Top 10 future weapons of CHINA

[lamlap]

My english is not good, We chinese will do our best, some Indian who envys us

 

[Martian2]

As I have previously posted, the top part of the J-20 Mighty Dragon nose above the chine/ridge line follows the principle of "continuous curvature" (as seen on the B-2). The bottom part of the J-20 nose below the chine/ridge line follows the facet principle (as implemented on the F-117).

I explained that the slight curvature of the facets on the bottom part of the nose is due to aerodynamic considerations. To expand on the subject, I believe the facets are rounded to enable supersonic flight. The F-117 was a fully-faceted plane, but it was subsonic. Ideally, for fully optimized stealth, the bottom part of the J-20 nose should also be fully faceted; instead it is partially rounded.

An astute reader may raise the issue that the F-35 is not designed for supercruise and it has a shaped-nose similar to the J-20. However, the F-35 can use its afterburners to fly supersonically and its nose must be designed to accommodate the same requirements of stealth and supersonic-travel.

J-20 Mighty Dragon shaped-nose enables it to supercruise and hunt for pesky F-35s.

----------

If anyone is keeping track, I have recently provided six original insights into the application of stealth design to stealth fighters.

I am the first person on the internet to say:

1. There is no RAM coating on T-50 engines after almost two years from its debut.

2. T-50 upper-body fuselage behind the pilot does not appear to follow "continuous curvature" principle. It's too steep.

3. Latter half of T-50 engine pod is not canted. Only the front half of the air duct is canted.

4. J-20 Mighty Dragon canards are a superb design choice, because the placement of winglets forward of the main wings creates the benefit of supermaneuverability; while the placement of horizontal tailplanes on the F-22 merely engenders stability without supermaneuverability.

5. J-20 Mighty Dragon shaped-nose follows the "continuous curvature" principle above the chine/ridge line. Below the chine/ridge line, the shaped-nose follows the facet principle.

6. J-20 Mighty Dragon shaped-nose is optimized for stealth AND supercruise.

 

[gambit]

We disagree.

I will now claim to be the first person on the internet to explicitly state that the J-20's shaped nose above the chine/ridge line follows the "continuous curvature" principle of stealth design. Also, I am stating the shaped nose below the chine/ridge line follows the facet principle.

Of course you would disagree. Who in their right (or in your case 'wrong') mind would agree when he is being told he is wrong? You use the phrase 'continuous curvature' without a clue of what it mean and how it works. Heck, you learned that phrase and just about everything else about this subject from me. I will explain how you are wrong and will post my explanation in the appropriate sub-forum and will reference it here. When people read my explanation, you will be finally the laughing stock of the Internet.

By the way, I reconsidered and instead of an 'F' I will give you an 'E' for effort so far.

 

[Martian2]

Of course you would disagree. Who in their right (or in your case 'wrong') mind would agree when he is being told he is wrong? You use the phrase 'continuous curvature' without a clue of what it mean and how it works. Heck, you learned that phrase and just about everything else about this subject from me. I will explain how you are wrong and will post my explanation in the appropriate sub-forum and will reference it here. When people read my explanation, you will be finally the laughing stock of the Internet.

By the way, I reconsidered and instead of an 'F' I will give you an 'E' for effort so far.

We disagree again. I believe "E" is for excellent analysis.

I hope you know I won't read your convoluted and silly explanation. I like to spend my time productively. For the same reason, I am ignoring a silly person's thread about me.

 

[gambit]

I only recall Gambit saying, "we don't really know anything unless we can physically examine a J-20 Mighty Dragon ourselves." I've been saying that he's nuts and I've kept analyzing and comparing the J-20, F-22, F-35, and T-50.

Wait a second, I remember Gambit making a b.s. claim that the J-20 probably had a software problem and couldn't fly based on a single picture of asymmetric vertical stabilizers. I said he was full of it and cited China's experience with fly-by-wire from the J-10 program. He insisted the J-20 couldn't fly and I remember it flew within a few days. Gambit's observation/prediction was dead wrong.

I challenge you to show everyone where I said that the J-20 could not fly based upon my suspicion. If anything, this post showed very clear to me that what I said about 'Byzantine failures' went whoooooossssshhhh over your head.

---------- Post added at 08:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:35 PM ----------

We disagree again. I believe "E" is for excellent analysis.

I hope you know I won't read your convoluted and silly explanation. I like to spend my time productively. For the same reason, I am ignoring a silly person's thread about me.

Does not matter if you read it or not. Others will and in their objective minds, you will be that laughing stock. They will see my explanation as logical and technically valid based upon certain principles I posted here before.

 

[Martian2]

I challenge you to show everyone where I said that the J-20 could not fly based upon my suspicion. If anything, this post showed very clear to me that what I said about 'Byzantine failures' went whoooooossssshhhh over your head.

---------- Post added at 08:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:35 PM ----------


Does not matter if you read it or not. Others will and in their objective minds, you will be that laughing stock. They will see my explanation as logical and technically valid based upon certain principles I posted here before.

You know the old J-20 thread with over 300,000 views was deleted. Even if I was willing to spend an hour (which you know I'm not willing to do) looking for your erroneous post, it is no longer available. You know that.

 

[gambit]

You know the old J-20 thread with over 300,000 views was deleted. Even if I was willing to spend an hour looking for your erroneous post, it is no longer available. You know that.

Nowhere did I ever said the J-20 could not fly based upon 'Byzantine failures'. Am willing to bet that it is here and from me that you have learned there is such an obscure and esoteric thing. But it is something very important for process engineering. So for me to say that the J-20 could not fly because of 'Byzantine failures' would be technically incorrect. You took the word 'failures' out of its proper context in this subject.

 

[j20blackdragon]

Gaps, seams, protrusions, surface discontinuities, sudden changes in shape everywhere.

How is the PAK FA even stealthy?

Here's a real stealth fighter.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

You know the old J-20 thread with over 300,000 views was deleted. Even if I was willing to spend an hour (which you know I'm not willing to do) looking for your erroneous post, it is no longer available. You know that.

Gambit has a usual habit of denial.

Dealing with the deleted thread, he has done the same in case where i caught him making the outrageous claim such as the US will wipe out China's air force in a blink of eye.

 

[houshanghai]

Gaps, seams, protrusions, surface discontinuities, sudden changes in shape everywhere.

How is the PAK FA even stealthy?

Here's a real stealth fighter.

more clear pic of pakfa,

if F22 is still the present standard of 5 gen fighter in the world .then PAKFA is not a real stealth fighter

 

[gambit]

I don't recall Gambit making a single important unique observation.

That is because I am not you. I have relevant experience in the subject. I know the pitfalls of making assumptions without caveats. And when I do make an assertion, I back it up with credible third party sources and/or sources that demonstrate basic principles that are universal. In other words, unlike you, I provide the readers with information that they can use to apply against everyone. In that, I am more fair than you can ever be.

---------- Post added at 08:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 PM ----------

Gambit has a usual habit of denial.

Dealing with the deleted thread, he has done the same in case where i caught him making the outrageous claim such as the US will wipe out China's air force in a blink of eye.

We pretty much did it with Iraq. Fine...How about two blinks?

 

[Martian2]

Gambit has a usual habit of denial.

Dealing with the deleted thread, he has done the same in case where i caught him making the outrageous claim such as the US will wipe out China's air force in a blink of eye.

I proved him wrong in his assertion that a ballistic missile warhead only falls vertically onto its target. He mumbled something about "vertical" not being "vertical" and that I misunderstood him. I've given up hope that he will muster the courage to ever admit a mistake. I've made my share of mistakes, but I admit to them.

Anyway, Gambit is Gambit. <shrug>

 

[ptldM3]

We disagree again. I believe "E" is for excellent analysis.

I hope you know I won't read your convoluted and silly explanation. I like to spend my time productively. For the same reason, I am ignoring a silly person's thread about me.

Yet you have time to make silly youtube videos. And i would ignore a thread about me too if someone dug up posts where i contradicted myself into a hole that i could not dig myself out of.

 

[gambit]

I proved him wrong in his assertion that a ballistic missile warhead only falls vertically onto its target. He mumbled something about "vertical" not being "vertical" and that I misunderstood him. I've given up hope that he will muster the courage to ever admit a mistake. I've made my share of mistakes, but I admit to them.

Anyway, Gambit is Gambit. <shrug>

You will be seriously spanked about that. And I will use a Popular Science article from forty years ago and the Space Shuttle of today to do it.

 

[IndianArmy]

Gaps, seams, protrusions, surface discontinuities, sudden changes in shape everywhere.

How is the PAK FA even stealthy?

Here's a real stealth fighter.

According to the real stealth fighter in your picture, Canards have poor stealth characteristics, in fact there is no better way to compromise stealth than adding canards to a fighter If only you knew, then the engine nozzles and its sheer size. Truly a stealth.

I have no hesitation to also say that this aircraft would be a complete one, only when it becomes operational, now in a testing phase its the same aircraft like any other .