Top 10 future weapons of CHINA

[lamlap]

We make what we can or afford. If needed, We buy by paying hard cash as per rules. We buy as per ToT and manufacture in our own country. Like Sukhoi 30 MKI, MIG29, MIRAGE 2k, now Rafale/Typhhon later ( PAK FA, F-35 may be)

buy? Solve your slums first

 

[Martian2]

As I replied before: Wrong.

Here is the correct answer...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/20908-rcs-different-fighters-7.html#post2104567

That behavior is quite evident for the F-15 and all aircrafts with similar radome or fuselage structures.

The same cannot be said for the SR-71, which is quite close to the extreme end of the shaping spectrum: The diamond shape. Any impinging radar signal will deflect away from source direction and this angled facetings technique was evident in the retired F-117.

1. My analysis of the shaped-nose relying on the "continuous curvature" principle above the chine line and the facet principle below the chine line is correct. You only know how to quote textbooks, without a thorough and complete understanding. To claim that my analysis is incorrect is simply wrong.

2. The top-half of the SR-71 nose is a curve, not a faceted diamond-shape as you claim. You need glasses.

Lockheed SR-71A Blackbird has a curved upper-nose (based on "continuous curvature" principle), not faceted diamond-shape.

 

[Whazzup]

buy? Solve your slums first

You are the biggest joke and dumbest character I have seen in this forum till now are you really a Chineese ??? Till now the only thing you have done is to troll and derail this thread if you don't have any kind of knowledge whats going onhere just stop posting .

 

[Whazzup]

A real stealth aircraft has a flat and clean lower fuselage to reduce both specular returns and diffraction.

The first 4 pictures are real stealth aircraft. The last one is not.


I see gaps, seams, protrusions, surface discontinuities, sudden changes in shape, and fully exposed engines on the PAK FA.

Did the Russians stumble onto a secret super stealth design that the rest of the world is too stupid to see? I doubt it.

Oh god not again hadn't I already ans that buddy saying this again and again will not going to help you
That's a prototype not a final product and those gaps you are pointing at again and again will be filled up when we are going to integrate internal weapon bay between the air intakes heres a pic for better understanding

Anyways better luck next time.

 

[Zabaniyah]

With the T-50 having an internal weapon bay, it is a key a 5th generation feature.

Anyways, with the T-50 and J-20 both being prototypes, it is too early to jump to conclusions.

I have heard from somewhere that the T-50 would focus more on aerodynamic characteristics than being stealthy. Obviously the engines still do need work - which by far is the hardest thing to master at.

Although, the J-20's general design has its critics - which many here fail to counter miserably. I mean, why the hell have canards while having TVC? It is an awfully redundant feature.

 

[Whazzup]

With the T-50 having an internal weapon bay, it is a key a 5th generation feature.

Anyways, with the T-50 and J-20 both being prototypes, it is too early to jump to conclusions.

I have heard from somewhere that the T-50 would focus more on aerodynamic characteristics than being stealthy. Obviously the engines still do need work - which by far is the hardest thing to master at.

Although, the J-20's general design has its critics - which many here fail to counter miserably. I mean, why the hell have canards while having TVC? It is an awfully redundant feature.

Regarding T50 yes it will be concentrating more on aerodynamics and less on stealth but not Indian FGFA (if one go by wiki) we are already having 200plus MKI which is itself is very aerodynamic what we need a pure stealth plane , While J20 will surely going depend on its stealth only just like F35(bcoz of its size and weight) .
And regarding the comparison dude saying the same for god knows how many times.

 

[Martian2]

It's alright there's no need. You aren't going to convince me the PAK FA can not be fitted with an engine blocker. It's not super advanced technology, the F-18E/F uses it and we all know how long it has been around for.

As for six inches... Lol I never said the engine blocker was six inches, I was basing it off eyeballing this picture:

I actually think it's probably a good deal longer than six inches, considering the diameter needed to cover the entire front of the engine.

If you want to read more up on it the picture first posted came from here Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA first flight - pictures, videos and analysis and there's a good bit of discussion to go along with it.
I would go onto some of the other forums like key or secretprojects for testimonials from people there who probably know much more than me and you, but I can't really be bothered.

My discussion with Blitzo on the Russian radar blocker ended a while ago. I am not resurrecting the debate. However, while my mind is clear, I want to write down and share a few new observations.

1. Based on physics, the Russian radar blocker won't work. The specular reflection from the mostly perpendicular surfaces will be enormous and easily detectable.

2. The idea of using micro-ducts is patently silly. The principle of stealth behind the F-22, J-20, and F-35 is to use a large cavity (e.g. the long "S" air duct) to reflect an incoming radar wave multiple times towards the inside of the long S-duct. With each bounce inward, the RAM coating converts some of the radar energy into heat energy. The process is the same with the radar-wave bounce back out of the interior of the long S-duct.

With micro-ducts, it is impossible to have multiple bounces to attenuate an incoming radar wave. The cavity is too small.

3. A micro-duct design will create a broad and diffuse specular radar return. Based on physics, the cavity has to be large and smooth to reflect an incoming radar wave. With a micro-duct, the surface will not appear to be smooth, because it is curved on a small-scale (which is noticeable to the wavelength of S/C/L/X band radar).

4. Look at Blitzo's picture (see above). Do you see that giant round disk in the middle? There goes your stealth. Also, the large perpendicular metal spokes radiating from the giant round hub in the middle will also create a massive radar return.

In conclusion, due to physics problems, the Russian radar blocker won't work and it's a fantasy.

(Sorry Blitzo, but I believe I possess more analytical power on stealth than all of the forum members at KeyPublishing combined. They came up with a stupid claim and I'm here to debunk it.)

 

[Martian2]

Well here's a bit of info I came across. The people at key aviation have come to the consensus that the infamous 'exposed engine' is actually the engine blocker.

An "engine blocker" will not save the T-50 from detection. When all that radar energy enter the jet engine cavity, there are only two outcomes. The energy is either reflected or absorbed. The fan blades of the "engine blocker" are roughly perpendicular. Whatever radar energy that is not absorbed will all be mostly reflected back to the enemy fighter's detector. Also, due to the spinning blades, the enemy radar detector will notice a modulating reflected signal.

If that is an engine blocker, it is poorly designed. To a radar beam moving at the speed of light, the spinning engine blocker blades are basically standing still. Looking at the picture, we can see that 90% of the radar beams will impact and reflect off the engine fan blades behind the engine blocker. The engine blocker will have minimal effect on lowering the radar reflection from the metallic engine fan blades.

The only difference between naked engine fan blades and an installed engine blocker is a slightly weaker reflected radar signal. It won't help much. Therefore, you do not see the U.S. using a comparable approach. The penalty in fuel efficiency and power output (from disrupted air flow) probably far outweighs the limited lower RCS from an engine blocker.

A Russian T-50 engine blocker is no substitute for a Chinese J-20 S-duct design.

 

[wealdcn017]

f22 can not fly over 5000m,
f35 will be cut;
t50's buttocks was burning;

only j20 flying lonely

 

[Whazzup]

f22 can not fly over 5000m,
f35 will be cut;
t50's buttocks was burning;

only j20 flying lonely

Thats bcoz your govt don't share latest news with its citizens , Actually making 5th gen plane is extremely different task and if think that China can really do it without facing any real probelm then only god can help you.

 

[amalakas]

A Russian T-50 engine blocker is no substitute for a Chinese J-20 S-duct design.

No it isn't because they didn't want to substitute the Chinese S-duct. They wanted to create exactly what they created.

It is very hard for you to understand a few things.. isn't it?

What you don't understand is, that even if it turns out the T-50 is not stealthy at all, EVERYTHING ON IT AND ABOUT IT is by design, not by accident and guestimation !!!!

You keep commenting on crap you have no clue about.. DSI, S-ducts and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.blah blah blah ..

A real engineer, or a guy with real engineering spirit, or even some real experience in military affairs, would have a completely different approach on the whole issue.

That is where you make a fool of your self and expose it to really ...really easy blows.

 

[houshanghai]

With the T-50 having an internal weapon bay, it is a key a 5th generation feature.

Anyways, with the T-50 and J-20 both being prototypes, it is too early to jump to conclusions.

I have heard from somewhere that the T-50 would focus more on aerodynamic characteristics than being stealthy. Obviously the engines still do need work - which by far is the hardest thing to master at.

Although, the J-20's general design has its critics - which many here fail to counter miserably. I mean, why the hell have canards while having TVC? It is an awfully redundant feature.

1.Canards be made sufficiently stealthy treatment which don't necessarily affect stealth.
actually,F22's huge twin vertical stabilizers affect stealth too.however, all j20 and t50 have a pair of small acreage all-moving tailfins .the stealthy design is better than F22's .
2.bcz there will be more close air combat between 5 gen fighters,so super maneuverability is very important at this time .The design of canards+TVC can provide stronger super maneuverability for j20, this is good for air fighting.
3,Each country's air force has its own peculiarity and PLAAF like canards very much. usa and russian have conventional tradition in their fighter .then our china has canards tradition too.

 

[Obambam]

At least we don't copy-paste. That's why no one is ready to sell their best Aircraft to China.

We make what we can or afford. If needed, We buy by paying hard cash as per rules. We buy as per ToT and manufacture in our own country. Like Sukhoi 30 MKI, MIG29, MIRAGE 2k, now Rafale/Typhhon later ( PAK FA, F-35 may be)

Good artists copy great artists steal - Steve Jobs

 

[lamlap]

J20 is the best

Martian2 is the best

 

[Martian2]

My discussion with Blitzo on the Russian radar blocker ended a while ago. I am not resurrecting the debate. However, while my mind is clear, I want to write down and share a few new observations.

1. Based on physics, the Russian radar blocker won't work. The specular reflection from the mostly perpendicular surfaces will be enormous and easily detectable.

2. The idea of using micro-ducts is patently silly. The principle of stealth behind the F-22, J-20, and F-35 is to use a large cavity (e.g. the long "S" air duct) to reflect an incoming radar wave multiple times towards the inside of the long S-duct. With each bounce inward, the RAM coating converts some of the radar energy into heat energy. The process is the same with the radar-wave bounce back out of the interior of the long S-duct.

With micro-ducts, it is impossible to have multiple bounces to attenuate an incoming radar wave. The cavity is too small.

3. A micro-duct design will create a broad and diffuse specular radar return. Based on physics, the cavity has to be large and smooth to reflect an incoming radar wave. With a micro-duct, the surface will not appear to be smooth, because it is curved on a small-scale (which is noticeable to the wavelength of S/C/L/X band radar).

4. Look at Blitzo's picture (see above). Do you see that giant round disk in the middle? There goes your stealth. Also, the large perpendicular metal spokes radiating from the giant round hub in the middle will also create a massive radar return.

In conclusion, due to physics problems, the Russian radar blocker won't work and it's a fantasy.

(Sorry Blitzo, but I believe I possess more analytical power on stealth than all of the forum members at KeyPublishing combined. They came up with a stupid claim and I'm here to debunk it.)

I will explain point #3 in greater detail to make it easily understandable.

Imagine that photons (which include radar waves) are a group of ping pong balls. If you throw a group of ping pong balls against the wall in a long hallway, they'll just bounce down the hallway/cavity.

Now, try throwing a group of ping pong balls into a Mythical Russian radar blocker with micro-ducts, which are roughly the size of the ping pong balls. Most of the ping pong balls will bounce back out. There is your "broad and diffuse specular radar return."