..

 

[April.lyrics]

Su-30s are there because we've already bought them in 90's and early 2000's and they can fly. We can throw them all away but that would be a great waste wouldn't it? Our first Su-27s have already been retiring.

I think we are overall, at the same level of Russia, ahead in some areas such as electronics, optics and sensors, and behind in others like heavy industry, metallurgy and machinery.

Russian lacks money,or they will be far ahead in most areas i think.and now they turned to india for money.

 

[shiv]

the problem is that Chinese run on propaganda , it can be judge from the fact that , when they launched Man in space they didn't tell chinese about it . Reason :If something happened , then chinese didn't came to know, after it return successful on earth they informed chinese.

Chinese always fails to explain why their plane design/ weapon design are based on other counties design OR what the other countries have already achieved then chinese made, when they fail they saying it developing etc etc etc , when other countries developing anything, then they say it fails,
Indian LCA fail because we didn't make our own engine , JF-17 Successful because china made it and fly with russian engine.........

Exactly and I am sick of fanboys posting GDP numbers....
If gdp would have mattered, then Israel wouldn't have so many advanced weapons. They have top of the line radars/Avionics/ECM/Anti-missile/SAM etc which China can't even think of coming up with for next 10 years.

How much GDP did france need when Rafale came up 1998 ? And with some upgradations, it is still better than any chinese 4th gen aircraft.

What's Russia's GDP compared to China's GDP ? They can take on Today's China x 2 any day or night !!

 

[beggingwalker]

Russian lacks money,or they will be far ahead in most areas i think.and now they turned to india for money.

xactly................

 

[Alfa-Fighter]

it was deleted ..........

 

[gambit]

I've never heard of a conductor called an "absorber" instead...anyways, the proper use of the word absorber in this case referring to EM, is usually referred to as electrical absorbers for specific frequencies. Since we weren't talking about radar absorbent paint or composites but about oxide coated canopies, your use of the term "absorber" is inappropriate. The conductive canopy oxide coating is applied via deposition and makes EM behave similarly to how EM travels along the rest of the surface of a treated stealth airframe. The difference in shaping of the canopy are under the same stealth shaping rules as is used on the rest of the respective airframe. That's why the F-117A canopy has saw tooth edges for its shaping and the J-20 bubble canopy for its shaping doesn't.

Really? Inappropriate? Then I suggest you contact the world's aviation authorities, specifically those in radar engineering to tell them that.

A sponge is an absorber and a conductor. You made the typical mistake of a scientifically ignorant who confused the application with the property (or behavior). A sponge cannot absorb liquids unless one of properties (or behaviors) is that of being conductive somehow to liquids. You confused one of the contexts of 'absorb', which is to draw in, to be a distinct behavior when the behavior is typical -- conduction.

A standard canopy is a pass-through material, which is another behavior made possible by conductivity, or little or no resistance. The result is that radar signals entered the cockpit well and with alternating destructive and constructive interferences, the cockpit become an EM resonating beacon. A treated canopy with an absorber or conductor film will not allow conductivity in one direction -- pass-through -- but conductivity on another direction -- surface traveling waves. Whether is is pass-through or surface waves, both are not possible unless there is conductivity. The issue is which direction do we want.

So what I said is contextually and technically correct, that an absorber is or rather MUST BE a conductor and a conductor can be exploited in application to be an absorber.

Further...If my usage of 'absorber' is inappropriate, then those saw-tooth patterns we see cannot be called 'geometric absorber' because that is how they are called in the industry...

Convoluted (APC) | www.siepel.com

APC are historically the first absorbers using geometrical transition principles. Their excellent performances and characteristics above 10 GHz for minimized dimensions make them ideal for most applications in this range of frequencies.

The word 'transition' here mean changes. In other words, physical geometries are exploited to DENY a receiver of signals. In RCS control techniques, anything that can be used to deny a receiver of signals is called an 'absorber'.

Where there are surface waves, if the waves encounter a different material that has electrical loading or magnetic conductive properties, that material can be called an 'electrical absorber', or some would call it a 'passive cancellation' technique.

IEEE Xplore - Reduction of the radar cross section of a moderate cylindrical structure using central impedance loading

A theoretical study on the minimization of the radar cross section (RCS) of a cylindrical structure of moderate radius centrally loaded by a lumped impedance that is illuminated by a plane electromagnetic wave at normal broadside incidence is presented. Expressions for the induced current on the surface of the cylinder and for the RCS are obtained, and an equation for the optimum loading impedance that minimizes the RCS for moderate cylinders is also derived. The reduction of the RCS is achieved because the impedance that centrally loads the cylinder reduces the superficial current and consequently the RCS. The current and impedance equations are derived using the Hallen' method for calculating the current distribution in antennas. Computed curves of the induced current distribution in the cylinder and of the RCS are presented and experimental results for moderate impedance loading of dipoles not much longer than λ/2 are compared with the theoretical computations. For such dipoles, the broadside RCS can be reduced by 30 to 40 dB with appropriate passive center loading.

Notice the mention of a cylinder. Why a cylinder but not a plate? Because electrical absorber or passive cancellation works best against surface waves. This lead to the next debunking of your argument.

That's the strong impression I get because you constantly butt into every conversation concerning stealth and invariably end up talking about traveling waves in one way or another while giving comparatively rare mention of specular reflections. Martian2 and you once had a debate about "continuous curvature" and he had a strong point about with an example about a cylinder and its unnecessarily large potential radar return, along the straight edge view from the straight on specular return from an illuminating radar, due to its lack of "continuous curvature" and you kept harping about traveling waves while completely ignoring his point about the specular reflections.

The phrasing 'continuous curvature' is something he made up. He is also grossly wrong about the cylinder because the source he brought on does not mention the 10 lambda rule, which comes into play whenever a radar signal encounters a curvature on a sphere or a cylinder. A cylinder does not have an 'edge on' perspective but an 'end on' perspective. At this point, we would be dealing with a plate.

It is funny that if he enter a thread with his proven nonsense it is 'informative' and the Chinese boys would be tripping over themselves thanking him for the 'useful' posts but if I enter the same to debunk him it is 'butting' in. But if his nonsense is educational and 'useful' to the Chinese boys here, we have nothing to fear about of that supposedly 'high Chinese IQ' they so often boast about.

That's what is called willful ignorance and/or purposeful deception. Either that, or you actually do believe specular reflections and shaping take a back seat since you gave it zero importance. That's par for the course in every single one of your debates since your obviously not here to actually debate anything.

The one who continues to exhibit either willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty here is still YOU, friend.

I will sum it up again...

- If the focus is on a mono-static attack, then specular reflections are dominant in signal processing, meaning the only thing to worry about is how to handle specular reflections.

- If the focus is on BOTH mono- and bi-static attacks, then BOTH specular and surface waves are dominant whenever they occur.

Incorrect:
- (Specular) or (surface waves). This is your interpretation of my position.

Correct:
- (Specular) or (specular and surface waves). This is my true position.

Get it now, liar?

I will now put it into real world examples, see if you can grasp it...

If the only thing we want to act against, as in denial of reflected signals, is a mono-static attack, then angled faceting technique is what we will use, and we have with the F-117. On the opposite side of the radar, diffracted signals are free to radiate anyhow they want. We do not care. As long as the direction of the seeking radar is relatively clean of reflected/diffracted signals, we are 'stealthy'.

But if we worry about the possibility that an adversary might deploy a bi-static radar against us, and since the angled faceting technique offers limited diffraction controls due to aerodynamic demands, why not introduce curvatures to INDUCE surface wave behaviors? The surface expanse of each curve and the degree of arc give us greater 'electrical paths' upon which those surface waves must travel and as they travel, the energy they bleed off via 'leaky waves' can be below a certain threshold.

IEEE Xplore - Propagation properties of longitudinal leaky surface waves on lithium tetraborate

Theoretical and experimental results of longitudinal leaky surface waves with a higher phase velocity than that of ordinary leaky surface waves and a low propagation loss on lithium tetraborate (LBO) are investigated in detail.

The result of all this theorizing and experimentation are the B-2, F-22, and F-35, which look radically different from the F-117 but all are quite equally 'stealthy' to the original attempt of 'stealth', the F-117.

This is the third time that I have explained to you the differences between the mono-static and bi-static configurations and why certain behaviors are prominent at which point. I cannot dumb it down further. I am not well versed in 'Chinese physics'. So looks like it is YOU who are par for the stupidity course.

I suggest you tone down accusations for things that are simply not true. I have never disregarded the importance of all-aspect stealth and have had conversations with you and others stretching back years about various ways to improve stealth detection regarding multi-modal radars involving various radar bands, greater computing power, different filters, cell tower style radar grids, SAR radar grids, UAV radar grids, RWR radar grids, etc, etc. Your needless anecdotes concerning why the F-117A is retired is the reason why traveling waves is even a concern today. But, it is still secondary.

No, it is not secondary. At least not to US. But I sincerely do hope that the Chinese engineers do take your position. It will make shooting down Chinese not-so-stealthy fighters that much easier.

That's fine, if your intention is to actually debate. However, if you choose to ignore one while concentrating on the other or vice-versa depending on whatever you are "debating" about, then there is a problem. It doesn't help that you consistently nitpick grammar and use it as part of your debates. lol The word disingenuous is used a lot nowadays.

Calling for proper contexts is not nitpicking on grammar, which is about sentence structure.

Take the word 'composite', for example. Many here bandied that word around casually when it comes to 'stealth'. For those of us who have relevant experience, which I can see you and the Chinese boys do not have, the word 'composite' in aviation have more to do with weight saving measures than with RCS controls. Plywood and concrete are composites. Even steel is a composite.

Civil - Emerging Construction Technologies

MMFX Steel’s proprietary chemical composition and production process control the steel’s martensitic microcomposite...

Plywood and concrete are 'gross constituents' composites. Steel is a microstructural composite. See if you can look up 'elemental composite' where the majority of materials are made up of many different atoms.

So no, I am not nitpicking but correcting misconceptions.

If that's your attitude then why even waste time debating the unknown? Isn't it a waste of time then because it sure seems like you have alot of time to be writing up what looks like 40 pages per day of what you consider useless messages in these debates about phantom projects and items.

The more important question is why are the Chinese boys wasting their time speculating on that same unknown? But if you deem it valuable that they speculate, then it is odd that debunking their nonsense is a waste of time.

I never said the Russians cannot. I have a lot of respect for Russian engineers given their relatively limited resources and I'm sure they will eventually make changes to the canopy to address this weakness. How you can claim a traditional canopy is a minor stealth issue is surprising given that RCS is now measured in the fractions of a sq/m2.

Wow...See post 228 => http://www.defence.pk/forums/chinese-defence/158465-report-indian-mmrca-chinese-16.html#post2603607

 

[shiv]

^went like a jet much above the level of what i can comprehend

 

[below_freezing]

Really? Inappropriate? Then I suggest you contact the world's aviation authorities, specifically those in radar engineering to tell them that.

A sponge is an absorber and a conductor. You made the typical mistake of a scientifically ignorant who confused the application with the property (or behavior). A sponge cannot absorb liquids unless one of properties (or behaviors) is that of being conductive somehow to liquids. You confused one of the contexts of 'absorb', which is to draw in, to be a distinct behavior when the behavior is typical -- conduction.

A standard canopy is a pass-through material, which is another behavior made possible by conductivity, or little or no resistance. The result is that radar signals entered the cockpit well and with alternating destructive and constructive interferences, the cockpit become an EM resonating beacon. A treated canopy with an absorber or conductor film will not allow conductivity in one direction -- pass-through -- but conductivity on another direction -- surface traveling waves. Whether is is pass-through or surface waves, both are not possible unless there is conductivity. The issue is which direction do we want.

I don't know about the rest of your points but here's what I noticed.

Dielectrics such as glass and pure plastic are usually transparent to EM waves in the absence of macroscopic material flaws like pores, while conductors are reflective. That is because EM waves induce surface plasmon waves in the free electrons of a conductor which then reradiate the radiation, but in dielectrics the valence electrons are confined, cannot absorb the EM energy (for glass, at visible wavelengths, but apparently also at radio too), and instead allow it to pass through.

A conductor behaves in the OPPOSITE way of what you said; it would not allow the RF waves to pass through. How would we make a conducting that a pilot can actually see through? coat the canopy with conductor thinner than the "skin depth" so it would be conductive but still be transparent in visible wavelengths, and perhaps reflective in RF.