Russian Fifth-Generation Fighter to Exceed Rivals

[below_freezing]

More precisely just how many PhDs are Chinese . In the research center that I worked during the summer Chinese was the second most commonly spoken language, after Chinglish.

yes, i am amazed at how often mere bachelors degrees from the US (or even in the case of gambit, a high school diploma holder) would think they're superior to MSs and PhDs, who have done cutting edge research and published articles in their field.

its like some associate army paramedic trainee say he's superior to a neurosurgeon.

 

[amalakas]

yes, i am amazed at how often mere bachelors degrees from the US (or even in the case of gambit, a high school diploma holder) would think they're superior to MSs and PhDs, who have done cutting edge research and published articles in their field.

its like some associate army paramedic trainee say he's superior to a neurosurgeon.

Sometimes PhD's are overated. Trust me.. I have one.

 

[Laughing_soldier]

we will get chinese advanced fifth generation fighter j-xx.

 

[below_freezing]

Sometimes PhD's are overated. Trust me.. I have one.

what do you have it in? my father has one in physical and materials chemistry with work on phizoelectric ceramics... supposedly a project sponsored by Wuhan Shipbuilding for submarine sonars.

 

[Tang0]

so you're a US bachelor's in engineering? know how many PHDs are out there? what do you want, a medal or something?

Nope, if you read the post: an explanation. The mention of the engineering degree was to make the point that you need not avoid advanced math. I am not an idiot, there are millions of engineers the world over, who are also not idiots. I was merely saying, if Gambit's supposed lack of an advanced degree made his insight irrelevant, ChinaOwnsEverything was welcome to try to give a more thorough explanation to a "Better Educated" (Only by his own admission) doubter.


ChinaOwnsEverything might be very well educated, but he said a bunch of stuff that was wrong, and then refused to back down. Which makes you sound at the very least bullheaded and dishonest, if not downright stupid.

Bringing up the culture stuff was mostly a satirical response to certain member of the forum, and the boasting done in Chinese/DPRK military propaganda.
Many of my professors back in the day were Chinese, and many of my friends and coworkers are of Chinese descent. In general, from what little I have seen in the US, those educated in China make excellent engineers, although they are not very big on innovation. Generalization and stereotyping could go on from here, but it is outside the scope of the conversation, and really not important, so I will leave it at that.

 

[siegecrossbow]

In general, from what little I have seen in the US, those educated in China make excellent engineers, although they are not very big on innovation. Generalization and stereotyping could go on from here, but it is outside the scope of the conversation, and really not important, so I will leave it at that.

Do you know the difference between an engineer and a technician?

An engineer, for your information, is someone who has extensive understanding of theories. Those are the guys who help design circuits or processes because they spent 10-20 f-ing years in Universities studying day and night while the frat boys partied day and night. A technician is someone who are less knowledgeable (with a basic understanding, of course) who listens to what the Engineers tell them and perform all the grunt works in a laboratory (undergrads like me are going to be doing that until we get into grad schools).

Thank you for insulting my profession .

 

[gambit]

I know that it is conical, but in reality that cone is extremely large compared to the object that it is locating. So relative to the object the waves will be straight lines. Just like how relative to the size of a human the face of the earth is flat.

The reason you can make that kind of blanket assertion, which I deliberately led you into making, is that you know nothing about radar detection other than what you can scrambled up from your paywalled sources, which you do not understand anyway. Radar antennas are not universal in dimensions and SHAPES. Some are wider than they are tall. In this case, azimuth beamwidth is narrower than elevation beamwidth.

Radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most 2D surveillance radars use a spoiled parabolic antenna with a narrow azimuthal beamwidth and wide vertical beamwidth. This beam configuration allows the radar operator to detect an aircraft at a specific azimuth but at an indeterminate height. Conversely, so-called "nodder" height finding radars use a dish with a narrow vertical beamwidth and wide azimuthal beamwidth to detect an aircraft at a specific height but with low azimuthal precision.

In other words, beamshapes depends on antenna shapes, they are not always conical.

Definition: radar resolution cell

The volume of space that is occupied by a radar pulse and that is determined by the pulse duration and the horizontal and vertical beamwidths of the transmitting radar. Note: The radar cannot distinguish between two separate objects that lie within the same resolution cell.

I mentioned this before here and now you can learn another new thing from me. If the radar cannot distinguish two objects inside a cell, then yes, the beam is large enough to encompass two or more objects. But the fact that we can distinguish multiple objects inside a cell means that such distinction depends on target distance. Cell depth do not increase with distance but cell dimensions do. So for you to make that comment mean one thing, that you do not know of the complex relationship between 3 major elements: antenna dimensions, antenna shape and transmit frequency.

Attacking strawman again are we? I never claimed that creeping wave only existed on spherical bodies.

I posted that for the readers' benefits so they can see where you are wrong.

Creeping wave only applies to surface waves, they are not independent of each other

Of course they are. If surface wave can exist without creeping wave, they are independent of each other.

Again you don't seem to realize how radars work, the radar only sees the waves that comes back to it. I have stated before that when a surface wave creeps around the object that it loses most of its energy, this energy is conserved by leaky waves. These leaky waves will never make it back to the receptor due to low energy and wrong orientation.

I understand how radar works better than you do -- 21 yrs worth -- in and out of the military.

I already explained to you in my nicely drawn pictures why creeping wave appears to come from behind the actual object. Because the wave that ends up making it back to the receptor due to having the proper orientation having traversed around the object and thus reversing its direction the lower energy signature that it carries implies that the object is further away.

Am going to explain the truth in better terminologies so people can see how you are wrong. But first...

Attenuation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In physics, attenuation (in some contexts also called extinction) is the gradual loss in intensity of any kind of flux through a medium. For instance, sunlight is attenuated by dark glasses, X-rays are attenuated by lead, and light and sound are attenuated while passing through seawater.

Attenuation: A loss of intensity. Or loss of energy to simplify it some.

On a curve, there is a relationship between the curve's radius and the creeping wave's energy loss, aka attenuation. As the radius decreases, attenuation increases. The greater the radius, the less energy loss for the creeping wave. This is why a creeping wave does not exist, or cannot exist, on a planar but a surface wave can, assuming the incident angle is other than perpendicular. We know that surface and creeping wave create leaky wave. So if a spheroid's diamter is sufficiently large, both SW and CW will completely attenuate before they are able to completely traverse the circumference. Their energy loss via leaky waves can, not must, create a false target spatial location. An aircraft is a complex body and in a head- or tail-on radar collision, the aircraft offers zero odds of any surface wave traveling the upper, over the end and under the body.

Now...There is another conducting body versus traveling wave relationship that involve magnetic and electrical fields that will make you look equally silly as everything else so far but I will leave it out for now.

 

[gambit]

ChinaOwnsEverything might be very well educated, but he said a bunch of stuff that was wrong, and then refused to back down. Which makes you sound at the very least bullheaded and dishonest, if not downright stupid.

Anyone who has spent time in front of a group of people, either in a classroom environment, or in a field training condition, can recognize when an 'explanation' is theoretically wrong or when it is (overly)simplified for a specific audience. This guy's arguments are wrong enough in many areas that from the language he used, I can tell that those arguments were hobbled together from data mining his paywalled sources.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Anyone who has spent time in front of a group of people, either in a classroom environment, or in a field training condition, can recognize when an 'explanation' is theoretically wrong or when it is (overly)simplified for a specific audience. This guy's arguments are wrong enough in many areas that from the language he used, I can tell that those arguments were hobbled together from data mining his paywalled sources.

Yet you, the educated one, chooses to answer/debunk the poor fellow's every point. You must have done that out of the goodness of your heart .

 

[Tang0]

Do you know the difference between an engineer and a technician?

An engineer, for your information, is someone who has extensive understanding of theories. Those are the guys who help design circuits or processes because they spent 10-20 f-ing years in Universities studying day and night while the frat boys partied day and night. A technician is someone who are less knowledgeable (with a basic understanding, of course) who listens to what the Engineers tell them and perform all the grunt works in a laboratory (undergrads like me are going to be doing that until we get into grad schools).

Thank you for insulting my profession .

Yes actually, I do know the difference between an engineer and a technician. My degree says engineer...So for the benifit of my Alma Mater, I hope I do...
And actually, you can be an excellent engineer without being "Innovative", in the strictest sense. Was the 486 a better processor than the 386? Certainly. Did it require mountains of new "Innovation" to produce? I don't know for certain, but probably not. You can spot inefficiency without being an "Innovator", you can apply equations correctly without being an "Innovator". You can interpret lab results from an experiment preformed by a technician without being an "Innovator". Innovator does not strictly mean quantitative problem solver in my mind. Engineer in my mind is simply someone who designs things or solves problems using quantitative methods.

The majority of problems don't require brilliant new ideas to solve, just the correct application of existing principles.

Note that there is some linguistic vagueness in the English term for innovator. It can be anywhere from"inventor" (As in total new idea), to just finding a good hack or application of an existing tool. I use the term to mean Inventive. Hence my characterization of Chinese Engineers as good engineers, but not big on innovation. I also point out that it is a massive generalization, and it would be easy to point to counterexamples.

This is all semantics (What does "Big on Innovation" mean?), and circular at that, so after this post I am done heading down this path.

Again, beyond the scope of the conversation, but you know as well as I do the stigma against standing out/going against convention in East Asian cultures. As a friend from South Korea once told me.."The nail that sticks up gets hammered down first."

 

[Tang0]

Also, off topic, but important to note. Most of the top level design work at places like LM and Boeing is not done by people with PHD's, but by people with Bachelors and Masters who have spent 20+ years in the industry and can bring together very desperate ideas from different fields..IE, not super-specialist who spent 10 years in a lab working on fluid dynamics/RCS/Whatever. Those people stay in Academia, and if they are very good, make a bunch of money consulting for companies like Boeing and LM when the right time rolls around.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Also, off topic, but important to note. Most of the top level design work at places like LM and Boeing is not done by people with PHD's, but by people with Bachelors and Masters who have spent 20+ years in the industry and can bring together very desperate ideas from different fields..IE, not super-specialist who spent 10 years in a lab working on fluid dynamics/RCS/Whatever. Those people stay in Academia, and if they are very good, make a bunch of money consulting for companies like Boeing and LM when the right time rolls around.

You seem have more knowledge about the engineering field than I do. My apologies for my rash statements.

 

[Tang0]

You seem have more knowledge about the engineering field than I do. My apologies for my rash statements.

Eh, I brought it on my own head. First multi-layered sarcasm, which does not go down well for non-native English speakers, and then generalization and pop psychology, which is just silly to bring up if you are not drunk.

As for knowing more, eh, not really. I had some relatives at the top end of Aerospace back in the 60's and 70's, listened to my professors gossip about who was rolling in the dough from grant money or consulting, and generally talk shop with friends who got jobs in big aerospace. Course, most of them won't say precisely what they are doing, but they drop hints. Me, I am on the mundane side. Or well, probably not any more mundane, but nobody makes me sign more than the usual number of Non-Disclosure agreements.

 

[amalakas]

what do you have it in? my father has one in physical and materials chemistry with work on phizoelectric ceramics... supposedly a project sponsored by Wuhan Shipbuilding for submarine sonars.

Autonomous Robotics and Machine learning.

 

[no_name]

Not digging at anyone but PhDs are like bachelors, there are good ones and so-so ones.

Actually the same can be said of just about any titles.