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

[antonius123]

Then, now what you are doing.

I am comparing china and india, because you and your friend keep downplaying chinese glaring technological achievements.

 

[kingkobra]

I am comparing china and india, because you and your friend keep downplaying chinese glaring technological achievements.

ok dude we Indians admire china for whatever they have achieved but this thread is not about why India does not admire china..it is about how china copied russian technology blatantly...so if you have anything to say about that then please contribute otherwise quit trolling...

 

[chanikya]

I am comparing china and india, because you and your friend keep downplaying chinese glaring technological achievements.

Read your post properly, you are not commenting. And it is India which supports you not China.

 

[ptldM3]

Could you explain how the compressor of the Pakfa will eventually be covered?

Radar blocker, you know those things the F-117 used and those thing the Silent Eagle uses.

Btw exposed compressor blade is only 1 thing from several other things that do not favor PAKFA's stealth when compared to J-20. There are many other things as explained in our friend's picture as follow:

How Russia will handle those things?

I see you have fallen for Martian’s crap. Most of the things highlighted in that picture is nothing more than an attempt to smear the pak-fa. Many of those features such as ‘metal canopy’ are also seen aircraft such as the B-2. Other things such as ‘round shaped reflectors’ only highlight the ignorance of Martian, the entire B-2 has a round fuselage. Further the gaps between the intake and fuselage are also found on the F-22. Next comments such as ‘uneven height of fuselage reflect radar’ should be taken with skepticism, if that were true than the F-117 and F-22 would be seen on radar when they bank or are inverted.

If anyone takes that picture literally then they are simple stupid.


The J-20 also has multiple potential problems but since I am not a jealous Chinese chest thumper I usually do not speak about it. These problems include the canards which radiate EM from the effects of edge diffraction. A large cross section from the side profile including the addition of tails fins, round LERX, and even worse curved round protrusions than the pak-fa under the fuselage.

I don't see any gap between airduct of the F-22. Could you show it?

How will you see gaps between the intake and fuselage if you are looking at the rear of the aircraft? Look at the space between the intake and fuselage, from the front.



As for J-20mightdrag-qeeen stop posting those picture of that toy, it has nothing to do with the subject.

 

[artaxerces]

The Soviets gave us massive amounts of help in setting up our own defense industrial base, and I think we should be expressing a bit more gratitude. I don't think Chinese members here should be bashing Russia. The Russians are our allies, and it's in our interest to be on good working terms with Russia.

The Russians are bitter because we copied some of their technology without paying them the appropriate licensing fees. That is just an unfortunate fact of life. And since all countries(including the Russians) copy mil tech when it serves their interests, the morality of this is ultimately irrelevant.

We are the world's 5th largest weapons exporter right now. We want to be #1, and we need to get the technologies by any and all means necessary to become #1.

 

[ptldM3]

The Soviets gave us massive amounts of help in setting up our own defense industrial base, and I think we should be expressing a bit more gratitude. I don't think Chinese members here should be bashing Russia. The Russians are our allies, and it's in our interest to be on good working terms with Russia.

It's two things, China's success has gone to their heads with chest thumping coming easy. They are also ignorant in 99% of anything technical, so they just feed off of misinformation--garbage in garbage out. There are some very reasonable Chinese members on this forum, the ones that insult Russia are the well know racists.

 

[Zabaniyah]

Russia refuses to sell Nimitz Aircraft Carrier and space shuttle to China because they don't have them either.

Isn't that a better title than the arrester/Su-35 nonsense discussion?

What is the point of this thread?

Just how did Russia ever acquire a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier? Since when did the US start exporting nuclear powered aircraft carriers? To Russia? Man, that just sounds insane

And a Russian space-shuttle? Last time I checked, they only had the Buran which was decommissioned ten years ago.

I find it hard to believe that this lasted six pages. And some people here seriously believed that the deal was real

The Chinese government officially denied it the Su-35 deal. Did you just create this thread to give the Indians a false sense of hope?

Let's not make fun of Russia here. We all have a lot to owe to The Bear

 

[antonius123]

Radar blocker, you know those things the F-117 used and those thing the Silent Eagle uses.

I heard this kind of radar blocker reduce engine performance, thats why the blocker is abandoned in the next stealth aircraft design (except PAKFA ?)

I see you have fallen for Martian’s crap. Most of the things highlighted in that picture is nothing more than an attempt to smear the pak-fa. Many of those features such as ‘metal canopy’ are also seen aircraft such as the B-2. Other things such as ‘round shaped reflectors’ only highlight the ignorance of Martian, the entire B-2 has a round fuselage. Further the gaps between the intake and fuselage are also found on the F-22. Next comments such as ‘uneven height of fuselage reflect radar’ should be taken with skepticism, if that were true than the F-117 and F-22 would be seen on radar when they bank or are inverted.

If anyone takes that picture literally then they are simple stupid.

OK, but we could not use steatlh bomber like B-2 as benchmark for stealth air fighter, because as we know that stealth bomber come up with much bigger RCS than F-22.

Besides B-2 fuselage is not that round, and it is blended and covered by the wing therefore doesn't reflect radar wave coming from the ground.

The J-20 also has multiple potential problems but since I am not a jealous Chinese chest thumper I usually do not speak about it. These problems include the canards which radiate EM from the effects of edge diffraction. A large cross section from the side profile including the addition of tails fins, round LERX, and even worse curved round protrusions than the pak-fa under the fuselage.

Except canard, i dont think other factors you mentioned is much significant for RCS contribution.

How will you see gaps between the intake and fuselage if you are looking at the rear of the aircraft? Look at the space between the intake and fuselage, from the front.

This is the front side of F-22.
I don't see significant gap as exist with PAKFA.

 

[antonius123]

ok dude we Indians admire china for whatever they have achieved but this thread is not about why India does not admire china..it is about how china copied russian technology blatantly...so if you have anything to say about that then please contribute otherwise quit trolling...

I don't see this thread is about as you said, besides I only responded to your friend that keep downplaying chinese technological achievement.

 

[ptldM3]

I heard this kind of radar blocker reduce engine performance, thats why the blocker is abandoned in the next stealth aircraft design (except PAKFA ?)

The F-117 has reduced airflow, the radar blockers on the Silent Eagles and Super Hornet do not seem to have the same issues. The radar blocker on the pak-fa is yet to be seen.

OK, but we could not use steatlh bomber like B-2 as benchmark for stealth air fighter, because as we know that stealth bomber come up with much bigger RCS than F-22.

That is not true, The F-22 has a much smaller RCS compared to the smaller F-35. The B-2 has some clever features such as no vertical stabilizers to reduce RCS.

Besides B-2 fuselage is not that round, and it is blended and covered by the wing therefore doesn't reflect radar wave coming from the ground.

It is very round you are just viewing it at a wrong angle, take a look:



http://www.airforceworld.com/bomber/gfx/b2/b2_10.jpg


There is no principle that says you can not have curvature. In fact it is heavily used in aircraft such as the F-35 and to some extent the F-22 such as rear fuselage. But again, the question comes down to secular reflection and why aircraft such as the F-22 and F117 were never effected by it when they banked or were inverted. Remember, the F-22 has a bubble canopy as well as curvature around the engines, and when it banks or is inverted its flat fuselage is irrelevant since ground based radars looking at an inverted aircraft and not one in level flight.

Except canard, I dont think other factors you mentioned is much significant for RCS contribution.

The picture you posted contradicts that statement, Martian’s picture tried to claim that the pak-fa has more specular reflection from the side because its fuselage sits higher, but that is not relivant what is relivant is how much physical surfaces are there to cause this specular reflection. Remember the J-20 has a much thicker fuselage and an adition of large tail fins, so if you disagree with me then how do you agree with the picture you posted?

This is the front side of F-22.
I don't see significant gap as exist with PAKFA.

How does that make sense? The pak-fa’s intake is semi receded, meaning there is less of a gap running down the fuselage because the rest of the intake is hanging underneath the fuselage. Moreover, the size of the gap is approximately the same width.

 

[gambit]

OK, but we could not use steatlh bomber like B-2 as benchmark for stealth air fighter, because as we know that stealth bomber come up with much bigger RCS than F-22.

No, 'we' do not. The US is unlikely to release the true RCS figures of our 'stealth' aircrafts anytime soon, and more like when the F-22 is obsolete. Keep in mind that the F-117's RCS is still unknown and that is because it is STILL the standard for which we hold all 'stealth' aircrafts against. Present and future.

Besides B-2 fuselage is not that round, and it is blended and covered by the wing therefore doesn't reflect radar wave coming from the ground.

The B-2 is a flying wing design, so you can look at it this way:

- Either the wing is the fuselage.
- Or the B-2 does not have a fuselage.

It depends on which area of the aviation community you come from.

Except canard, i dont think other factors you mentioned is much significant for RCS contribution.

The same can be argued for the PAK.

So what are you trying to prove? Did i ever say i was born in Vladivostok? No, in fact you pulled up an old quote were i said i was born outside the city.

So besides looking like a fool in front of everyone what was your point? Because you contradicted yourself. And i was not born on a farm smarty.

Its also none of your business where i was born or my ethnicity.

I ignored this racist prick a long time ago. The man does not have anything worthwhile to contribute anyway.

 

[DrSomnath999]

I ignored this racist prick a long time ago. The man does not have anything worthwhile to contribute anyway.

he has only i thing to contribute i.e TROLLING

 

[antonius123]

The F-117 has reduced airflow, the radar blockers on the Silent Eagles and Super Hornet do not seem to have the same issues. The radar blocker on the pak-fa is yet to be seen.

OK, but the cause of the reduced engine performance is "the radar blocker" itself;

See this explanation:

The F-117 also makes use of special screens on the engine inlets that block radar waves from reaching these surfaces. However, these screens are difficult to design because of their adverse impact on engine performance and have been abandoned in later stealth aircraft. More recent stealth designs use S-ducted inlets that bend off center to hide the blades from being seen.
Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Stealth Technology

That is not true, The F-22 has a much smaller RCS compared to the smaller F-35. The B-2 has some clever features such as no vertical stabilizers to reduce RCS.

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.

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.

It is very round you are just viewing it at a wrong angle, take a look:

http://www.airforceworld.com/bomber/gfx/b2/b2_10.jpg

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.

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.

There is no principle that says you can not have curvature. In fact it is heavily used in aircraft such as the F-35 and to some extent the F-22 such as rear fuselage. But again, the question comes down to secular reflection and why aircraft such as the F-22 and F117 were never effected by it when they banked or were inverted. Remember, the F-22 has a bubble canopy as well as curvature around the engines, and when it banks or is inverted its flat fuselage is irrelevant since ground based radars looking at an inverted aircraft and not one in level flight.

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

For bomber like B-2 the flat bottom of / wing blended fuselage and metal frame canopy is still very relevant because it doesnt bank or inverted like fighter plane. Thats why I said we cant use bomber for the air fighter benchmark.

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.

The picture you posted contradicts that statement, Martian’s picture tried to claim that the pak-fa has more specular reflection from the side because its fuselage sits higher, but that is not relivant what is relivant is how much physical surfaces are there to cause this specular reflection. Remember the J-20 has a much thicker fuselage and an adition of large tail fins, so if you disagree with me then how do you agree with the picture you posted?

By putting fuselage higher + bigger gap between fuselage and airduct, it will create bigger surface and exposed angle that will reflect radar wave greater. Angle shape is minimized in F-22//J-20/F-35/B-2 by applying continuous curvature.

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

How does that make sense? The pak-fa’s intake is semi receded, meaning there is less of a gap running down the fuselage because the rest of the intake is hanging underneath the fuselage. Moreover, the size of the gap is approximately the same width.

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

On the other way round the corner/angle of the fuselage with airduct on F-22 is not exposed, then will not send back the reflected radar wave.

 

[antonius123]

No, 'we' do not. The US is unlikely to release the true RCS figures of our 'stealth' aircrafts anytime soon, and more like when the F-22 is obsolete. Keep in mind that the F-117's RCS is still unknown and that is because it is STILL the standard for which we hold all 'stealth' aircrafts against. Present and future.

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.

The B-2 is a flying wing design, so you can look at it this way:

- Either the wing is the fuselage.
- Or the B-2 does not have a fuselage.

It depends on which area of the aviation community you come from.

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)

The same can be argued for the PAK.

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

 

[GURU DUTT]

But sir my humble quaeree is the thread is.... Russia refuses to sell Nimitz Aircraft Carrier and space shuttle to Chi ??????

but but but when did Russia made nimitz class aircraft carrier cause last i checked it was build bu American's??????

http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rc...0NC8Bw&usg=AFQjCNG2OYSJ0my-oZCYE86lrDhRJ57t-Q

to all the member's on this thread none of you guy's have answered my question in post #42...i ask it again ,,kindly some senior member reply...Thanks Again .