Top 10 future weapons of CHINA

[ptldM3]

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.

You mean to say that a teams of engineers/designers with PHD's/Masters/bachlors got it wrong! Dearly respected sir, thank you for you enlightening and groundbreaking information. I am truly humbled and honored to be in your presents, you are like a messiah.

2. The idea of using micro-ducts is patently silly.

More like you're silly, I take it you are not aware of the F-117's intakes. Lets take a look. Check this out, I will post a source, amazing isn't? You should try it sometimes instead of making assumptions that backfire on you.


Source:


The Radar Game - Understanding Stealth and Aircraft Survivability

A screen covered the engine ducts and the canopy was shielded. Diffusers and baffling prevented radar waves entering the engine intake from hitting the engine itself and reflect-ing back to the receiver. Diffusers covered the front of the intake and screened out radar waves by using a wire mesht hat was smaller than the wavelength of the radar, similar to the screen on a microwave oven’s glass that preventmicrowaves from leaving the interior of the appliance. The intake on the F-117 was covered with a fine grill mesh whose gaps were smaller than the wavelengths of enemy radar

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.

And what makes you think that an S-duct, literally causes EM energy to 'bounce'?

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

Than explain this:

RAM-coated cockpit glass, removing exposed rivets, removing all those gaps, vents, and protrusions......

So on one hand you claim that something as large as a radar blocker with 'gaps' large enough to place a fist in is too small to achieve EM energy to bounce around while on the other hand you loudly shout that rivets are 'poor for stealth', so apparently pin-hole sized rivets can cause EM energy to cause returns but a radar blocker's vents are too small to cause any bounces.





You really need to keep track of your post you consistently contradict yourself. You have the worst case of double standards I have ever seen, you twist and manipulate everything in favor of the J-20 while all the while putting down the pak-fa based on bias opinions. Sad how some of the same rules you set for the pak-fa do not apply to your J-20.

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[/B]. 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).[/B]

Has to be large and smooth?

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

I doubt you have ever taken any physics classes.

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.

Lets clear a few thing up, the picture of that radar blocker is not meant for the pak-fa. Even if we assume some EM energy will exit the blocker we have several things happening at once. Firstly, the EM energy that escapes the radar blocker will bounce around wildly and second it will bounce around in a cavity that is treated with obsorbers, with each bounce EM becomes weaker and weaker, than comes complex scatter, it is not known how much of this complex scatter will make it back to the receiver. So essentially you are making claims without examining all aspects. If we assume some EM energy will escape, (we have no definitive answer as to how much will escape) it could be 1%-5% or 10%-20%, there is no way to know, than as mentioned a loss of energy will occur, for all we know the inner walls of the intake can absorb all the excess EM energy but if the energy is not completely lost by the time it exits the intake it will than scatter, the important thing is that only some (if any) of the EM energy will actually travel back to its source.

So what makes you think that whatever EM energy (if any) will have enough strength to return to its source?

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.

It isn't.

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."

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

The coward is back. I asked you to point out these defects, you have failed, I asked you to post a source, you failed to do that as well. I asked you to explained what phenomenon some of this falls into, you failed.


And now you make wild claims of 'cracks', where are these cracks? Show everyone, I for one would love to see these mysterious cracks.


I can also see that you have zero understanding in this subject so I will try to say this in an easy to understand manner that even a child can understand.

Seams--every aircraft has these, even the J-20, the J-20's weapons bays, canopy and access panels all have seams genius.

Protrusions--the J-20 has far more than the pak-fa, sorry it's the truth. The J-20's under wing actuators are by far larger than the pak-fa's actuators, the pak-fa also has no DSI's. The whole is larger than its parts, and the J-20 has a whole lot of 'bumps' that are large.


surface discontinuities--from the picture you posted it showed an aileron, are you telling me that the J-20 has no ailerons? And thus no surface discontinuities? It would be nice to think these things through before publicly embarrassing yourself.

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

You don't know many things. what's new?

 

[below_freezing]

the number of surface discontinuities on the J-20 are indeed much less than the number on the T-50. you don't need image analysis software to prove this, though if you really want me to, i'll get to it when im back at the lab.

the DSI is supposedly a RCS reducing element; the T-50 not having DSI or engine radar blockers is indeed a disadvantage. don't let ideology blind you and don't assume that just because the opponent is wrong, you are right - you could both be wrong.

 

[marshall]

Good point. I cannot comment without a supercomputer on hand but if I were to take a wild guess, I would say the continuous curvature as implemented on the canards would be shaped to diffract any EM outwards away from the fuselage from the frontal aspect. However, avoiding the wings is a problem. In real world situations, the canards should be kept in alignment most times except in dogfights or once detected. I would not be surprised if there were different flight modes available for this very reason.

And I see that you felled for that 'continuous curvature' thingie. Your guess is as wild as it is wrong. In order to have diffracted signals away from the fuselage, the TRAILING EDGE of the canard must be angled 'away' from the fuselage. Continuous curvature has nothing, or at best very little, to do with this. Am sure you can find plenty of publicly available images of the J-20 to see for yourself the angle of those trailing edges.

Excuse me, I meant to use the word "refract" or "reflect", if you may, instead of diffract. Please forgive me. LOL I thought my meaning was obvious given that canards are at the front of the plane which would make diverting EM completely away from the plane extremely difficult, which I pointed out.

 

[marshall]

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.

I see your point now, I was picturing the ball in my mind. hahah

 

[gambit]

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.

Aaahhh...Wrong.

To understand why you are wrong we must have some basic understanding of radar detection and target resolutions.

First...The highly desirable target resolutions are:

- Altitude
- Speed
- Aspect angle
- Heading

Second...To calculate them we must have pulses...

The illustration above is applicable to ALL wavelengths, from the meters length HF/VHF/UHF bands to the ghz centimetric and millimetric bands.

Third...Each pulse has:

- Duration
- Leading edge
- Trailing edge

The whole thing is called 'finite pulse length'.

I will not get into other items like PA, PW, and PRI as shown in the illustration. Suffice to say that without pulses, we cannot calculate the lists of target resolutions. We depend on knowing from each time indexes (or slices) of those pulses, from when a pulse impact a target to when the echo received, to know how fast, how high, and which heading is the target with respect to us.

Fourth...It is self evident that the higher the freq the closer the pulses to each other that we can create, the shorter those time slices will be, the higher the target resolutions. For example, the standard light flickers at 60 cycles (hz) but in high speed camera photography the shutter speed create light pulses much greater than 60 cycles to give us those spectacular 'slo-mo' sports actions. If we have strobe lights lower than 60 cycles like those so popular in nightclubs, those time slices are too far apart so we see movements that are 'jerky' and 'disjointed'.

All of this means that the closer the attacker is to us, the higher his target resolutions we want so we can defend ourselves, and this mean the world over is restricted to the centimetric and some millimetric bands to create those target resolutions. The downside to using higher freqs with shorter pulses is that since each pulse has a finite amount of energy (finite pulse length) the higher the freqs we use to calculate high target resolutions, the closer we must allow the attacker to come to us before we use those limited energy to find his target resolutions. It is the typical Catch-22 dilemma in using high freqs.

This is why air defense radar systems have multiple antennas for multiple stages of target detection:

- Meters length freqs for long range search purposes. Very poor target resolutions but at least we know the general direction of a potential threat. For a busy civilian airport, we only need to know the coarse information of what is 200 km out. No need for fine grain information.

- Low end of the centimetric freqs for increased target resolutions for threat assessments and assignments. For a busy civilian airport, we need to know a bit more so we can negotiate landing permissions and priority.

- High end of the centimetric and millimetric freqs to missile guidance. This is where all threats are no longer potential but are genuine danger. We need the maximum fine grain possible of all threats' altitudes, speeds, headings, and aspect angles.

Because active cancellation is not yet possible, the first law of RCS control is:

1- Design for specific threat freqs. This mean the highly useful and popular X-band.

Next are:

2- Use angle facetings to control exposure of large expanse of surfaces.

3- Use 'lossy' material or absorber whenever possible to control surface wave behaviors.

4- Enforce tolerances across large expanse of surfaces.

5- Treat edges to control diffractions, this includes plan forming of all flight control elements.

6- Avoid corner reflectors of any degree when possible. If not, then avoid the 90 deg kind.

7- Avoid straight line cavities. Or heavily diffuse entrant signals before the cavities.

8- Avoid surface discontinuities whenever possible. If not possible, see law 5.

9- Shield high-gain antennas from out-of-band freqs. This mean use law 2 to prevent non-threat freqs from exposing the aircraft.

If the F-35 is more visible in the EM spectrum than the F-22 it will be because of considerations that compelled the designer to focus less on some of the above laws than others.

 

[lamlap]

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

 

[lamlap]

Chinese can produce SUPEIOR J10B, J20 with China-Made Engine

Indians produce nothing, only Ugly LCA (Mig-21 level ) with foreign Engline

hahahahahahahahahahahahahah

hahahahahahahahahah

---------- Post added at 05:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:29 PM ----------

Indians can only talk talk talk with big mouth

 

[Martian2]

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.

I'm sorry to hear about that. I'm tired of Santro deleting my posts and the stupid trolls. Please visit ChineseDefence.com to converse with me on economics or J-20 Mighty Dragon stealth fighter. I'm basically saying that I've reached my troll limit and giving up on posting on this forum.

I have a new stealth insight and my calculations will be ready by tomorrow night. I hope to see you over there.

I like comparing notes with Gambit, but the troll-annoyance factor isn't worth it. Screw it. I'm willing to have a few more minor errors in my videos. I think I can crank out three more videos by the end of this year.

My invitation to continue our conversations at a more friendly forum, where Santro can't delete our posts, extends to "lamlap" and everyone else (excluding trolls of course; you guys stay put here). My next insight is titled, "Why every stealth fighter needs a S-duct." It'll be ready by tomorrow night. I have to do the calculations.

Unfortunately, I don't know how to use a paint program yet, but my arguments should become readily obvious. It'll knock your socks off.

One final thing, I'll have the post on the T-50 planform alignment violation(s) up by Saturday on the other Santro-free forum. I just need to collect the right pictures for illustration.

See you on the other side, my friends. No Santro and no trolls. You can't beat that.

 

[j20blackdragon]

THIS is what a stealth fighter looks like.

This is what a stealth fighter is NOT supposed to look like. Any questions?

 

[gambit]

the number of surface discontinuities on the J-20 are indeed much less than the number on the T-50. you don't need image analysis software to prove this, though if you really want me to, i'll get to it when im back at the lab.

But the F-117 has more surface discontinuities and probably more than either.

the DSI is supposedly a RCS reducing element; the T-50 not having DSI or engine radar blockers is indeed a disadvantage. don't let ideology blind you and don't assume that just because the opponent is wrong, you are right - you could both be wrong.

How? If the DSI 'bump' offer some measure of shielding for the engine, then why are the DSI 'bumps' on the J-20 is irrelevant for RCS while the 'bumps' on the F-35 are detrimental? Is it because Kopp said so?

 

[j20blackdragon]

This picture might make a lot of people mad. I'll post it anway.

 

[below_freezing]

But the F-117 has more surface discontinuities and probably more than either.


How? If the DSI 'bump' offer some measure of shielding for the engine, then why are the DSI 'bumps' on the J-20 is irrelevant for RCS while the 'bumps' on the F-35 are detrimental? Is it because Kopp said so?

I don't think the DSI bumps on the F-35 are detrimental to its stealth; on the contrary I think its a deliberate design choice.

The F-117 emphasizes a different principle of RCS reduction than the F-22, J-20 or T-50. It is based mostly upon reflection of radio waves away from the receiver; the J-20, F-22 and T-50 attempt to use other methods (non reflective) of RCS reduction. I'm not an expert on electromagnetics and I'll leave this to someone with better expertise.

 

[Project 627]

1. NUCLEAR SUBMARINES

(i) SSBN type094 submarine & type 96 submarine

General characteristics
Displacement: 8,000 tons surfaced , 9,000 tons submerged
Length: 133 m
Propulsion: Nuclear reactor, 1 shaft


Armament: Torpedoes: six 533 mm bow tubes Missiles: 12 JL-2 SLBM,16 JL-2 SLBM (Type 2),20-24 JL-2 SLBM (Type 3)

The Type 096 submarine is a new class of SSBN rumored to be in development for the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). Little information exists about the project. Some sources suggests that the new submarine will carry 24 SLBMs. It will be the successor to the Type 094 SSBN currently under evaluation by the PLAN.

(ii)SSGNType 093 submarine & type 95 submarine

Design

The Type 093 is estimated to be roughly 7000t displacement when dived. The Type 093 is estimated to be 110 metres (360 ft) long with a beam of 11m and can dive to a maximum depth of 400 metres (1,300 ft). It is estimated to have a noise level of 110db[3] and have an endurance of 80 days. This submarine is the first to incorporate flank linear array sonars designated as H/SQG-207 in its design, and this linear flank array was designed by the 715th Institute, with deputy chief designer Mr. Li Qihu (李启&#34382, who was the chief designer of H/SQ-2 262/262A/262B/262C/H-SQG-4 sonars used to upgrade Type 035, 033, both 091 and 092, 035G, and 039 submarines.
The improved Type 093G incorporates new technologies such as retractable diving planes and a modified hull for greater acoustic stealth.[
Weapons

The Type 093 is expected to be armed with six 533 mm and/or 650 mm torpedo tubes that will launch Russian or indigenous wire-, acoustic, and wake-homing torpedoes as well as anti-ship and land attack cruise missiles. This could include the submarine launched version of YJ-83 anti-ship missile. Currently YJ-83 is not believed to be nuclear tipped. Nuclear deterrence missions are delegated to the 092 Xia class and 094 Jin class SSBN.

It is anticipated that Type 095 submarines will have a substantially reduced acoustical signature, incorporating the latest Russian submarine technology, within a larger version of the Xia/Jin hull type.[3][6][7] The Type 095's acoustical signature is estimated to be superior to Soviet-era Victor III (Project 671RTM) submarines but inferior to Akula I (Project 971) submarines initially introduced in the late 1980s.[1][2] Additionally, it is also speculated that Type 095 submarines may be armed with long-range anti-ship HY-4 cruise missiles and act as a potential undersea escort for any future PLAN aircraft carrier task forces

PLEASE NOTE
This is my personal assumption of top 10 future weapons,i have tried my
level best to give as much accurate list i could.If i by chance had missed out any weapon or u want to change the list then plz comment
I hope u would appreciate my hard work.THANK YOU

FROM THE AUTHOR
This article is dedicated to to all the great peoples of CHINA

WHAT?

 

[no_name]

I don't think the DSI bumps on the F-35 are detrimental to its stealth; on the contrary I think its a deliberate design choice.

The F-117 emphasizes a different principle of RCS reduction than the F-22, J-20 or T-50. It is based mostly upon reflection of radio waves away from the receiver; the J-20, F-22 and T-50 attempt to use other methods (non reflective) of RCS reduction. I'm not an expert on electromagnetics and I'll leave this to someone with better expertise.

I think it's different design approach adpopted because limits of computational power at the time means they have to carve the F-117 up into sizeable blocks and look at the combined effects from them.

 

[gambit]

I don't think the DSI bumps on the F-35 are detrimental to its stealth; on the contrary I think its a deliberate design choice.

Of course it was a design choice. But the F-35's DSI 'bumps' are not what I was talking about but the various other 'bumps' elsewhere on the aircraft. The question is that if the J-20's DSI 'bumps' are not detrimental to 'stealth' then why are the F-355's assorted 'bumps' are detrimental? Because Kopp said so? Remember...Your man has been propagating that argument all this time without any credible arguments to support it.

The F-117 emphasizes a different principle of RCS reduction than the F-22, J-20 or T-50. It is based mostly upon reflection of radio waves away from the receiver; the J-20, F-22 and T-50 attempt to use other methods (non reflective) of RCS reduction. I'm not an expert on electromagnetics and I'll leave this to someone with better expertise.

Technically incorrect. Radar detection is based upon assorted modes of reflected signals. Same for RCS control methods. The F-22, F-35, and B-2 uses some of the F-117's angled facetings method but all methods are about the same goal: To direct reflected and diffracted signals away from source direction.