Top 10 future weapons of CHINA

[amalakas]

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."

wow !!!

12345678901

 

[Martian2]

Purported Mythical Russian radar blocker (Source: Blitzo)

I want to make it clear that my analysis and debunking of the Mythical Russian radar blocker did not arise out of a desire to pick on the Russian T-50/Pak Fa.

Blitzo is a well-known member among defense forums. Blitzo stated that the entire Key Publishing forum membership had debated the Russian radar blocker issue and arrived at the collective judgment that it was an effective stealth device to block enemy radar.

I had no choice but to debunk the stupid conclusion of the entire Key Publishing forum community. In my opinion, their collective judgment on stealth design is not worth much and I had to analyze the Mythical Russian radar blocker in detail to set the record straight.

Give me a break. How hard is it to look at the picture and notice the giant non-stealthy metallic disc in the center of the drawing? The entire Key Publishing forum community is blind as a bat.

 

[amalakas]

Purported Mythical Russian radar blocker (Source: Blitzo)

I want to make it clear that my analysis and debunking of the Mythical Russian radar blocker did not arise out of a desire to pick on the Russian T-50/Pak Fa.

Blitzo is a well-known member among defense forums. Blitzo stated that the entire Key Publishing forum membership had debated the Russian radar blocker issue and arrived at the collective judgment that it was an effective stealth device to block enemy radar.

I had no choice but to debunk the stupid conclusion of the entire Key Publishing forum community. In my opinion, their collective judgment on stealth design is not worth much and I had to analyze the Mythical Russian radar blocker in detail to set the record straight.

Give me a break. How hard is it to look at the picture and notice the giant non-stealthy metallic disc in the center of the drawing? The entire Key Publishing forum community is blind as a bat.

I am not a member nor have i ever read that forum. Could you please provide a link for them?

 

[j20blackdragon]

Gaps, cracks, seams, protrusions, surface discontinuities, sudden changes in shape, changes in material are everywhere!

This isn't a stealth aircraft. I don't know what it is, perhaps a normal 4th generation fighter.

The PAK FA is disgusting. I'm gonna throw up.

 

[Martian2]

I am not a member nor have i ever read that forum. Could you please provide a link for them?

I ignore trolls like you. You are only a bug and not worthy of my time.

I will respond to Gambit, because he has earned it. That is the main reason (and probably the only reason) that I'm still here on Defense.pk

Just watch. When Gambit leaves, I will leave on the same day.

 

[lamlap]

Gaps, cracks, seams, protrusions, surface discontinuities, sudden changes in shape, changes in material are everywhere!

This isn't a stealth aircraft. I don't know what it is, perhaps a normal 4th generation fighter.

The PAK FA is disgusting. I'm gonna throw up.

HAHAHA

Totally agree

T-50 is only a 3rd generation fighter = Su27 upgraded version

 

[amalakas]

I ignore trolls like you. You are only a bug and not worthy of my time.

I will respond to Gambit, because he has earned it. That is the main reason (and probably the only reason) that I'm still here on Defense.pk

Just watch. When Gambit leaves, I will leave the same day.

Oh man you are deteriorating worst and worst every day. I am not asking for a response, I am asking for a link. You can't separate between the two ?

Oh and by the way, what you describe above, is borderline stalking behavior .. again get it checked, by a pro.

 

[DrSomnath999]

As was already mentioned, the F-22 all-moving tailplanes have a similar stealth impact as the J-20 canards. The J-20 does not have tailplanes. However, canards arguably have a greater effect on stealth because they are more actively maneuvered in the absence of thrust vectoring. At this time, I believe it is a minor tradeoff to achieve superior maneuverability vs a relatively insignificant stealth impact. However, if the J-20 is to ever be fitted with thrust vectoring, the combination of canards will give it unbeatable agility.



Actually, the J-20 5th generation fighter has canards. This is not to say that the J-20 should not have thrust vectoring as this would give it clearly superior maneuverability over thrust vectoring only aircraft.

what rubbish there is no need of canards in 5th gen fighters as they have thrust vectoring nozzle to compensate that.
now see T50 prototype

Leading edge root extensions (LERX)

PAK FA Features Movable LERX, this would be more like a Stealthy Canard.


LERX are fillets or strakes, typically roughly triangular in shape, running from the leading edge of the wing root to a point near the cockpit along the fuselage. They tend to be fairly small in span, extending out less than a metre.

On a modern fighter aircraft they provide usable airflow over the wing at high angles of attack. In cruising flight the effect of the LERX is minimal. However: when the angle of attack increases, as in a dog fight, the LERX starts to generate a high-speed vortex that remains attached to the top of the wing. Due to the effects described by Bernoulli's principle the wing therefore has a low pressure zone on top, and continues to generate lift past the normal stall point. The F/A-18 Hornet has especially large examples, as does the Sukhoi Su-27. Early prototypes of the Su-27 crashed due to poorly designed LERX, causing it to freeze at angles of attack above 5 degrees. This has since been overcome. In fact, the LERX help to make possible advanced maneuvers such as the Pugachev's Cobra, the Cobra Turn and the Kulbit.



LERX can be seen pitching downward to create more lift.

Zoom in, you can see LERX,IRST in front of cocpit, some sort of Situational Awareness sensor behind the cockpit possibly a Missle warning/Detection Sensor along with other sensors and/or antennas and the 30mm cannon.

 

[gambit]

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.

You cobbled together phrases without a clue of what they mean. What is that 'continuous curvature' principle? What behaviors are associated with it? Anyone can see that my explanation on the differences of behaviors are much more clarifying than yours -- convoluted.

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.

If you cannot see how simple shapes are used to illustrate the foundations of more complex ones, you have no business in this discussion.

You are now duly exposed as an egotistical fraud.

 

[DrSomnath999]

I think most people understand that components can sometimes have secondary benefits besides their primary function. Ventral fins that also block most of the lateral heat signature from the nozzles that are not already attenuated by the LOAN technology is an added bonus wouldn't you agree?

As for hiding the heat signature from the back, I think that would be a pretty good trick for any fighter. Care to mention some successful examples?

Another B.S ,plz stop this false propanganda about ventral fins ,which aeroexpert tell u this ,just tell me ,BASELESS, simply baseless assumption. If u think by adding ventral fins u can save ur plane from heat seeking missiles ,then all heat seeking missiles would became obsolete
Now another thing for a second i assume what r u saying but what about stealth comprise on it ? you told it blends from side profile but what from behind & below ?It would be surely detected by anti stealth very low frequency radar most probably ground based radars (X band 8 to 12 GHz)from below and aesa radar from behind.no doubt about it
now see f22 & b2 bomber do they have ventral fins to save from heat seeking missiles ,NO !!

---------- Post added at 10:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 PM ----------

You are now duly exposed as an egotistical fraud.

nothing more to say

 

[gambit]

Purported Mythical Russian radar blocker (Source: Blitzo)

I want to make it clear that my analysis and debunking of the Mythical Russian radar blocker did not arise out of a desire to pick on the Russian T-50/Pak Fa.

Blitzo is a well-known member among defense forums. Blitzo stated that the entire Key Publishing forum membership had debated the Russian radar blocker issue and arrived at the collective judgment that it was an effective stealth device to block enemy radar.

I had no choice but to debunk the stupid conclusion of the entire Key Publishing forum community. In my opinion, their collective judgment on stealth design is not worth much and I had to analyze the Mythical Russian radar blocker in detail to set the record straight.

Give me a break. How hard is it to look at the picture and notice the giant non-stealthy metallic disc in the center of the drawing? The entire Key Publishing forum community is blind as a bat.

Issuing an opinion is hardly a 'debunking'. Prove your point with credible third party sources. This is becoming a referendum on your credibility on this subject.

 

[DrSomnath999]

mr gambit sir plz post ur opinion about ventral fins & tail booms
REGARDS

 

[Martian2]

Purported Mythical Russian radar blocker (Source: Blitzo)

Issuing an opinion is hardly a 'debunking'. Prove your point with credible third party sources. This is becoming a referendum on your credibility on this subject.

You're kidding me. Why do I need a citation for pointing out the gigantic non-stealthy metallic disc in the center and the spokes radiating from it? If that's the extent of your criticism, my analysis is rock solid.

----------

Off-topic:

I want to say "hello" and welcome my good friend Marshall, who has started posting in this thread. I've had some heated/intense debates with Marshall on the other Pakistani Defence forum on the topic of economics for about as long as I've been debating Gambit on this forum (e.g. roughly two years).

Though I have disagreed with Marshall and Gambit over the years, I respect both of their opinions.

 

[gambit]

Purported Mythical Russian radar blocker (Source: Blitzo)



You're kidding me. Why do I need a citation for pointing out the gigantic non-stealthy metallic disc in the center and the spokes radiating from it? If that's the extent of your criticism, my analysis is rock solid.

Your analysis is hardly 'rock solid'. More like wet sand that children plays with.

First...The concept of a radar blocker is not new, even your usage of DSI demonstrate that.

Second...Assuming that the above image IS the device used, your supposedly 'debunking' of its efficacy that is based upon looks and violated your own rule about using looks in 'stealth' missed the point of RCS control completely, which is that of 'balanced stealth' where all EM generators must be treated only to the extent that each no longer dominate. If the device reduced the inlets' RCS contributorship to below a desired threshold, it worked.

The failure to understand this 'balanced stealth', or the balancing of various contributors, shows you do not know what you are talking about.

 

[DrSomnath999]

t 50 flat nozzles being developed