What's new

Top 10 future weapons of CHINA

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 .
We can count the amount of corner reflectors created by these tail-end flight control surfaces: The F-22 has one per side. The J-20 has two. Even though they may not be 90 deg reflectors, the J-20's two corner reflectors combined surface areas increases lateral aspect reflected energy.
 
sBf4u.jpg

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.


Rock solid..

let us see, have you got the readings from the sensors that measured the efficacy of the aforementioned radar blocker in reducing an a priori given RCS value of again a given target behind it?
in which chamber? what were the frequencies and peak values used from the transmitter?
where was the receiving equipment placed in relation to the transmitter and how many were they used?
what was the distance (or simulated distance) between the given radar blocker and the equipment?
Did you notice a negligible drop in dB values, consistently in different frequencies and peak power values ?
was then the said pair of blocker / known RCS target placed in a nacelle type structure to measure effects of said device in a nacelle?
were repeated measurements taken of this configuration?
when ?
where?
by whom?
Have you got credible scientific sources that indicate that a radar blocker of said configuration does not ultimately reduce the RCS of a given dB target?
Have you perhaps an analysis by a credible source that said blocker does indeed reduce RCS, but also vital mass air flow to the engine?Is there a comparative chart or table ?

rock solid ????

more like rock in a lake sinking ...
 
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.)
The highlighted completely disqualified you. Do you have any idea how small are these EM particles?
 
As a reminder to the trolls, I ignore your posts.

I am here to compare my views with Gambit's thoughts. If I believe my analysis is correct, I will consider incorporating it into my next stealth video. My videos are watched by tens of thousands of people. I am interested in ensuring that the content of my videos is factually correct.

Unwittingly, Gambit assists me in this process. I find him to be of value. However, I find no value in posts by you trolls and accordingly, I ignore them.

The highlighted completely disqualified you. Do you have any idea how small are these EM particles?

You're being an idiot again. I used the term particles, because it is easier for lay people to understand. I was being liberal in my use of the particle/wave duality of photons. Obviously, I'm referring to the wavelengths of the incoming radar.
 
martian2 said:
(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.)

Yes ..you and Dr. Who ..
 
Rock solid..

let us see, have you got the readings from the sensors that measured the efficacy of the aforementioned radar blocker in reducing an a priori given RCS value of again a given target behind it?
in which chamber? what were the frequencies and peak values used from the transmitter?
where was the receiving equipment placed in relation to the transmitter and how many were they used?
what was the distance (or simulated distance) between the given radar blocker and the equipment?
Did you notice a negligible drop in dB values, consistently in different frequencies and peak power values ?
was then the said pair of blocker / known RCS target placed in a nacelle type structure to measure effects of said device in a nacelle?
were repeated measurements taken of this configuration?
when ?
where?
by whom?
Have you got credible scientific sources that indicate that a radar blocker of said configuration does not ultimately reduce the RCS of a given dB target?
Have you perhaps an analysis by a credible source that said blocker does indeed reduce RCS, but also vital mass air flow to the engine?Is there a comparative chart or table ?

rock solid ????

more like rock in a lake sinking ...
:lol: I would not even go that far in language. The man cannot even answer with much simpler in mine. As for equipment placements, he has no experience upon which to base his 'debunking'. The man violated his own rule in using looks to judge 'stealth'.
 
Air intake ducts are not curved to shield engine compressors as in the Raptor; instead ducts are blocked using composite material. Similarly, the nozzles are blocked to shield turbine blades. The extent of shielding is variable. It is minimized when engine power requirements are high. The blocking concept is illustrated in the video below.


---------- Post added at 11:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:07 PM ----------

Dr. Who ..
what is the meaning Dr. Who
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As a reminder to the trolls, I ignore your posts.

I am here to compare my views with Gambit's thoughts. If I believe my analysis is correct, I will consider incorporating it into my next stealth video. My videos are watched by tens of thousands of people. I am interested in ensuring that the content of my videos are factually correct.
Of course you would. Your ego will not allow you to anything else.

Unwittingly, Gambit assists me in this process. I found him to be of value.
Good that you learn so much from me.

You're being an idiot again. I used the term particles, because it is easier for lay people to understand. I was being liberal in my use of the particle/wave duality of photons. Obviously, I'm referring to the wavelengths of the incoming radar.
Really? They are centimetric (cm). Despite the label 'micro' those ducts hardly look centimetric to me.
 
As a reminder to the trolls, I ignore your posts.

I am here to compare my views with Gambit's thoughts. If I believe my analysis is correct, I will consider incorporating it into my next stealth video. My videos are watched by tens of thousands of people. I am interested in ensuring that the content of my videos is factually correct.

Unwittingly, Gambit assists me in this process. I find him to be of value. However, I find no value in posts by you trolls and accordingly, I ignore them.



You're being an idiot again. I used the term particles, because it is easier for lay people to understand. I was being liberal in my use of the particle/wave duality of photons. Obviously, I'm referring to the wavelengths of the incoming radar.

No, Gambit willingly assists you in seeing the light, or some of it at least. But I think he does it for the benefit of people who might get misled by your ''rock solid'' analysis and create false ideas about how things work in general ... it's bad for people to get the impression supersonic jet fighters are created by people on the back of paper napkins (all due respect Kelly Johnson,you were the exception).
 
No, Gambit willingly assists you in seeing the light, or some of it at least. But I think he does it for the benefit of people who might get misled by your ''rock solid'' analysis and create false ideas about how things work in general ... it's bad for people to get the impression supersonic jet fighters are created by people on the back of paper napkins (all due respect Kelly Johnson,you were the exception).
.not only him but we all in this forum have many things to learn from u:enjoy:
Guys, thanks for the support, but understand that this kind of challenges will not be allowed over at their two playgrounds. They will protect their own. For here, keep focus on the technical issues/challenges.
 
And who are YOU? Someone who needs to take a basic photography class.

Here is another one...

peacekeeper_usaka.jpg


Look at the single vertical line and try to imagine a different viewer perspective. How do you know that a shift in viewer's angle will not produce a shift in supposedly descent angle?

I will answer your stupid question to prove the photograph of the peacekeeper MIRV reentry is indisputable proof of ballistic missile warheads impacting at different angles. Look carefully at the MIRV photograph below.

ebHD0.jpg

Peacekeeper MIRV reentry

In the photograph, the horizontal baseline (e.g. the horizon) is clearly discernible. If you have ever taken a math class, you know that you can draw your X-axis along the horizon.

To calculate the angle of impact for each ballistic missile warhead, take out your protractor to measure the angle between the X-axis and each ballistic missile trajectory. You have to place the center of the protractor at the point of impact (e.g. intersection of missile trajectory with X-axis/horizon).

Try it at home. Print out the photograph and go through the math exercise as stated above. You will notice the missile warhead on the far right impacted at a much steeper angle than the warhead on the left side of the photograph.

In all of these cases, none of the missiles impacted vertically. Since you can see the horizon, for a missile to fall vertically, you should see a vertical trajectory; which does not exist in the Peacekeeper MIRV photograph.

For comparison, I have seen photographs of skyscrapers in New York City where the horizon is discernible and all of the skyscrapers look vertical, as they should. Similarly, if the Peacekeeper MIRVs had impacted vertically then we should have seen vertical trajectories.

PGSHZ.jpg

With a discernible horizon/X-axis, vertical skyscrapers in New York City look vertical. If the Peacekeeper MIRVs had fallen vertically then their trajectories would have looked vertical, like the skyscrapers.

It is ludicrous for Gambit to claim that an indisputable photograph of MIRVs impacting at different angles is an illusion and that they are actually falling vertically. His argument is clearly fallacious.

I should mention that it is possible, even with a clear horizon, to change your point of view to align with the plane of a ballistic missile warhead trajectory to make an angled flight look like it's falling vertically. However, the converse is not true. When there is a clear horizon, it is impossible to shift your point of view to make a vertical trajectory look like an angled trajectory. It is obvious to me that Gambit does not understand this asymmetry.

I view Gambit as someone who is autistic. Sometimes, he says something important. However, many times, he says things that are dead wrong.

----------

Gambit is just strange. Even after I confronted him with indisputable photographic proof, such as the top part of the SR-71 nose having been shaped in accordance with "continuous curvature," Gambit still insists it obeys faceted/diamond principle.

Unfortunately, I'm stuck with the crazy guy. I never know when he will make another important post, such as the one which showed that my RAM citation (which occurred on another forum) was wrong and not applicable to all wavelengths and/or military aircraft.

wZIzm.jpg

Lockheed SR-71A Blackbird has a curved upper-nose (based on "continuous curvature" principle), not faceted diamond-shape.
 
I will answer your stupid question to prove the photograph of the peacekeeper MIRV reentry is indisputable proof of ballistic missile warheads impacting at different angles. Look carefully at the MIRV photograph below.

ebHD0.jpg

Peacekeeper MIRV reentry

In the photograph, the horizontal baseline (e.g. the horizon) is clearly discernible. If you have ever taken a math class, you know that you can draw your X-axis along the horizon.

To calculate the angle of impact for each ballistic missile warhead, take out your protractor to measure the angle between the X-axis and each ballistic missile trajectory. You have to place the center of the protractor at the point of impact (e.g. intersection of missile trajectory with X-axis/horizon).

Try it at home. Print out the photograph and go through the math exercise as stated above. You will notice the missile warhead on the far right impacted at a much steeper angle than the warhead on the left side of the photograph.
And am going to ask you again: How do you know that those are the exact impact points? The issue here is that you took a test firing to be indicative of ALL launches and that you took a wide angle photo and determine without considering the viewer's position that that is exactly how ALL descent angles will be. Heck, not even artillery men will agree with you and they deal with much less distance.

I should mention that it is possible, even with a clear horizon, to change your point of view to align with the plane of a ballistic missile warhead trajectory to make an angled flight look like it's falling vertically. However, the converse is not true. When there is a clear horizon, it is impossible to shift your point of view to make a vertical trajectory look like an angled trajectory. It is obvious to me that Gambit does not understand this asymmetry.
Utter BS. Assume that an object is falling at a 45 deg angle from a 'side' view, in other words, the object is falling laterally away from me, if I shift my viewing position 90 deg so that the object is falling towards me, it will appear in a 2-dimension photo to be falling vertically. Buddy, I watched enough Shuttle launches in Fla., from my house backyard in Orlando and at the Cape itself, to see this effect in action.

I view Gambit as someone who is autistic. Sometimes, he says something important. However, many times, he says things that are just dead wrong.
And yet how many things have you 'proved' me wrong besides this alleged item? Dang, it is so funny that so many of the Chinese boys latched on to that DF-21D warhead descending vertically onto a ship and you said nothing about it but yet when your own claim about the same thing is challenged, you went apoplectic on us.

So tell us: How would a DF-21D warhead descend on a ship?

Gambit is just strange. Even after I confronted him with indisputable photographic proof, such as the top part of the SR-71 nose having been shaped in accordance with "continuous curvature," Gambit still insists it obeys faceted/diamond principle.

Unfortunately, I'm stuck with the crazy guy. I never know when he will make another important post, such as the one which showed that my RAM citation (which occurred on another forum) was wrong and not applicable to all wavelengths and/or military aircraft.

wZIzm.jpg

Lockheed SR-71A Blackbird has a curved upper-nose (based on "continuous curvature" principle), not faceted diamond-shape.
I guessed you did not read my explanation carefully enough. Which part of the ogive bit missed you?

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/20908-rcs-different-fighters-7.html#post2104567
The addition of curvatures into the diamond shape result in the (complete) ogive...

And what is this 'continuous curvature' thingie? Got any explanation on behaviors?
 
Really? They are centimetric (cm). Despite the label 'micro' those ducts hardly look centimetric to me.

mary1_full.jpg

L-band radar wavelength is almost 1 foot. (Note: 1 inch = 2.54 cm)

sBf4u.jpg

Purported Mythical Russian radar blocker (Source: Blitzo)

Those micro ducts are roughly the same size as, or smaller than, L-band radar wavelength. As I have already stated, the microducts will produce a "broad and diffuse specular [radar] reflection."
 
Back
Top Bottom