What's new

Top 10 future weapons of CHINA

Are you denying history that after the fall of the soviet union China recruited thousands of Soviet scientist to sped up their military advances, many of those scientist are still given honorary positions in China today? So you are basically going to deny all those facts as well, because it hurts your nationalistic pride that China receives plenty of outside help in their tech drive? What is so shameful is that you can't even admit the truth!

Well to be fair, the US also recruited, or more accurately, kidnapped most of the German Nazi scientist. Is is because of these Nazi scientist that the US is so technically advanced today in terms of military.

But you are clearly exaggerating things here. You seem to be very upset and maybe that has clouded your thinking?
 
.
The US also recruited many post-soviet scientists, they can pay these people to just sit in US rather than having them going over to China.
 
.
The US also recruited many post-soviet scientists, they can pay these people to just sit in US rather than having them going over to China.

I was under the impression that the U.S. was interested in the physicists and mathematicians.
 
.
There seems to be a general lack of knowledge of stealth principles and I think I will release a new video in the next few weeks to explain the differences among the J-20, F-22, F-35, and T-50. I suggest that people, who are overly nationalistic, should not watch it. It will be an objective and clinical discussion of the proper and improper application of stealth design principles for all four fighters.
And YOU are a member of that group. That is funny that you could say that considering what you learned of the basics of radar detection and rudimentary 'stealth' techniques came from me. And yes, I dare say that. But we will examine a couple of points of your arguments.

From my time in front of many groups, I know that the more colorful the charts, the less clarity the subject. Your kaleidoscope of the J-20 wrapped in many colors serves only to confuse the genuinely interested laymen and to awe the gullible. I will give the readers something more simple but much more clarifying to the basic principles that you do not know but lies about knowing.

We know that structurally speaking, the diverter inlet plate assembly is more complex than a DSI 'bump', however, your argument is clearly deceptive for those of us who know better...

(Note the J-20 air-inlet has been better integrated into the fuselage than the F-22's gap between the air-inlet and fuselage.)
China's J-20 is the new gold standard in front-profile stealth. The J-20 has both a serpentine air-duct and DSI bump to hide the engine compressor blades. Due to its older design, the F-22 lacks DSI bumps.

The simplistic implication here is that because the DSI system is allegedly 'newer' therefore the older diverter plates must be detrimental to the F-22's radar cross section (RCS).

Utter garbage...!!!

airliner_rcs_01.jpg


In as complex and spatially dynamic body as an aircraft where RCS control is paramount, the greatest contributors must receive the greatest attention and contributorship reduction treatments. That mean the fuselage, flight controls elements, external stores, and engines. Obviously we cannot eliminate the fuselage and today we still need flight control surfaces of varying sizes. When we can no longer treat them, either through shaping or other methods, we can then work our attention to lesser contributors gradually like the cockpit area, comm antennas, and so on.

From the airliner's RCS graph above, would it be worth it to turn out attention to the cockpit or the fuselage or anywhere else? No. That single vertical stab will overwhelm even the crudest video display of any other aircraft characteristics that may cluster with it. If its RCS contributorship cannot be reduced, not to zero, but to some reasonable degree, then it would be worthless to treat everything else on the aircraft to lower them below a certain threshold. That is like seeing a shark's dorsal fin moving above the surface but nothing else of the shark because of the water. Even in a frontal RCS view, the vertical stab's edge length can still be among the dominant contributors, if not the greatest.

So why does the J-20 has a DSI inlet system?

We know that diverterless supersonic inlet (DSI) system is not new. The F-111 has it and its DSI 'bumps' were moveable at that. We call them 'translating spikes'...

f-111_p-11_inlet_spikes.jpg


So if we know that the DSI system pre-dated 'stealth' we can rule out the absurd argument floating around that DSI was created as an RCS control method. Any RCS reduction for the engines due to the DSI inlets are purely incidental, meaning as a by-product, not because DSI was originally intended for 'stealth' and it can be reasonably argued that since there is a side benefit we should use it anyway.

We will now examine another bit of stupidity that ties in with the previous one...

I have two observations. Firstly, as shown in the spliced-photo above, I believe that I have been proven correct that the J-20 matches the F-22's frontal profile in stealth design.

You have proven nothing more than your argument is for the gullible and the stupid. But we are willing to humor you so assume -- JUST ASSUME FOR NOW -- that what you say is true despite the lack of credible data.

If the J-20 need the DSI system in order to match the F-22 in terms of frontal RCS then two possibilities are of note:

- That the J-20's frontal RCS must have been higher than the F-22 and that the DSI system was needed. This does not bodes well for China because it heavily imply that China does not have the technical expertise to match US.

- That despite the diverter plates structural complexity, the F-22's entire inlet system turned out to be far less significant RCS contributors than thought. It is not that difficult to reason out: That Lockheed shaped all the major contributors so well that lesser contributors do not need as much attention or even none at all.

Remember, this is based upon the very generous assumption that frontal RCS for both aircrafts are statistically insignificant in difference.

But what if we remove this assumption? For all we know, Lockheed could have found out that enlarging the F-22's inlet volume, or make the fuselage 'thicker' to accomodate more fuel, or make the fuselage wider to carry more weapons, actually increased frontal RCS than having those 'conventional' diverter plates. Removal of this generous assumption will make the F-22 the greater standard than it already is when compared to the J-20. We do not know. So for you to demand that we cannot judge 'stealth' based upon looks but YOURSELF do exactly just that is the delicious irony that we all enjoy at your expense. I do not care if both are shaped similar. What matter is credible technical data. For all we know, the J-20 may be 'out of shape' just enough to make more detectable than you want to admit. Do not tell me that I do not know the semantical and contextual differences between 'looks' and 'shapes'. I used to be in the industry, buddy.

From a stealth design perspective, there is no effective difference between placing two little winglets (i.e. canards) in front of the main wings or behind them (i.e. tailplanes).
That is technically false. This is real physics, not Chinese physics. All flight control elements are EM radiators (generators) and because real physics demands these signals interact with each other their positions on a complex body matter. The canards' diffracted signals will interact with the wings and fuselage creating higher odds of detection.

And finally, the J-20's DSI 'bumps' are not detrimental to RCS but the F-35's various 'bumps' are. Must be Chinese physics. :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 08:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:22 PM ----------

Put a quark in it, many of the thanks you receive are nothing more than a mutual suck-up fest. Post a picture receive 10 tanks. Post something like long live China Pakistan friendship receive 10 more thanks.
It really is sad that the man must resort to this low level of narcissism where he has to reinforce his ego by boasting about those mostly worthless 'Thanks' for mostly useless posts.
 
.
Gambit:

Can you comment on the limitations of physical optics theory applied to RCS measurement for the J-20?

Would changing to hardcore computational EM approaches significantly change the "answer"?

If not, then why can't we use the much simpler physical optics theory?
 
.
Gambit:

Can you comment on the limitations of physical optics theory applied to RCS measurement for the J-20?

Would changing to hardcore computational EM approaches significantly change the "answer"?

If not, then why can't we use the much simpler physical optics theory?
Your fellow Chinese countrymen commented about the limitations of PO back on post 76 page 6.
 
.
When it comes to stealth, you can't use "looks" as a standard. The fighter-concept drawing is flawed. The nose is round. That is not stealthy. It needs a "shaped nose" like a duck-bill with a chine/ridge line.
You are correct and am willing to give you that. However, you are correct in that you guessed based upon how older designs 'looks'. There is a difference between being correct from guesses and being correct based upon knowledge. Am willing to bet you do not know why a 'round nose' is less desirable than a 'non-round nose'. By the way, good luck on trying to find the answer on the Internet. You will need it. The answer is based upon an understanding of behaviors.
 
.
Your fellow Chinese countrymen commented about the limitations of PO back on post 76 page 6.

Yes I saw that, but that does not mean that PO itself is completely wrong. It has limitations but may be a useful approximation; and if the approximation is within the same order of magnitude as the true value, then its still "acceptable".
 
.
Yes I saw that, but that does not mean that PO itself is completely wrong. It has limitations but may be a useful approximation; and if the approximation is within the same order of magnitude as the true value, then its still "acceptable".
And I challenge you to find where I said Physical Optics is a 'wrong' tool.
 
. .
What about vertical? I would like to see the Chinese physics where a serpentine inlet tunnel can only occur in the horizontal plane.

You could have better rebutted with proof of T50 having vertical serpentine inlets.
 
.
The picture of the T-50 clearly shows there is little height difference between the air inlet and exhaust.

From my January 23, 2011 post:

This is what happens when an aircraft is poorly designed for stealth; no Serpentine air inlets or DSI bumps to hide the engine compressor blades. I'm only going to give you one guess as to which aircraft is clearly the least-stealthy among the Russian T-50, China's J-20, and U.S. F-35.

vNPbf.jpg

Russian T-50 with giant exposed engine fan blades staring at you. By the way, the bright yellow metal frame for the cockpit canopy is also not stealthy.

This is a picture of the J-20 from my video:

JzLjZ.jpg

J-20 stealth fighter with DSI bumps and properly-designed S-air inlets.

Here is a F-35 with DSI bumps and S-air inlets to the single engine.

xloTW.jpg

U.S. F-35 with DSI bumps and S-air inlets.
 
.
From my February 5, 2011 post:

kixbY.jpg

Russian T-50 engine compressor is staring you in the face. It is not hidden by a non-existent serpentine and/or DSI air-inlet. By the way, that metal-framed cockpit canopy is clearly visible to radar.

sOyt0.jpg

This T-50 photograph clearly shows no horizontal serpentine air-inlet.

niVjW.jpg

Side-profile of a Su-30 looks extremely similar to the side-profile of a T-50. If you're going to claim that the T-50 has vertical serpentine air-inlets then you might as well make the same ridiculous claim for the fourth-generation Su-30.

3xUs3.jpg

Russian T-50 side-profile looks very similar to fourth-generation Su-30. An extreme height difference between the air-inlet and exhaust does not exist. All photographs show the air duct design and air-inlet-exhaust-nozzle height difference between the Su-30 and T-50 are very similar.

jAngu.jpg

Stop looking at cartoons and look at real photographs with your eyes. Your eyes tell you that the air enters the T-50 air-inlets and travels straight out through the exhaust nozzles. There are no horizontal or vertical serpentine air ducts because your eyes confirm this fact.
 
.
The straight (e.g. in both the horizontal and vertical sense) engine pod for the Russian T-50 looks almost exactly like the engine pod for the Su-30. If you want to make the ridiculous claim that the T-50 has vertical serpentine air ducts then you would have to make the absurd claim that the Su-30 engine pod was stealthy from a long time ago.

From my August 4, 2011 post:

sOyt0.jpg

This T-50 photograph clearly shows no horizontal serpentine air-inlet.

OpZRw.jpg

Su-30 MKI underside. Very similar to T-50 underside, no?

VVl5h.jpg

Your eyes tell you that the air enters the T-50 air-inlets and travels straight out through the exhaust nozzles. There are no horizontal or vertical serpentine air ducts because your eyes confirm this fact.

T-50 and Su-30 MKI undersides are very similar. Same vents and straight engine nacelles.

[Note: I flipped the original Su-30 MKI picture horizontally for an easier comparison.]
 
.
This photograph is from Sukhoi. If you look closely, you can see the engine blades. How can there possibly be a vertical serpentine air duct when the engine blades are visible.?

Here is my question. I have been posting these pictures and my analyses for nine months. Why doesn't Gambit know that the Russian T-50 has no vertical serpentine air ducts? He's either an idiot or blind. Those are the only two choices and both cast disrepute on his anti-Chinese views.

Forum members that disagree with me are not "idiots." They become idiots when they continue to stubbornly hold on to ridiculous positions after being presented with incontrovertible photographic evidence, ironclad logic, or confronted with a mainstream citation.

0Ue2w.jpg

Look closely, do you see those gigantic fan blades in the engine? Enemy radar can see them too. So, just exactly how is the Russian T-50 stealthy?

----------

The picture of the exposed fan blades in the Russian T-50 starboard engine pod (see above) is corroborated by another picture (see below) showing exposed fan blades in the port-side engine pod.

qBoKk.jpg

Russian T-50. Is it even stealthy? Look at those giant engine fan blades.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom