Russia refuses to sell Nimitz Aircraft Carrier and space shuttle to China

[j20blackdragon]

Here's a better source.

USSR planned nuclear attack on China in 1969

The Soviet Union was on the brink of launching a nuclear attack against China in 1969 and only backed down after the US told Moscow such a move would start World War Three, according to a Chinese historian.

Andrew Osborn in Moscow and Peter Foster in Beijing

6:09PM BST 13 May 2010

The extraordinary assertion, made in a publication sanctioned by China's ruling Communist Party, suggests that the world came perilously close to nuclear war just seven years after the Cuban missile crisis.

Liu Chenshan, the author of a series of articles that chronicle the five times China has faced a nuclear threat since 1949, wrote that the most serious threat came in 1969 at the height of a bitter border dispute between Moscow and Beijing that left more than one thousand people dead on both sides.

He said Soviet diplomats warned Washington of Moscow's plans "to wipe out the Chinese threat and get rid of this modern adventurer," with a nuclear strike, asking the US to remain neutral.

But, he says, Washington told Moscow the United States would not stand idly by but launch its own nuclear attack against the Soviet Union if it attacked China, loosing nuclear missiles at 130 Soviet cities. The threat worked, he added, and made Moscow think twice, while forcing the two countries to regulate their border dispute at the negotiating table.

He quotes Soviet ministers and diplomats at the time to bolster his claim.

On 15 October 1969, he quotes Soviet premier Alexei Kosygin as telling Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev that Washington has drawn up "detailed plans" for a nuclear war against the USSR if it attacked China.

"[The United States] has clearly indicated that China's interests are closely related to theirs and they have mapped out detailed plans for nuclear war against us," Kosygin is said to have told Brezhnev.

That same day he says Anatoly Dobrynin, the Soviet ambassador to Washington, told Brezhnev something similar after consultations with US diplomats. "If China suffers a nuclear attack, they (the Americans) will deem it as the start of the third world war," Dobrynin said. "The Americans have betrayed us."

The historian claims that Washington saw the USSR as a greater threat than China and wanted a strong China to counter-balance Soviet power. Then US President Richard Nixon was also apparently fearful of the effect of a nuclear war on 250,000 US troops stationed in the Asia-Pacific region and still smarting from a Soviet refusal five years earlier to stage a joint attack on China's nascent nuclear programme.

The claims are likely to stir debate about a period of modern history that remains mired in controversy.

Mr Liu, the author, admits his version of history is likely to be contested by rival scholars. It is unclear whether he had access to special state archives but the fact that his articles appeared in such an official publication in a country where the media is so tightly controlled is being interpreted by some as a sign that he did have special access.

USSR planned nuclear attack on China in 1969 - Telegraph

 

[Pak_Sher]

China is doing copy paste from Russian technologies...and these chini says Ruskies are a joke...This is itself a Joke of the day.

So China is coping and pasting, OK? Can India do copy and paste? Common sense is not common.

 

[gambit]

We dont always need factual data, we could refer to estimated one.

There are estimated RCS of B-2, F-117, F-35 and F22 outside there.
It doesnt take genius to know that RCS of B-2 should be much bigger than that of F-22.

Even if the B-2 have a higher RCS value than the F-22, that does not mean the B-2 will still be detected.

Then that even strenghten my argument.

The B-2 fuselage is obviously not round (if the wing is the fuselage)
or
B-2 fuselage could not be used as reference at all (as B-2 has no fuselage)

Many Angles on Pakfa body, gap, exposed fan blade, and metal framed canopy is something we cant ignored for the RCS contribution of a stealth fighter

This is going to be a long post because it is clear to me that you have swallowed a lot of 'Chinese physics' propagated by a few individuals more eager to have their egos stroked by ignorant and gullible people than to learn something new in this area.

There are three EQUALLY important items in radar low observability: Radiation, Reception, and Detection.

RADIATION

Every body is a potential radiator, meaning that if the body is under radar bombardment and if said body does not absorb %100 of the impinging signal, said body is a 'radiator'. In radar detection, the sphere is simplest body. Everything else, even the plate, is a complex body. And an aircraft is a very complex body composing of many plates, curvatures, cylinders, spheroids, pyramids, convex and concave structures, and everything else in between. The first objective of any 'stealth' program is to manipulate the patterns and intensity levels of ALL of these radiators. First objective does not mean it is more important. It simply mean it is the first thing you must do in a sequence.

RECEPTION

Received power is not the same as reflected power.

Repeat: RECEIVED POWER IS NOT THE SAME AS REFLECTED POWER. This is probably the most popular misconception in trying to understand 'stealth'.

In the above illustration, angling the plate divert some measure of the reflected power away from seeker direction. Embedding the plate with 'absorber' material take some of that total power. Add in whatever that managed to make it back to the seeker and we have total power.

DETECTION

Received power does not always mean the 'target' is 'detected'. The radar system actually receive cosmic background radiation, but does that mean we want to see CBR on our display? No. Detection is a process of categorization or classification. You will receive a set of signals that matches your internal library of 'birds'. Another set that matches 'mountain'. Another set that matches 'trees'. And so on. Then all of a sudden, you receive a set that matches 'aircraft'. These signals' characteristics are based upon the material composition and complexity of the body that produces them. They are common enough that everyone have a library of them.

If you display all of them: human, birds, mountains, buildings, hydrometeors, and some metallic thingie, it will require a second operator at your desk or in your cockpit to sort them out and to tell you where to focus your attention. So what you must do is to find commonality of signal characteristics among many RECEIVED signals and discard them, in other words, make the system work for you instead of merely displaying stuff. When the system finally fall upon a set of signals that matches the library's image of 'aircraft', the system will flag that set of signals and display it on the scope. That is 'detection'. So keep this in mind: Whatever is received does not mean it will be display unless you wanted it to be displayed and that mean 'Reception' is not the same thing as 'Detection'.

When we add all three items together, we have this illustration of a complex body or 'target'...

Whatever that was discarded by the system in order to lighten your workload is called 'clutter' or junk. Clutter is arbitrary. Hydrometeors is junk to most people but not to metereologists or the weather people. Buildings may be junk to fighter pilots but not to civil engineers. Mountains may be junk to the main radar but not to the one that manages terrain following. But in sum, what we have is called the 'clutter rejection threshold'.

The final goal of 'stealth' is to:

- Manipulate the radiation pattern and intensity levels of a complex body.

- Which in turn have a direct effect on the received power of a seeker.

- Which in turn will not be displayed on the scope.

You mess up any of the three, and by messing up I mean including misunderstanding, and you will fail at 'stealth' or just like the Chinese boys here, ended up making all sorts of absurd claims. All the yakkity-yak about IRST device and inlet gaps are meaningless if there is no understanding of those three and how they related to the clutter rejection threshold. The IRST device and the inlet gaps does not matter if you cannot reduce the largest radiation pattern and intensity you found on your aircraft. It is only once you reduced the largest radiator to below OTHER radiators can you move on.

This is not the first time I said these things here. Not exactly the same way now but not the first time. I find it odd that for all the claims about 'high Chinese IQ' none of the Chinese boys seems to grasp these things and their relationship to each other. If the Chinese members here are indicative of the Chinese designers of the J-20 then we have nothing to fear from Chinese military aviation.

 

[j20blackdragon]

Nice! I'm going to steal this pic from gambit.

 

[antonius123]

Even if the B-2 have a higher RCS value than the F-22, that does not mean the B-2 will still be detected.

Who said B-2 will be easily detected??

I am explaining to ptdml that even if B-2 top fuselage is roundshape + metal frame canopy + exposed fan blade, those things doesn't reflect radar way coming from the ground radar as they are all covered by wing; B-2 doesnt get inverted and bank like air fighter.

This is going to be a long post because it is clear to me that you have swallowed a lot of 'Chinese physics' propagated by a few individuals more eager to have their egos stroked by ignorant and gullible people than to learn something new in this area.

There are three EQUALLY important items in radar low observability: Radiation, Reception, and Detection.

RADIATION

Every body is a potential radiator, meaning that if the body is under radar bombardment and if said body does not absorb %100 of the impinging signal, said body is a 'radiator'. In radar detection, the sphere is simplest body. Everything else, even the plate, is a complex body. And an aircraft is a very complex body composing of many plates, curvatures, cylinders, spheroids, pyramids, convex and concave structures, and everything else in between. The first objective of any 'stealth' program is to manipulate the patterns and intensity levels of ALL of these radiators. First objective does not mean it is more important. It simply mean it is the first thing you must do in a sequence.

RECEPTION

Received power is not the same as reflected power.

Repeat: RECEIVED POWER IS NOT THE SAME AS REFLECTED POWER. This is probably the most popular misconception in trying to understand 'stealth'.

In the above illustration, angling the plate divert some measure of the reflected power away from seeker direction. Embedding the plate with 'absorber' material take some of that total power. Add in whatever that managed to make it back to the seeker and we have total power.

DETECTION

Received power does not always mean the 'target' is 'detected'. The radar system actually receive cosmic background radiation, but does that mean we want to see CBR on our display? No. Detection is a process of categorization or classification. You will receive a set of signals that matches your internal library of 'birds'. Another set that matches 'mountain'. Another set that matches 'trees'. And so on. Then all of a sudden, you receive a set that matches 'aircraft'. These signals' characteristics are based upon the material composition and complexity of the body that produces them. They are common enough that everyone have a library of them.

If you display all of them: human, birds, mountains, buildings, hydrometeors, and some metallic thingie, it will require a second operator at your desk or in your cockpit to sort them out and to tell you where to focus your attention. So what you must do is to find commonality of signal characteristics among many RECEIVED signals and discard them, in other words, make the system work for you instead of merely displaying stuff. When the system finally fall upon a set of signals that matches the library's image of 'aircraft', the system will flag that set of signals and display it on the scope. That is 'detection'. So keep this in mind: Whatever is received does not mean it will be display unless you wanted it to be displayed and that mean 'Reception' is not the same thing as 'Detection'.

When we add all three items together, we have this illustration of a complex body or 'target'...

Whatever that was discarded by the system in order to lighten your workload is called 'clutter' or junk. Clutter is arbitrary. Hydrometeors is junk to most people but not to metereologists or the weather people. Buildings may be junk to fighter pilots but not to civil engineers. Mountains may be junk to the main radar but not to the one that manages terrain following. But in sum, what we have is called the 'clutter rejection threshold'.

The final goal of 'stealth' is to:

- Manipulate the radiation pattern and intensity levels of a complex body.

- Which in turn have a direct effect on the received power of a seeker.

- Which in turn will not be displayed on the scope.

You mess up any of the three, and by messing up I mean including misunderstanding, and you will fail at 'stealth' or just like the Chinese boys here, ended up making all sorts of absurd claims. All the yakkity-yak about IRST device and inlet gaps are meaningless if there is no understanding of those three and how they related to the clutter rejection threshold. The IRST device and the inlet gaps does not matter if you cannot reduce the largest radiation pattern and intensity you found on your aircraft. It is only once you reduced the largest radiator to below OTHER radiators can you move on.

This is not the first time I said these things here. Not exactly the same way now but not the first time. I find it odd that for all the claims about 'high Chinese IQ' none of the Chinese boys seems to grasp these things and their relationship to each other. If the Chinese members here are indicative of the Chinese designers of the J-20 then we have nothing to fear from Chinese military aviation.

I appreciate your valuable effort to explain about basic radar principle and stealth which certainly will be useful for our basic understanding here, but that doesn't proved what I am saying is wrong - about exposed fan blade, sharp angles, gaps, and metal framed canopy on PAKFA will not be good for stealth sake.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Here's a better source.




USSR planned nuclear attack on China in 1969 - Telegraph

At that time, US needed China to keep the pressure up on Russia's eastern front, and if they let Russia nuke us, not only would China have nuked back (of course, with less nukes) but that would also mean Russia would be wide open for a NATO attack in Europe and across the Bering Strait.

This makes me worried that now the US already made it clear to China that any military solution of the South Tibet problem would mean that they will side with India.

 

[ptldM3]

If F-22 RCS is much smaller than F-35, then moreover it is much much smaller than B-2. Then it means B-2 RCS is very very much bigger than that of F-22.

You are mistaken the F-22 is larger than the F-35 yet it has the smaller RCS.

So my point is: the rcs contribution of metal canopy of B-2 is negligible for that big RCS of B-2, but it is not negligible for very much smaller RCS like that of F-22.

How do you know the RCS of the B-2 and how is its metal canopy negligible? You are claiming that the B-2 already has a large RCS so why would the designers negate to pay attention to the metal frames?





Let me fill you in on something, the metal in the canopies is irrelevant, it is junction between the canopy and the frame that is important. However, if the designers can achieve a tight joint that causes EM energy to ‘diffract’ than the problem is eliminated. This is no different than weapons bays, access panels, or refueling probes.

The problem with bias J-20 fanatics is that while they claim that the pak-fa’s canopy is problematic, they are totally unaware that a canopy is no different than any other compartment (bays, access panels, refueling probe, ect). So now while the pak-fa is taunted to have a metal canopy which is ‘poor for stealth’ nobody notices that the pak-fa has no air-brake (which has a junction). On the other hand the J-20 does have an air brake.

Nope. On the contrary if you want to know the fuselage shape is round or not, you should see from the cross section, or at least from front angle, not from side angle.

And that makes no sense, why should the side be neglected, in favor for the front? Radars especially ground radars will illuminate aircraft from all hemispheres (front, side, and rear). The B-2 has curvature, that you simply can not deny.

Take a look:


http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Oshkosh2002/Samplers/PostWw2/B2Banking11oClock.jpg



http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos...406166432675_1187826805_1208844_3791482_n.jpg





http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ht3JoFyV0Tg/TwHj9RLbz_I/AAAAAAAAD7Q/Uy66JsXsgD4/s1600/B2+Flyover.jpg


Notice in some of those pictures the B-2 banking. If someone pointing a camera from the ground captures the B-2 banking with its top fuselage exposed than why would a radar not do the same? Even if an aircraft is flying level with the top half of the fuselage out of sight, EM energy can still interact with the top half of the fuselage.

Besides as I have explained to you, the fuselage of B-2 doesn't reflect radar wave coming from bellow (ground radar) as the fuselage is blended and covered by the wing. Therefore it wont contribute RCS from downward direction.

No it most likely doesn’t but than again something does not to be flat to evade radar emissions. The F-22 can not be seen by radar when it is inverted or when it banks. Furthermore, the F-35 is not flat per say, its fuselage has a lot of curvature or ‘bumps’, as some people like to call it. I’m sure that the same designers of the F-22 knew what they were doing when they designed the F-35’s lower fuselage.

As a matter of fact Continuous Curvature is the way to prevent radar wave back to the sender.

A way----not the only way. The F-117 never used this method, it used faceting. If anything the F-117 violated this principle.

For bomber like B-2 the flat bottom of / wing blended fuselage and metal frame canopy is still very relevant because it doesn’t bank or inverted like fighter plane. That’s why I said we cant use bomber for the air fighter benchmark.

But it does bank, all aircraft bank, having piloted aircraft I can tell you that pilots tern by banking. Vertical stabs are usually used on approaches and sometimes on maneuvers, but the B-2 does not have any(although I’m sure it can yaw). The problem with yawing is that it is very slow as compared with a banking tern.

Therefore the round part of the B-2 top fuselage (if it really round) doesn't much concern as it is covered by the wing.

As I explained before, it does not matter if the fuselage is covered by a wing, EM energy can still scatter or diffract and impact the upper fuselage, it can find a part of the fuselage and act as a traveling wave or it can literally travel up any curved surface.

By putting fuselage higher + bigger gap between fuselage and airduct, it will create bigger surface and exposed angle that will reflect radar wave greater.

This is where you are wrong, firstly the pak-fa has a much thinner, flatter fuselage even if the cockpit sits higher than the rest of the aircraft. Look at it this way if the pak-fa was to have a thicker fuselage aft of the canopy than it would not sit high, it would just be one thick and or bloated fuselage. Or we can think of it the other way around, if the entire J-20’s fuselage aft of the cockpit was flattened it would appear to have a higher fuselage in the front

.


And what bigger gaps? The pak-fa’s gaps between the fuselage appear to be identical to the ones found in the F-22--we can not distinguish the two by eye balling. Now unless you pulled out a tape measure and personally measure those gaps I would say your claim is unsubstantiated.

Angle shape is minimized in F-22//J-20/F-35/B-2 by applying continuous curvature.

So how does the pa-fa not apply? The pak-fa incorporates more curvature and less ‘angle’ shaping (faceting) than the J-20. The J-20 incorporates faceting all along its fuselage, the pak-fa incorporates curvature.

In the case of F-22, the corner/angle of the airduct and fuselage is not exposed, therefore doesnt reflect radar way back.

So, what about when the F-22 is inverted with its vertical stabilizers and curved canopy pointing strait down? Clearly your argument holds no weight.

As the matter of fact, this semi receded intake will create exposed corner that will reflect radar wave way back to the sender.

Explain for the readers how the F-117 with its countless exposed corners evaded radar. What you are saying violates everything that we know. The pak-fa’s fuselage incorporated curvature as well as some faceting, and if an aircraft such as the F-22 or F-35 can perform a role and still evade radar than how would the pak-fa simply ‘reflect radar’ if it is based on the same principles?

 

[ptldM3]

God, I'm so sick of talking to you. And I thought only Indians were thick-headed. Respect Russia and do not mock it! That's all. This means I want a Russian daddy? So you go around spitting in everyone's face and insulting them because you're afraid that if you respect them they will think you want them for a daddy? I have no idea what kind of person you are in real life but I doubt you'd be so insulting when facing someone. Then everyone who you didn't insult and make a mockery out of is your daddy by your definition.

There are several groups of people in this world, the Russia strong crew, China strong crew, and USA, hell yea crew. He belongs to the China strong crew. Anything short of worshiping China is an outrage, by now you will notice that he and a few others on this forum just simply do not like Russians and as such are constantly downplaying and attacking us. It doesn’t not matter if their claims are busted with reputable sources they will continue to stick to their home grown propaganda.


There has been a few Chinese on this forum that publicly expressed their shame and embarrassment for some of the people in his crew. So you are not alone.

 

[deckingraj]

God, I'm so sick of talking to you. And I thought only Indians were thick-headed. Respect Russia and do not mock it! That's all. This means I want a Russian daddy? So you go around spitting in everyone's face and insulting them because you're afraid that if you respect them they will think you want them for a daddy? I have no idea what kind of person you are in real life but I doubt you'd be so insulting when facing someone. Then everyone who you didn't insult and make a mockery out of is your daddy by your definition.

You could have refrained from insulting someone and right their preaching not to...What does that make you??

 

[ptldM3]

You can either listen to an anonymous Russian troll on a forum or listen to everyone on Aviation Week.

It's your choice.

Did you call me a troll? You are one infaction away from getting banned again. BTW, how did it feel to get banned? By your token i can also pull up some actual opinions of experts and not magazine editors that call the J-20 into question.

Simply put there are pak-fa critics and J-20 critics, and then there are loser like you that try to flame.

 

[gambit]

Who said B-2 will be easily detected??

Please...I am an old hand at this. Am old enough to live and work in the pre-Internet (pre-historic) era. I recognize a feeble attempt when I see one.

I am explaining to ptdml that even if B-2 top fuselage is roundshape + metal frame canopy + exposed fan blade, those things doesn't reflect radar way coming from the ground radar as they are all covered by wing; B-2 doesnt get inverted and bank like air fighter.

Then why bother to make them curves at all? The B-2's missions are not as limited as you think. Its designers must consider customer's demands and its final shape reflect (pun intended) those demands.

I appreciate your valuable effort to explain about basic radar principle and stealth which certainly will be useful for our basic understanding here, but that doesn't proved what I am saying is wrong...

Technically, you are not wrong. But equally technically, your understanding of 'stealth' or more accurately 'low radar observability' is inadequate and filled with lower levels of misconceptions.

...- about exposed fan blade, sharp angles, gaps, and metal framed canopy on PAKFA will not be good for stealth sake.

What a curious statement this 'will not be good'. Why are these structures 'not good'? A structure is a potential radiator whether the structure is a part of the canopy or an engine. Everything is a potential radiator, hence, a 'contributor' to the final RCS value. Apparently everything I said in post 202 did not compute. Sharp angles? So what? Are they angled to deny the seeker their contributorship of 'received' power? If yes, then why are they 'not good'? Metal framed canopy? The F-117 have it. If anything, the cockpit well is even more problematic than the canopy -- resonance. You just further confirmed to me that the basic principle of threshold is incompatible with 'Chinese physics'.

 

[gambit]

Nice! I'm going to steal this pic from gambit.

Unfortunately, said picture does not give you the necessary wisdom to discuss the subject. You never had enough of the smarts to start. So what make you think a picture is going to make you appear any smarter?

 

[ptldM3]

sharp angles, gaps, and metal framed canopy on PAKFA will not be good for stealth sake.

Its very clear that you are ignorant of the subject. Pull up any reputable source and point out where it states that sharp angles are not allowed for stealth--do it now. In fact, the opposite can be found. Sharp angles are purposely incorporated into designs in order to redirect EM energy. You see this in wing and in so called saw toothing. Notice the sharp pyramid point on the F-117. That was specifically put into place to scatter EM energy. Without sharp edges to cause diffraction a stealth aircraft would not be possible because much of the EM energy would return.

And as explained before the framed canopy means nothing, it is just an extra junction to deal with. The pak-fa may have a framed canopy but unlike the J-20 it does not have an air brake. So how is an addition of an airbrake excluded? Both an airbrake and a canopy have a junction and ultimately that is what it is about.
And please spare everyone the ‘gaps’ nonsense, the pak-fa has the same gaps that are on the F-22 and if the F-22 is said to have the RCS of a marble than it is safe to say that gaps are not contributors. And how can they be if they are specifically designed to avoid specular reflection? Case in point you have nothing to back your claim.

 

[antonius123]

You are mistaken the F-22 is larger than the F-35 yet it has the smaller RCS.

Nobody said F-22 rcs is larger than F-35 here.

You must miss my point.

How do you know the RCS of the B-2 and how is its metal canopy negligible? You are claiming that the B-2 already has a large RCS so why would the designers negate to pay attention to the metal frames?

I have explained that those rcs contributors is hidden by its wing, therefore radar wave coming from ground radar doesnt reach all of them (canopy metal, round shape, etc).

I have also explained that B-2 bomber doesnt bank and get inverted like air fighter.

Bellow I respond to your argument about B-2 banking, that B-2 banking is only a little, and doesn't make inversion especially during its penetration mission as it is not necessary.

Let me fill you in on something, the metal in the canopies is irrelevant, it is junction between the canopy and the frame that is important. However, if the designers can achieve a tight joint that causes EM energy to ‘diffract’ than the problem is eliminated. This is no different than weapons bays, access panels, or refueling probes.

If wing blended body of B-2 is already sufficient to cover the canopies etc, it doesnt need any diffracter; besides what kind diffracter you mean applied on B-2 canopy etc?

The problem with bias J-20 fanatics is that while they claim that the pak-fa’s canopy is problematic, they are totally unaware that a canopy is no different than any other compartment (bays, access panels, refueling probe, ect). So now while the pak-fa is taunted to have a metal canopy which is ‘poor for stealth’ nobody notices that the pak-fa has no air-brake (which has a junction). On the other hand the J-20 does have an air brake.

Which kind of airbrake you mean?

Isnt airbrake folded in normal flying? then it shouldn't contribute RCS at all.

And that makes no sense, why should the side be neglected, in favor for the front? Radars especially ground radars will illuminate aircraft from all hemispheres (front, side, and rear). The B-2 has curvature, that you simply can not deny.

Take a look:


http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Oshkosh2002/Samplers/PostWw2/B2Banking11oClock.jpg

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos...406166432675_1187826805_1208844_3791482_n.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ht3JoFyV0Tg/TwHj9RLbz_I/AAAAAAAAD7Q/Uy66JsXsgD4/s1600/B2+Flyover.jpg

I dont say side should be neglected. I said if we want to know whether the fuselage shape is really round or not we cant see from side angle, but from front angle.

B-2 has curvature, but it is continuous - that minimizing angle.

For bombing mission, with duty to penetrate enemy territory, the front rcs is the most important thing.

Besides, why u think B-2 has RCS problem from rear or side? B-2 only has RCS problem from above, but it is not a problem as bombing and penetrating doesn't require steep banking nor inversion maneuver.

Notice in some of those pictures the B-2 banking. If someone pointing a camera from the ground captures the B-2 banking with its top fuselage exposed than why would a radar not do the same? Even if an aircraft is flying level with the top half of the fuselage out of sight, EM energy can still interact with the top half of the fuselage.

B-2 banking is not much like F-22 airfighter, and when penetrating enemy territory I dont think B-2 will do considerable banking.

Besides as i said, I dont see round top fusselage of B-2, only metal framed.

No it most likely doesn’t but than again something does not to be flat to evade radar emissions. The F-22 can not be seen by radar when it is inverted or when it banks. Furthermore, the F-35 is not flat per say, its fuselage has a lot of curvature or ‘bumps’, as some people like to call it. I’m sure that the same designers of the F-22 knew what they were doing when they designed the F-35’s lower fuselage.

Of course for F-22 / F-35 since the fighter will bank and get inverted so much during dogfight - the shape of top side should be designed for low rcs.

But bomber B-2 doesn't requires low RCS on the top side, as bomber doesnt bank much and get inverted during its penetrating and bombing mission.

A way----not the only way. The F-117 never used this method, it used faceting. If anything the F-117 violated this principle.

Yes you are right.

But what kind of method that PAKFA applied to minimize RCS, if not continuous curvature or the F-117 method?

But it does bank, all aircraft bank, having piloted aircraft I can tell you that pilots tern by banking. Vertical stabs are usually used on approaches and sometimes on maneuvers, but the B-2 does not have any(although I’m sure it can yaw). The problem with yawing is that it is very slow as compared with a banking tern.

Of course it banks but not steep, as you see in the picture it bank only a bit, not much like airfighter, therefore should be not much issue for penetration and bombing mission.

As I explained before, it does not matter if the fuselage is covered by a wing, EM energy can still scatter or diffract and impact the upper fuselage, it can find a part of the fuselage and act as a traveling wave or it can literally travel up any curved surface.

Only if the radar wave coming from infront or upward, not from downward.

If that the case, then S duct shape is not useful at all as radar wave will also travel and reach fanblade and reflect back to the receiver, including the said radar blocker

This is where you are wrong, firstly the pak-fa has a much thinner, flatter fuselage even if the cockpit sits higher than the rest of the aircraft. Look at it this way if the pak-fa was to have a thicker fuselage aft of the canopy than it would not sit high, it would just be one thick and or bloated fuselage. Or we can think of it the other way around, if the entire J-20’s fuselage aft of the cockpit was flattened it would appear to have a higher fuselage in the front

.
Thinner body is not the only one factor affecting the surface size; the contour of the body counts.

PAKFa body with its contour create big surface area, and more over ANGLE that potential to reflect radar wave back to the sender.

And what bigger gaps? The pak-fa’s gaps between the fuselage appear to be identical to the ones found in the F-22--we can not distinguish the two by eye balling. Now unless you pulled out a tape measure and personally measure those gaps I would say your claim is unsubstantiated.

It is not identical at all.

As you said the gap of pakfa is receded and I agree as I can see this in the picture, I have explain that this receded one on pakfa as a matter fact will make the angle formed by it's airduct and fuselage exposed to radar wave. This kind of angle/corner exposure doesnt exist on F-22, as you see on bellow picture the angle between airduct and fuselage F-22 is well hidden from radar wave.

see, how could radar wave reach the angle/corner of the airduct with fuselage - and bounce back to the sender if the corner is very well hidden.

So how does the pa-fa not apply? The pak-fa incorporates more curvature and less ‘angle’ shaping (faceting) than the J-20. The J-20 incorporates faceting all along its fuselage, the pak-fa incorporates curvature.

the curvature on pakfa is less continuous then create some angles.

I dont see much angle on J-20's body as J-20 apply more continuous cuvature.

So, what about when the F-22 is inverted with its vertical stabilizers and curved canopy pointing strait down? Clearly your argument holds no weight.

Of course the bigger RCS of the top side F-22 will be exposed to ground radar when it get inverted. But why F-22 need to get inverted during its penetration into enemy territory?

Explain for the readers how the F-117 with its countless exposed corners evaded radar. What you are saying violates everything that we know. The pak-fa’s fuselage incorporated curvature as well as some faceting, and if an aircraft such as the F-22 or F-35 can perform a role and still evade radar than how would the pak-fa simply ‘reflect radar’ if it is based on the same principles?

You are wrong, there is not much corner on F-117 surface, as the facet of the surface create very wide angle (above 180 degree) just like diamonds. This faceted wide angle as the matter of fact scatter radar wave, then minimize the radar wave bounced back to the origin.

On the other way round there are many corner / sharp angle on PAKFA that potential to send back radar wave adequately to its origin.

Facet Diamonds, no sharp corner

F-117 facet shape on the top, minimize sharp angle, scatter radar wave; the bottom is flat, deflect radar wave from ground.

Sharper angles and gaps with greater potential to reflect ground radar wave back to origin could be found on the bottom side of PAKFA

 

[j20blackdragon]

And as explained before the framed canopy means nothing, it is just an extra junction to deal with. The pak-fa may have a framed canopy but unlike the J-20 it does not have an air brake. So how is an addition of an airbrake excluded? Both an airbrake and a canopy have a junction and ultimately that is what it is about.

The airbrake is obviously serrated.

And please spare everyone the ‘gaps’ nonsense, the pak-fa has the same gaps that are on the F-22 and if the F-22 is said to have the RCS of a marble than it is safe to say that gaps are not contributors. And how can they be if they are specifically designed to avoid specular reflection? Case in point you have nothing to back your claim.

This propagandist is now saying gaps are stealthy. He's just making stuff up as he goes along.