Top 10 future weapons of CHINA

[Martian2]

And you are confused between a different viewing perspective and an illusion. Do you even know the definition of an 'illusion'? As for that Figure 3.7 in that RAND source. The laugh is still upon YOU for failing to consider the graduations of the vertical graph, which is altitude. The graduations are very coarse so of course the entire trajectory graph will have the typcial parabolic path. But at the target's position, if we refine the altitude graph, the descent trajectory will be close to vertical.

Your argument is stupid. If all ballistic missile warheads could only descend vertically onto their targets, missile defense would be a piece of cake. Just shoot straight up and you only have to worry about the timing of the intercept.

Also, you know about MARVs. It is a completely unpredictable trajectory. Not merely a MARV circling around a vertical axis as it descends. You're stupid and I can't help you. I'm going to the gym.

The ACTUAL REAL-LIFE video of the MIRV impact on the island clearly shows a directed debris pattern. Using deduction, we know it must have hit at an angle. Use your brain. Real life evidence trumps some stupid articles.

Wait a minute, I will tell you exactly the moment in the video that you should look at.

 

[Zabaniyah]

Not as scary as this.

That's not scary, it is funny

Seriously, a plane slowly disintegrating from the sky. That's scary ****!

---------- Post added at 02:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:57 AM ----------

Great, from fighters to missiles! I love this place

 

[gambit]

Your argument is stupid. If all ballistic missile warheads could only descend vertically onto their targets, missile defense would be a piece of cake. Just shoot straight up and you only have to worry about the timing of the intercept.

Also, you know about MARVs. It is a completely unpredictable trajectory. Not merely a MARV circling around a vertical axis as it descends. You're stupid and I can't help you. I'm going to the gym.

And you are the stupid one here as highlighted. In any head-on interception scheme, be it of a ballistic warhead or even of an aircraft, the collision has only one chance to succeed, and that is why missile defense is so difficult to achieve. The issue is no longer detection, from launch to reentry. The issue is to guarantee that one chance. The maneuvering vehicle is a separate issue.

 

[Martian2]

At 1:03 in the video, the debris impact is skewed heavily to the right of the forward-view of the camera. The evidence is indisputable. The unarmed warhead struck at an angle to create a non-circular debris cloud. You're an idiot. So is that Frank Harvey guy.

This is simple physics. The unarmed warhead struck at an angle. It imparted its momentum to the debris. The debris flew mostly to the right of the picture frame. It is 100% a non-circular debris cloud. Therefore, the warhead clearly did not impact the ground vertically.

I'm going to the gym. You need to get a brain.

 

[gambit]

At 1:03 in the video, the debris impact is skewed heavily to the right of the forward-view of the camera. The evidence is indisputable. The unarmed warhead struck at an angle to create a non-circular debris cloud. You're an idiot. So is that Frank Harvey guy.

This is simple physics. The unarmed warhead struck at an angle. It imparted its momentum to the debris. The debris flew mostly to the right of the picture frame. It is 100% a non-circular debris cloud. Therefore, the warhead clearly did not impact the ground vertically.

I'm going to the gym. You need to get a brain.

I have no issues with the Kwajalein test firing. Nowhere have I said that EACH descent angle must be completely vertical. I have always said 'quite' or 'close'. The descent angle PER warhead depends on the targets themselves through trajectory shaping so none will be exactly the same. The Kwajalein test firing should not be taken as typical of how all US ICBMs will descend upon their targets. But it is the USAF's own literature that I rely upon...

The main advantage with descent angles with increasing departures from vertical is the increased aerodynamic flight time over long distances. The main problem is increased odds of hitting the wrong target through 'terrain masking' by the defense...

And that technique prompted the development of maneuverable vehicles. The illustration above shows the different paths a vehicle could take, each with increasing assurance of hitting a target. So if we are to take the Kwajalein test firing as typical of how all US ICBMs behave, then vital targets that uses mountain ranges will be quite survivable, even against a nuclear blast. The Trident D5 has MARVs that can perform trajectory shapings.

Here is where you failed to understand the differences between hitting multiple targets versus hiting different points on the same target: The Kwajalein test firing was of the latter. The idea is that spreading smaller yields inside a perimeter will do much more damage to that target than using one large yield, which could be the sum of those smaller yields, at the center of the same target. But it does not qualify as hitting multiple targets and that would be city X, Y, and Z when they are several thousands km apart. Which lead us back to the first illustration where the USAF outlined the basic flight profile of an ICBM where that profile is applicable to individual warheads over true multiple targets.

At this point am treading very close to the OPSEC line so I will leave you and your ego to crow further about yourself on this subject. That 'round nose' post to show how wrong you are about your explanation of RCS control is coming.

 

[amalakas]

......
At this point am treading very close to the OPSEC line so I will leave you and your ego to crow further about yourself on this subject. That 'round nose' post to show how wrong you are about your explanation of RCS control is coming.

Gambit, man, I admire your tenacity.. I would have given up long time ago. The man is simply unable to understand.

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

Martian dude, I have two words for you... delusions of grandeur

you should get that checked man. By a pro.

 

[gambit]

Gambit, man, I admire your tenacity.. I would have given up long time ago. The man is simply unable to understand.

The goal is less about him than about presenting counter-arguments to his nonsense to the readers. Am willing to be generous and say 1/2 of them are objective enough to see through.

Martian dude, I have two words for you... delusions of grandeur

you should get that checked man. By a pro.

It really is sad to see how anyone could be, to put it bluntly, an 'attention whore'. Pioneering observations? Wow...!!! He speaks as if Ufimtsev, Skolnik, Jenn, and Knott never existed.

 

[marshall]

Yeah, this is a Russian engine...

I just love the look of the J-10B. The DSI inlet makes it look like a smiling shark.

 

[amalakas]

Also, I believe that I have been fair. Sukhoi has had almost two years to rectify the obvious problems with the T-50 design. It doesn't look like Sukhoi fixed a thing at all.

Perhaps because Sukhoi engineers -Who unlike us have made supersonic fighter jets before- were engaged with the rather more important task of putting 30 odd tonnes of supersonic bulk in the air safely and also carry out stuff such as evaluation, testing, verification, and adjusting and fine tuning.. while crunching numbers.

I am sure you'll forgive them, they are only human after all.

The goal is less about him than about presenting counter-arguments to his nonsense to the readers. Am willing to be generous and say 1/2 of them are objective enough to see through.


It really is sad to see how anyone could be, to put it bluntly, an 'attention whore'. Pioneering observations? Wow...!!! He speaks as if Ufimtsev, Skolnik, Jenn, and Knott never existed.

I don't know about 'attention whore' .. but the man has consistently demonstrated that he has very little comprehension of military technology and operation.
He clearly hasn't seen an operation manual of any piece of hardware -clearly not one of any system with ballistic or anti ballistic properties-, he has no comprehension of how military tech evolves in application and scope. How operational requirements change in the face of changing potential operations theaters and how military equipment must address a host of requirements and considerations.

He seems to understand nothing about fighter plane design, reading his posts, there is almost and underlying feeling that he considers the F-22 (for example) just an antiquated design, simply because it looks "too conventional", No connection to 'why and for what reason' in the design of a particular feature or even overall system.

He claims that canards are nothing more than tailplanes at the front! Missing out completely both on the design requirements and restrictions of canard vs tailplane configurations, but more importantly in his favorite area, RCS, the interactions of complex bodies with radio waves, behavior and characteristics of.

It has been suggested that the F-22 is less maneuverable than the J-20 (who knows ) simply because of the tailplane/canard thing, while completely ignoring the fact that the F-22 has consistently demonstrated sustained AoAs of 60^ at least.. unheard of for western operational aircraft.

An almost blind faith for just newly developed systems, with no tradition, no bibliography (internal), no history, no expertise behind them.

Boing,Lokheed,Sukhoi, MiG,Mil, Sikorsky ..whatever you feel about their products, they have been doing this job for decades.. and some Monday morning quarter backs come on these fora with ideas on how FIGHTER JETS should be made !!!!! How arrogant I would say !!!!

 

[gambit]

I don't know about 'attention whore' .. but the man has consistently demonstrated that he has very little comprehension of military technology and operation.

Eminently appropriate.

He clearly hasn't seen an operation manual of any piece of hardware -clearly not one of any system with ballistic or anti ballistic properties-, he has no comprehension of how military tech evolves in application and scope. How operational requirements change in the face of changing potential operations theaters and how military equipment must address a host of requirements and considerations.

He seems to understand nothing about fighter plane design, reading his posts, there is almost and underlying feeling that he considers the F-22 (for example) just an antiquated design, simply because it looks "too conventional", No connection to 'why and for what reason' in the design of a particular feature or even overall system.

He claims that canards are nothing more than tailplanes at the front! Missing out completely both on the design requirements and restrictions of canard vs tailplane configurations, but more importantly in his favorite area, RCS, the interactions of complex bodies with radio waves, behavior and characteristics of.

It has been suggested that the F-22 is less maneuverable than the J-20 (who knows ) simply because of the tailplane/canard thing, while completely ignoring the fact that the F-22 has consistently demonstrated sustained AoAs of 60^ at least.. unheard of for western operational aircraft.

An almost blind faith for just newly developed systems, with no tradition, no bibliography (internal), no history, no expertise behind them.

Boing,Lokheed,Sukhoi, MiG,Mil, Sikorsky ..whatever you feel about their products, they have been doing this job for decades.. and some Monday morning quarter backs come on these fora with ideas on how FIGHTER JETS should be made !!!!! How arrogant I would say !!!!

Over at one of the Chinese members' two playgrounds, someone gave himself the handle 'Engineer', clearly to distinguish himself from the rest, boldly proclaimed that the J-20's all-moving vertical stabs are technologically superior to the 'conventional' stab/rudder system on the F-22. Damn near spat my coffee all over the monitors. This 'Engineer' clearly has no understanding of the surface area requirements versus force desired to effect axis stabilization and control. This 'Engineer' was also clueless to the nearly one hundred years of aviation history from the Be2 bi-plane to the SR-71 to the F-117 and all in between that has both systems.

This is where our man got his 'expertise' and 'pioneering observations'.

 

[HavocHeaven]

First...Composite materials does not guarantee absorbance. So the composite materials can be tossed.

Second...Absorbers are not %100 effective. There are always trace EM reflections from the surface. And it is their behaviors that are unpredictable.

Third...but these prototype is showing large canards .Curvature on the canards is a given but altering them for RCS reduction purposes would affect their airfoil shapes, reducing aerodynamic effectiveness.but these prototype is showing large canards

And the fourth is totally absurd
.
no 5th gen fighter has canards as it is needless because thrust vectoring nozzles can compensate the manuverability for it .Thats why even Russia also which dont want canards in pakfa.It would be surely detected by anti stealth very low frequency radar most probably ground based radars (X band 8 to 12 GHz)

so plz stop posting craps .
A big lol for u

----------


what!! J20 superior to f22

i think thats why robert gates cancelled it's production

----------


ok lets see that in future ,whether they would develop it or not F-22 type 2D flat engine nozzles.

A NASA study has demonstrated that the shaping of canard-based designs does not exclude them from stealth club.
Check it out, both the canard configuration and the tail configuration fall into the "moderate observable" category in the following picture.

 

[amalakas]

A NASA study has demonstrated that the shaping of canard-based designs does not exclude them from stealth club.
Check it out, both the canard configuration and the tail configuration fall into the "moderate observable" category in the following picture.

not sure what i am looking at...

 

[amalakas]

Eminently appropriate.


Over at one of the Chinese members' two playgrounds, someone gave himself the handle 'Engineer', clearly to distinguish himself from the rest, boldly proclaimed that the J-20's all-moving vertical stabs are technologically superior to the 'conventional' stab/rudder system on the F-22. Damn near spat my coffee all over the monitors. This 'Engineer' clearly has no understanding of the surface area requirements versus force desired to effect axis stabilization and control. This 'Engineer' was also clueless to the nearly one hundred years of aviation history from the Be2 bi-plane to the SR-71 to the F-117 and all in between that has both systems.

This is where our man got his 'expertise' and 'pioneering observations'.

Was that the same engineer who didn't know what phase margin a control engineer would allow for a closed loop system made for a reference signal following or tracking ? .. the one who now works for raytheon supposedly ?

arrogance.. sheer arrogance ..

 

[gambit]

Was that the same engineer who didn't know what phase margin a control engineer would allow for a closed loop system made for a reference signal following or tracking ? .. the one who now works for raytheon supposedly ?

arrogance.. sheer arrogance ..

Dunno. It is good that the Chinese members here are proud of what China accomplished and I have never said they should not. Heck, I left aviation over ten years ago and have forgotten most of the math I used daily and we used a lot of junk yard cars in the radar range instead of sophisticated software, but if there is a god of aviation, perhaps you as a Greek can check your mythology for one, he must be laughing his butt off at the claims these guys made and still making.

 

[gambit]

A NASA study has demonstrated that the shaping of canard-based designs does not exclude them from stealth club.
Check it out, both the canard configuration and the tail configuration fall into the "moderate observable" category in the following picture.

No one ever said it does, least of all me and I posted a lot of explanations on the basics of radar detection and 'stealth' that are universal to everyone. The problem here is that the more scatterers (or generators) you have, the greater the problems of trying to model, predict, and finally measure your complex body.

The first two: Model and Prediction, can be switched and with today's sophisticated software it is even easier. But measurement is the final determination of whether your intended design will go below a certain threshold and for that you need a full scale version of your design. We do not know the extent of China's RCS measurements of the J-20. The fact that the aircraft is flying mean at some point during the modeling and estimation phase, the engineers must have come to a conclusion that they can no longer tinker with the design without adverse consequences, EM or aerodynamics. We do not have the data upon which they based that conclusion. Therefore it is only reasonable that we NOT make wild assumptions as some have made here.