Top 10 future weapons of CHINA

[gambit]

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

Gee wizz...Tell me something I do not know. If anything, I bet you learned that there are physical wavelengths from me.

Those micro ducts are roughly the same size as L-band radar wavelength.

Then you should have no problems provide a source for that. But then again, we are not talking about the L-band but the targeting freqs, which are in the centimetric regions. It would be folly to ignore these freqs.

 

[Martian2]

Gee wizz...Tell me something I do not know. If anything, I bet you learned that there are physical wavelengths from me.

Then you should have no problems provide a source for that. But then again, we are not talking about the L-band but the targeting freqs, which are in the centimetric regions. It would be folly to ignore these freqs.

I don't want to keep arguing with you; especially since you are clearly wrong. A microduct design will not work and it is clearly detectable with L-band and probably S-band radar.

I would appreciate it if you would stop with the nonsensical claim that I learned many things from you. Like everyone else, I learned about electromagnetic wavelengths in high school. However, you do occasionally post interesting diagrams and information, which I do read.

----------

Regarding the ogive design, it is consistent with my post that the top part is based on "continuous curvature" principle and the bottom part with the facet principle. You claimed my analysis was incorrect. You are wrong. There was nothing wrong with my analysis. It was right on target.

 

[gambit]

I don't want to keep arguing with you; especially since you are clearly wrong. A microduct design will not work and it is clearly detectable with L-band and probably X-band radar.

My PC's motherboard is 'micro' ATX but its physical measurements are 9.6x9.6 in. So the label 'micro' is clearly irrelevant. Show us a credible source that says an engine radar blocker has openings in the cm range.

I would appreciate it if you would stop with the nonsensical claim that I learned many things from you. Like everyone else, I learned about electromagnetic wavelengths in high school. You do occasionally post interesting diagrams and information, which I do read.

It is not nonsensical. You used many phrases and words today that you did not used before when you came here.

Now as for the 'round nose' bit...

The ogive as a RCS compact range standard : Dominek, A. : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

E- and H-plane radar cross section (RCS) patterns at 4 and 10 GHz are provided (based upon moment method calculations) for a perfectly conducting ogive to be used as a compact range verification standard.

The ogive is a well known standard shape used in calibration, qualification of new measurement facilities, and in aircraft designs. Which part of the ogive in my debunking of you that you do not understand? Heck, did you even know of this?

 

[Martian2]

My PC's motherboard is 'micro' ATX but its physical measurements are 9.6x9.6 in. So the label 'micro' is clearly irrelevant. Show us a credible source that says an engine radar blocker has openings in the cm range.


It is not nonsensical. You used many phrases and words today that you did not used before when you came here.

Now as for the 'round nose' bit...

The ogive as a RCS compact range standard : Dominek, A. : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

The ogive is a well known standard shape used in calibration, qualification of new measurement facilities, and in aircraft designs. Which part of the ogive in my debunking of you that you do not understand? Heck, did you even know of this?

I have no intention of spending hours in here arguing with you. I just don't have the time. I will see you at the next discussion when a different observation regarding stealth has been made.

As far as I'm concerned, you did not raise any significant arguments to suggest that my analysis of the Mythical Russian radar blocker was flawed. My analysis is now eligible for my next set of videos. You have served your function.

 

[gambit]

I have no intention of spending hours in here arguing with you. I just don't have the time. I will see you at the next discussion when a different observation regarding stealth has been made.

As far as I'm concerned, you did not raise any significant arguments to suggest that my analysis of the Mythical Russian radar blocker was flawed. My analysis is now eligible for my next set of videos. You have served your function.

My advice is to confine your nonsense in those two playgrounds where gullible conscript rejects will swallow wholesale your stuff. Put them here and they will be challenged regardless of whether you intend to defend your claims or not. Your ego is outsized for your knowledge in this subject.

---------- Post added at 05:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:12 PM ----------

Regarding the ogive design, it is consistent with my post that the top part is based on "continuous curvature" principle and the bottom part with the facet principle. You claimed my analysis was incorrect. You are wrong. There was nothing wrong with my analysis. It was right on target.

You provided no 'analysis' whatsoever. You guessed and it was correct. Nothing more. My explanation was more detailed on how signals behaves on a surface.

 

[below_freezing]

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'.

Name this person's account and give me his posts? I don't think I've ever seen someone that calls himself "Engineer" at ChineseDefence.

Indeed, at ChineseDefence we are highly self critical with controversial topics everywhere. If you have a problem with one of our topics you're welcome to pick it out and debate it. Otherwise why bring it up?

 

[gambit]

Name this person's account and give me his posts? I don't think I've ever seen someone that calls himself "Engineer" at ChineseDefence.

Your 'other' playground. When I saw the man made that ridiculous assertion and NO ONE called him out on it despite the availability of public information, my respect for that crowd went south quickly.

Indeed, at ChineseDefence we are highly self critical with controversial topics everywhere. If you have a problem with one of our topics you're welcome to pick it out and debate it. Otherwise why bring it up?

Sure you are......Any explanations why your new playground quickly became the 'echo chamber' YOU feared?

 

[below_freezing]

Your 'other' playground. When I saw the man made that ridiculous assertion and NO ONE called him out on it despite the availability of public information, my respect for that crowd went south quickly.


Sure you are......Any explanations why your new playground quickly became the 'echo chamber' YOU feared?

the echo chamber dudes left or post less. i don't know any other websites, i only use 2 English forums.

ive also noticed that you are unable to say that the J-20 is "definitely" not stealthy. you can only say that it is possibly not as stealthy as predicted and the main thing you've brought up, was the canards.

but what if the canards were made of radio transparent material?

we know that radomes are made of such radio transparent plastics:

Radar transparent rigid polyurethane ... - Google Patents

why could a canard, and its associated control elements, not be made of the same material? then the canards could be ignored in RCS models.

 

[gambit]

ive also noticed that you are unable to say that the J-20 is "definitely" not stealthy. you can only say that it is possibly not as stealthy as predicted and the main thing you've brought up, was the canards.

The correct word is 'unwilling'. I have always advocated caution in making assertions either way. The aircraft is too new. The application of RCS control methods is still too technically esoteric and difficult for most countries to give the public any idea on even how to make a baseline assessment on anyone's capability to create a 'stealth' aircraft. The result is that we have extremes on opinions as to what 'stealth' is, let alone on who can make something 'stealthy'.

but what if the canards were made of radio transparent material?

we know that radomes are made of such radio transparent plastics:

Radar transparent rigid polyurethane ... - Google Patents

why could a canard, and its associated control elements, not be made of the same material? then the canards could be ignored in RCS models.

Until we see it...

There are technical hurdles that must overcome and usually ideas under development do not have the burden of practical engineering.

 

[j20blackdragon]

The Russians have revolutionized stealth!

Gaps, seams, protrusions, surface discontinuities, sudden changes in shape, and fully exposed engines are how you actually make an airplane stealthy!

Several DECADES of American stealth design rules are WRONG! Amazing!

This is what a real stealth aircraft looks like. Do you believe me?

 

[marshall]

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."

Funny analogy but illustrates perfectly. LOL

 

[marshall]

----------

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.

I've been busy making money on the stock market but have hit a really bad streak in the last few months. So, I'm moving away from the market a bit. It's been uglllyyyy as of late. Market manipulation in the gold and silver paper markets...that's all I can say about that.

 

[below_freezing]

Funny analogy but illustrates perfectly. LOL

no it is not. the photon model is useful when any discontinuities or obstacles present in the path of the EM radiation is very large with respect to the wavelength, or quantum mechanical things involving atoms, molecules or solids like fluorescence, photovoltaics or diode lasers are under investigation.

when the obstacle sizes and the EM wavelengths are comparable in size then the wave model is much more useful.

 

[marshall]

no it is not. the photon model is useful when any discontinuities or obstacles present in the path of the EM radiation is very large with respect to the wavelength, or quantum mechanical things involving atoms, molecules or solids like fluorescence, photovoltaics or diode lasers are under investigation.

when the obstacle sizes and the EM wavelengths are comparable in size then the wave model is much more useful.

Sure it is. The whole point is to be stealthy against your opponent, not against specific radar bands that an opponent would obviously not use against such an enemy. That is one of the reasons why the F-35 is criticized when compared to the F-22A because the F-22A is stealthy to all radars while the F-35 has narrow band stealth.

 

[below_freezing]

Sure it is. The whole point is to be stealthy against your opponent, not against specific radar bands that an opponent would obviously not use against such an enemy. That is one of the reasons why the F-35 is criticized when compared to the F-22A because the F-22A is stealthy to all radars while the F-35 has narrow band stealth.

the problem is all the radar bands are anywhere from 1 meter to 1 centimeter, comparable to the size of features on the airplane, and thus still obey the wave model more than the photon model. this is basic high school physics.