Top 10 future weapons of CHINA

[Martian2]

oh ya i am going to post a thread on critical analysis on J20 ,lets see how much u can debate

That's not the way it works. You are a nobody. I am not interested in your rants. I ignore little bugs like you. My time is valuable.

I am an armchair general and self-proclaimed internet China-expert with over 500,000 page views. People read my posts for its thoughtful analysis.

 

[Mech]

That's not the way it works. You are a nobody. I am an armchair general and self-proclaimed internet China expert with over 500,000 page views.

I ignore little bugs like you. My time is valuable.

castles in the air.

 

[amalakas]

That's not the way it works. You are a nobody. I am an armchair general and self-proclaimed internet China-expert with over 500,000 page views.

I ignore little bugs like you. My time is valuable.

you tell (some) people what they like to hear, that is why. most -if not all- of what you say is meaningless.

 

[Zabaniyah]

That's not the way it works. You are a nobody. I am an armchair general and self-proclaimed internet China-expert with over 500,000 page views.

I ignore little bugs like you. My time is valuable.

Dude, that is just depressing.

 

[Mech]

Dude, that is just depressing.

I know right! I've heard of self -immolation but this is overkill.

 

[gambit]

That's not the way it works. You are a nobody. I am not interested in your rants. I ignore little bugs like you. My time is valuable.

I am an armchair general and self-proclaimed internet China-expert with over 500,000 page views. People read my posts for its thoughtful analysis.

Then you should have no problems at all...

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.

...In explaining why and how as highlighted. I have already granted you the latitude that you are correct but only because you GUESSED correctly. No different than casting dice. The readers, especially me, would like to see your...eeerrr...'thoughtful analysis' and credible technical explanation as to why a 'round nose' is less effective at RCS control than a 'non-round nose'.

Care to give it a shot? Or are you going to run away like you usually do?

 

[Martian2]

So you do run away from a challenge.

I told you before. No one knows who you are.

I'm on YouTube every day and garnering new viewers. I'm also rolling out some new videos on China, such as "China's Nuclear Strike Force," "China's Top Ten Cities," and "China's Superlatives." My audience is growing. In contrast, you have no audience to listen to your views.

You simply mire in your own frustration. The general public does not know that you exist.

I'm out there. You're not.

I'm busy. You're not. I don't have time to play your little games.

 

[gambit]

I told you before. No one knows who you are. I'm on YouTube every day garnering new viewers. I'm also rolling out some new videos on China, such as "China's Nuclear Strike Force," "China's Top Ten Cities," and "China's Superlatives." My audience is growing. You simply mire in your own frustration. The general public does not know that you exist. I'm out there. You're not.

It does not matter the 'who' but the contents and it does not matter what happens outside this forum. Going by your criteria, we should dismiss you completely because YOU have not produced anything while the likes of Lockheed, Boeing, Sukhoi, and Airbus produced much more. Inside this forum, you boasted and boasting will result in a challenge. I used your own words in your own claim. Now back up your claim.

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.

Why is a 'round nose' less effective at RCS control than a 'non-round nose'? You are correct but that is from guessing in comparing 'looks'. You violated your own rule. To redeem yourself, you need to explain your guess.

 

[gambit]

I'm busy. You're not. I don't have time to play your little games.

You mean you are busy scrambling to find an explanation to support your claim but so far have failed miserably.

 

[Zabaniyah]

I told you before. No one knows who you are.

I'm on YouTube every day and garnering new viewers. I'm also rolling out some new videos on China, such as "China's Nuclear Strike Force," "China's Top Ten Cities," and "China's Superlatives." My audience is growing. In contrast, you have no audience to listen to your views.

You simply mire in your own frustration. The general public does not know that you exist.

I'm out there. You're not.

I'm busy. You're not. I don't have time to play your little games.

What a pathetic statement.

Actually, people here do know who gambit is. He is former USAF and a veteran of Desert Storm. His intelligence is far beyond your comprehension.

And what are you? An actor?

The sad truth is, nobody knows who you are here. In fact, no one gives a damn about your 'thoughtful analysis' other than pretty pictures.

 

[Martian2]

It does not matter the 'who' but the contents and it does not matter what happens outside this forum. Going by your criteria, we should dismiss you completely because YOU have not produced anything while the likes of Lockheed, Boeing, Sukhoi, and Airbus produced much more. Inside this forum, you boasted and boasting will result in a challenge. I used your own words in your own claim. Now back up your claim.

Why is a 'round nose' less effective at RCS control than a 'non-round nose'? You are correct but that is from guessing in comparing 'looks'. You violated your own rule. To redeem yourself, you need to explain your guess.

I will play your game this one time.

I believe a round nose reflects radar in all directions at a relatively constant intensity. This means the radar reflection is detectable depending on the sensitivity and distance of the enemy radar.

However, the shaped nose is superior for stealth because if you examine the shape carefully, it redirects the incoming radar energy below the chine line into only a few directions.

An examination of the shaped nose above the chine line shows that it relies on the "continuous curvature" principle for stealth.

An examination of the shaped nose below the chine line shows that it mostly relies on the facet principle for stealth. Below the chine line, the nose is not completely faceted due to aerodynamic considerations. However, it is mostly faceted.

J-20 Mighty Dragon nose follows the "continuous curvature" principle above the chine/ridge line. Below the chine/ridge line, the nose follows the facet principle.

You mean you are busy scrambling to find an explanation to support your claim but so far have failed miserably.

No. If I play your little game then DrSomanth999 will demand that I reply to his thread. After that, every troll on this forum will keep challenging me. I do not want to go down this slippery slope.

If I agree to your bait, it sets a dangerous precedent. I'll have to keep replying to trolls indefinitely.

I still think replying to your little game is a bad idea, but I'm willing to try most things once.

 

[Martian2]

What a pathetic statement.

Actually, people here do know who gambit is. He is former USAF and a veteran of Desert Storm. His intelligence is far beyond your comprehension.

And what are you? An actor?

The sad truth is, nobody knows who you are here. In fact, no one gives a damn about your 'thoughtful analysis' other than pretty pictures.

In my own defense, I am the first person on the internet to say:

1. There is no RAM coating on T-50 engines after almost two years from its debut.

2. T-50 upper-body fuselage behind the pilot does not appear to follow "continuous curvature" principle. It's too steep.

3. Latter half of T-50 engine pod is not canted. Only the front half of the air duct is canted.

4. J-20 Mighty Dragon canards are a superb design choice, because the placement of winglets forward of the main wings creates the benefit of supermaneuverability; while the placement of horizontal tailplanes on the F-22 merely engenders stability without supermaneuverability.

These are just some of my recent pioneering observations on stealth design. During the last nine months, I'm pretty sure I made other important observations regarding the J-20, F-22, F-35, and T-50. Time passes and I forget. And no, I will not spend the time to review my mountain of old posts to itemize my work.

I don't recall Gambit making a single important unique observation. Of course, you (Zabanya) didn't contribute either. However, you're a troll and the expectation bar for you is nonexistent.

I only recall Gambit saying, "we don't really know anything unless we can physically examine a J-20 Mighty Dragon ourselves." I've been saying that he's nuts and I've kept analyzing and comparing the J-20, F-22, F-35, and T-50.

Wait a second, I remember Gambit making a b.s. claim that the J-20 probably had a software problem and couldn't fly based on a single picture of asymmetric vertical stabilizers. I said he was full of it and cited China's experience with fly-by-wire from the J-10 program. He insisted the J-20 couldn't fly and I remember it flew within a few days. Gambit's observation/prediction was dead wrong.

Off-topic:

Despite my differences with Gambit, I still like him. He says something interesting and intelligent once in a while. I can't say the same thing for the rest of you trolls.

 

[gambit]

I will play your game this one time.

I believe the round nose reflects radar in all directions at a relatively constant intensity. This means the radar reflection is detectable depending on the sensitivity and distance of the enemy radar.

However, the shaped nose is superior for stealth because if you examine the shape carefully, it redirects the incoming radar energy below the chine line into only a few directions.

An examination of the shaped nose above the chine line shows that it relies on the "continuous curvature principle" for stealth.

An examination of the shaped nose below the chine line shows that it mostly relies on the facet principle for stealth. Below the chine line, the nose is not completely faceted due to aerodynaic considerations. However, it is mostly faceted.

Wrong...All wrong. You are straining with words and concepts you have not a clue.

 

[lamlap]

Support Martian2

You are professional

 

[Martian2]

Wrong...All wrong. You are straining with words and concepts you have not a clue.

We disagree.

I will now claim to be the first person on the internet to explicitly state that the J-20's shaped nose above the chine/ridge line follows the "continuous curvature" principle of stealth design. Also, I am stating the shaped nose below the chine/ridge line follows the facet principle.