The clearest J-20 pictures.

[amalakas]

I am sorry, but your saying as above only reinforces that you and your fellow like delusion instead the truth.

he is not my friend.
and the only thing it reinforces is that some people have brains, and some not.

 

[gambit]

I have.
In fact you are demonstrating idiocy if you cannot distinguish "round shape" vs curvature.

No. Neither you and your friend have a clue of what you are talking about.

A radar signal does not see the complete diameter. It see only the 'specular' reflection and that reflection is produced by a curvature. As for the creeping wave behavior, it does not occur if the diameter is greater than 10 wavelengths. If the diameter is less than 10 wavelengths, the creeping wave behavior will occur and will wraps around the diameter repeatedly and produces alternately constructive and destructive interference and that give us that undulating signal in the middle section of the graph.

So the true idiot here is YOU for intruding into an area you have no experience whatsoever. You cannot even lie good about your past claimed aviation experience.

Again, as I said: "self claiming and empty word are useless, the content and logic of your statement that counts"

Speak for yourself.

Even the expert Carlo Kopp himself said that by seeing the shape of J-20 (and PAKFA), he suggest that J-20 will be stealthier than PAKFA

Doesn't immune from being a liar doesn't mean that he is automatically a liar or lie in every statement of his. You are playing with "Logical Fallacy" here. You need evidence before you accuse someone of being lying, otherwise people will consider you as a slanderer.

I did not accuse Kopp of lying. I said the APA report is misleading. You can tell a truth and still be deceitful. So whatever Kopp 'suggest' he have no evidence. That is why he only speculate and it is you and your friends who have taken what he said as fact when it is not.

 

[Esc8781]

I am sorry, but your saying as above only reinforces that you and your fellow like delusion instead the truth.

Go on f-16.net and argue with the professionals you won't know a word that they are talking about stealth.

 

[antonius123]

No. Neither you and your friend have a clue of what you are talking about.

A radar signal does not see the complete diameter. It see only the 'specular' reflection and that reflection is produced by a curvature. As for the creeping wave behavior, it does not occur if the diameter is greater than 10 wavelengths. If the diameter is less than 10 wavelengths, the creeping wave behavior will occur and will wraps around the diameter repeatedly and produces alternately constructive and destructive interference and that give us that undulating signal in the middle section of the graph.

So the true idiot here is YOU for intruding into an area you have no experience whatsoever. You cannot even lie good about your past claimed aviation experience.

You are becoming funnier and funnier.

Nobody talk or argue about creeping wave behavior on cylinder shape, why are you dragging it now? remember you claim that there was no round shape on PAKFA - it was curvature, right? now I challenge your claim as you proclaim your self as aviation and semantic expert

You are also inconsistent with your own argument, first you are playing with semantic with round shape, then it is obvious you also can not distinguish "round shape" vs curvature as you cannot response the my question/challenge, then now you are dragging creeping wave behavior. Are you able to accept that there is round shape on PAKFA now?

So hilarious

Speak for yourself.

In fact I bring reference to back my relevant argument, while in the other way round you dont! except dragging other irrelevant topic.

I did not accuse Kopp of lying. I said the APA report is misleading. You can tell a truth and still be deceitful. So whatever Kopp 'suggest' he have no evidence. That is why he only speculate and it is you and your friends who have taken what he said as fact when it is not.

In fact it is you who is misleading here.

Nobody said I, Martian, and Kopp know the real truth, as we know all the data of J-20 should be classified.

We are talking about "analysis"/suggestion, judging from the shape. The relevant evidence is the visible shape itself.

If you could not accept Kopp suggestion/analysis it means you have no competence / sufficient knowledge here

he is not my friend.
and the only thing it reinforces is that some people have brains, and some not.

Please bring valuable argument; I dont serve cheer leader here

Go on f-16.net and argue with the professionals you won't know a word that they are talking about stealth.

Why can't I or other people say the same thing about you?

 

[gambit]

You are becoming funnier and funnier.

Nobody talk or argue about creeping wave behavior on cylinder shape, why are you dragging it now? remember you claim that there was no round shape on PAKFA - it was curvature, right? now I challenge your claim as you proclaim your self as aviation and semantic expert

You are also inconsistent with your own argument, first you are playing with semantic with round shape, then it is obvious you also can not distinguish "round shape" vs curvature as you cannot response the my question/challenge, then now you are dragging creeping wave behavior. Are you able to accept that there is round shape on PAKFA now?

So hilarious

What is hilarious is still YOU.

Did you not tried to shut the Indians up by saying you have aviation experience? Then when asked, you retreated to 'study'. Then when asked which area of 'study' you ran. If you have specific aviation experience in the field of radar detection, you would know IMMEDIATELY what I was talking about. You are busted as a fraud a long time ago.

Nobody said I, Martian, and Kopp know the real truth, as we know all the data of J-20 should be classified.

We are talking about "analysis"/suggestion, judging from the shape. The relevant evidence is the visible shape itself.

If you could not accept Kopp suggestion/analysis it means you have no competence / sufficient knowledge here

And that mean whatever Kopp brought on is candidate for criticism.

So tell me, if you have aviation experience, even of a 'study' which we do not know which area, who said this...

That alone demolished whatever Kopp said.

 

[Esc8781]

What is hilarious is still YOU.

Did you not tried to shut the Indians up by saying you have aviation experience? Then when asked, you retreated to 'study'. Then when asked which area of 'study' you ran. If you have specific aviation experience in the field of radar detection, you would know IMMEDIATELY what I was talking about. You are busted as a fraud a long time ago.


And that mean whatever Kopp brought on is candidate for criticism.

So tell me, if you have aviation experience, even of a 'study' which we do not know which area, who said this...

That alone demolished whatever Kopp said.

Just ignore him.

 

[amalakas]

So tell me, if you have aviation experience, even of a 'study' which we do not know which area, who said this...

That alone demolished whatever Kopp said.

Fat chance there.

You are becoming funnier and funnier...........

Strange this coming from you.

right, mr aviation experience. what is the following equation and what do we use it for?

I am sure you will take your time to tell us.

now Kopp does what he does and it is up to you do understand.

PO have severe limitations

-it obtains only reflection from surfaces, but not diffraction at wedges
-it fails for wide non specular angles
-it has no dependance on polarization
-it results false shadow boundary contributions because of the artificial boundary between illuminated and shadow regions.


don't take my word for it, go read "Radar Cross Section", E.F. Knot et al., Artech House, Inc. 1985..

it is an essential reading for those who really have something to do with the field.

 

[antonius123]

What is hilarious is still YOU.

Did you not tried to shut the Indians up by saying you have aviation experience? Then when asked, you retreated to 'study'. Then when asked which area of 'study' you ran. If you have specific aviation experience in the field of radar detection, you would know IMMEDIATELY what I was talking about. You are busted as a fraud a long time ago.

Why are you dragging another irrelevant debate? are you trying to escape from the topic that embarrass you? My study has nothing to do with this debate. If you claim your study makes you an expert, then why none of the real credible experts agree with your opinion?

You haven't answer my challenge againts your claims.

And that mean whatever Kopp brought on is candidate for criticism.

So tell me, if you have aviation experience, even of a 'study' which we do not know which area, who said this...

That alone demolished whatever Kopp said.

Tell me why you think that demolish Kopp argument?

You have no credibility to challenge Kopp. Hi is admitted as expert by prominent institutions - while you are only an internet troller who is trying to impress your clueless fellows by dragging arbitrary article in internet

We have seen your incompetency in various threats especially this one; including your bad habit in escaping and run away from the topic by bringing irrelevant issue.

Instead trolling and dragging another topic in order to escape or impress your fellow, why don't you finish your effort in explaining about why you think round shape is = curvature? that is very fundamental and one of good explanation why Kopp suggest PAKFA is less stealthy than J-20.

Also there are many article in internet explaining why exposed fan blade (one of the PAKFA's feature) should be much detrimental to rcs. You should understand that basic first before challenge Kopp.

Fat chance there.


Strange this coming from you.

right, mr aviation experience. what is the following equation and what do we use it for?

I am sure you will take your time to tell us.

now Kopp does what he does and it is up to you do understand.

PO have severe limitations

-it obtains only reflection from surfaces, but not diffraction at wedges
-it fails for wide non specular angles
-it has no dependance on polarization
-it results false shadow boundary contributions because of the artificial boundary between illuminated and shadow regions.


don't take my word for it, go read "Radar Cross Section", E.F. Knot et al., Artech House, Inc. 1985..

it is an essential reading for those who really have something to do with the field.

Tell me why you think that will demolish Kopp suggestion? and who is the expert that use that issue to criticize Kopp statement?

 

[antonius123]

Just ignore him.

OK cheer leader...

Your master has failed in his effort to escape my challenge by dragging "Creeping Wave Behavior" issue, and after that failure now he is trying to drag other issues: "my study" and "Keller Geometrical Theory". But you forget or ignore the fact that your master is still unable to answer my challenge and defend his claim about "round shape = curvature" LOL

 

[Esc8781]

OK cheer leader...

Your master has failed in his effort to escape my challenge by dragging "Creeping Wave Behavior" issue, and after that failure now he is trying to drag other issues: "my study" and "Keller Geometrical Theory". But you forget or ignore the fact that your master is still unable to answer my challenge and defend his claim about "round shape = curvature" LOL

OK you win whateves. I don't care anymore, plus why don't you ignore him too, problem solved.

 

[amalakas]

Why are you dragging another irrelevant debate? are you trying to escape from the topic that embarrass you? My study has nothing to do with this debate. If you claim your study makes you an expert, then why none of the real credible experts agree with your opinion?

You haven't answer my challenge againts your claims.




Tell me why you think that demolish Kopp argument?

You have no credibility to challenge Kopp. Hi is admitted as expert by prominent institutions - while you are only an internet troller who is trying to impress your clueless fellows by dragging arbitrary article in internet

We have seen your incompetency in various threats especially this one; including your bad habit in escaping and run away from the topic by bringing irrelevant issue.

Instead trolling and dragging another topic in order to escape or impress your fellow, why don't you finish your effort in explaining about why you think round shape is = curvature? that is very fundamental and one of good explanation why Kopp suggest PAKFA is less stealthy than J-20.

Also there are many article in internet explaining why exposed fan blade (one of the PAKFA's feature) should be much detrimental to rcs. You should understand that basic first before challenge Kopp.



Tell me why you think that will demolish Kopp suggestion? and who is the expert that use that issue to criticize Kopp statement?

what does that even mean? Do you even read what we post?

 

[antonius123]

what does that even mean? Do you even read what we post?

Do read my post and you follow the debate?

 

[amalakas]

Do read my post and you follow the debate?

oh I remember you now, you are the one who likes to play with words and never really answers to anything.

 

[GR!FF!N]

oh I remember you now, you are the one who likes to play with words and never really answers to anything.

he didn't post a single scientific proof...he is just playing with you guys..ignore him..

 

[Esc8781]

he didn't post a single scientific proof...he is just playing with you guys..ignore him..

Exactly, man I realized that hours ago! he should see http://www.helitavia.com/skolnik/Skolnik_chapter_11.pdf