Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[amalakas]

Bringing evidence is your obligation not mine. It is your irresponsible mentality that is the problem, not mine.

If you just drag article without capability to quote specific statement in that article as your proof then your effort means nothing!

Besides everybody could spend their time reading the whole article, but they may not receive the same understanding as yours.

I acknowledge my obligation and link the MDA document. it is there for everyone to read. People who do not have my understanding are not my concern. I sympathise but I cannot help. What is my concern is people who come on public fora and claim things that are simply not real.

 

[antonius123]

I acknowledge my obligation and link the MDA document. it is there for everyone to read. People who do not have my understanding are not my concern. I sympathise but I cannot help. What is my concern is people who come on public fora and claim things that are simply not real.

It is not enough and irresponsible!

You could bring hundred or thousand articles here as your effort to bring evidence, but not everyone would have time to read the whole hundred/thousands articles that you drag here irresponsibly.

That is not the way to prove responsibly.

 

[amalakas]

It is not enough and irresponsible!

You could bring hundred or thousand articles here as your effort to bring evidence, but not everyone would have time to read the whole hundred/thousands articles that you drag here irresponsibly.

That is not the way to prove responsibly.

Get used to it, that is how knowledgeable people interact at a certain level. And don't change the subject.

 

[antonius123]

Get used to it, that is how knowledgeable people interact at a certain level. And don't change the subject.

If you think knowledgeable people = those who are unable to prove then no wonder if you share simillar behaviour with those who live in delusion.

Everybody could act like you by claiming himself expert and drag bulshitt here

 

[amalakas]

If you think knowledgeable people = those who are unable to prove then no wonder if you share simillar behaviour with those who live in delusion.

Everybody could act like you by claiming himself expert and drag bulshitt here

I drag bullshit? I have provided proof and your objection is that I don't quote the specific line???
You clearly are a joke.

 

[gambit]

I drag bullshit? I have provided proof and your objection is that I don't quote the specific line???
You clearly are a joke.

Basically, what this loser mean is that no matter how much supporting arguments knowledgeable people bring in, the only thing he can do to save his sorry face is to simply dismiss them all. People with a sense of shame would have left the discussion a long time ago, even the Chinese boys knew when to back off when their ignorance and errors exposed. This kid simply have no shame.

 

[antonius123]

I drag bullshit? I have provided proof and your objection is that I don't quote the specific line???
You clearly are a joke.

You bring nothing here except claim with link article without explanation where it support your claim

Basically, what this loser mean is that no matter how much supporting arguments knowledgeable people bring in, the only thing he can do to save his sorry face is to simply dismiss them all. People with a sense of shame would have left the discussion a long time ago, even the Chinese boys knew when to back off when their ignorance and errors exposed. This kid simply have no shame.

What you are bringing is vague picture and arbitrary article without relevance to the topics; the latest case is your vague picture of hexagon corner reflection which you did not understand where the corner reflector lied and even you did know the shape is not pentagonal at all

There are many blunder and terrible mistakes that you have demonstrated here, i cant mentioned them all since it is countless, but evidence posted in this thread and the other one.

 

[amalakas]

You bring nothing here except claim with link article without explanation where it support your claim



What you are bringing is vague picture and arbitrary article without relevance to the topics; the latest case is your vague picture of hexagon corner reflection which you did not understand where the corner reflector lied and even you did know the shape is not pentagonal at all

There are many blunder and terrible mistakes that you have demonstrated here, i cant mentioned them all since it is countless, but evidence posted in this thread and the other one.

Not an article.. a brochure from MDA itself!

 

[antonius123]

Not an article.. a brochure from MDA itself!

Makes no difference, since you are unable to prove except drag article/brochure without ability to explain where and how those support your claim

 

[amalakas]

Makes no difference, since you are unable to prove except drag article/brochure without ability to explain where and how those support your claim

Ok, if you don't want to understand, let me play your game.. eventually you won't be able to hide anymore you know.

there you go, I have even underlined it for you, so you don't have to get tired looking..

My point is there is a Radar that can track a baseball sized object from 4700km away, the proof is in the previous link I posted the MDA brochure on SBX-1 itself, that is not enough for you, there is page 4 of the same brochure with the lines that illustrate the point highlighted.

 

[antonius123]

Ok, if you don't want to understand, let me play your game.. eventually you won't be able to hide anymore you know.

there you go, I have even underlined it for you, so you don't have to get tired looking..

My point is there is a Radar that can track a baseball sized object from 4700km away, the proof is in the previous link I posted the MDA brochure on SBX-1 itself, that is not enough for you, there is page 4 of the same brochure with the lines that illustrate the point highlighted.

Good! that is the proper way to bring evidence, at least you learn something here.

Now back to the discussion;

1. My question to you: how effective this radar could be used againts stealth fighter like F-22 / J-20?
2. It is not Airborne radar, therefore your and your friends argument that AWACS and Fighter radar could detect stealth fighter effectively is wrong. There is airborne system to detect F-22 stealth but so far i know it is still in progress

 

[amalakas]

Good! that is the proper way to bring evidence, at least you learn something here.

Now back to the discussion;

1. My question to you: how effective this radar could be used againts stealth fighter like F-22 / J-20?
2. It is not Airborne radar, therefore your and your friends argument that AWACS and Fighter radar could detect stealth fighter effectively is wrong.

Haha and haha

and to answer you questions...

1. This radar tracks a baseball sized target at 2500miles.. that means it will see a J-20 at roughly that distance give or take a few miles (not counting curvature) .
2. It doesn't matter it is not an airborne radar .. my argument was about that radar, just to illustrate your ignorance on the topic of radars. AWACS and Fighter radars have excellent ranges and tracking capabilities. Depends on model and version.

 

[antonius123]

Haha and haha

and to answer you questions...

1. This radar tracks a baseball sized target at 2500miles.. that means it will see a J-20 at roughly that distance give or take a few miles (not counting curvature) .

Is there any claim that this SBX-1 radar could be effectively detect and track stealt a/c like F-22??

2. It doesn't matter it is not an airborne radar .. my argument was about that radar, just to illustrate your ignorance on the topic of radars. AWACS and Fighter radars have excellent ranges and tracking capabilities. Depends on model and version.

You miss my point.

If you want to detect stealth air craft, there are some solution like: passive radar, or bistatic radar, including the kind of radar using ionosfir to reflect the wave that i have mentioned to you before, so even F-22 is also vulnerable to them. Also like i said: stealth doesnt mean guarantee to be free of detection at all. So the ability to detect stealth is not my point there.

If this radar is so effective, then not only J-20 is render useless - even F-22 will be also a waste of money

 

[gambit]

Is there any claim that this SBX-1 radar could be effectively detect and track stealt a/c like F-22??

If there is, why should we make it known?

You miss my point.

If you want to detect stealth air craft, there are some solution like: passive radar, or bistatic radar, including the kind of radar using ionosfir to reflect the wave that i have mentioned to you before, so even F-22 is also vulnerable to them. Also like i said: stealth doesnt mean guarantee to be free of detection at all. So the ability to detect stealth is not my point there.

If this radar is so effective, then not only J-20 is render useless - even F-22 will be also a waste of money

This goes to further confirm your stupidity in this discussion.

First, you could not explain the basics of these systems.

Second, not all radar systems are identical. The Soviets/Russians are known to be inferior to US in this area, even to today. So just because some country can field an AWACS that does not mean its capability is comparable to ours.

Third, so what if these systems of ours can detect an F-22? If anything, may be you should worry that our systems can detect the F-22, because if we can detect the F-22, we certainly can detect the J-20. So guess who really wasted their money? Not US.

Finally, we do know how to detect and track 'stealth'. See if you are smart enough to even have an educated guess. And no, am NOT talking about bi-static or atmospheric deflections.

 

[stardave]

Ok, so I read this post from page 100 to now, and there is only 1 thing I would like to say.... guys, don't argue with gambit, it is like trying to win the special Olympic, even if you win, you still feel handicapped.

I see he is using all the old school 4chan troll tactics, you bring up the argument such as Iris is not stealthy, he respond by saying so is the bubble canopy because they are both the same shape... But at what point does he not realize both plane have canopy, but only one of them have the iris prob, and when he realize this, of course the next argument is the iris prob is too small so it won't matter. And if that fails he says well, since we are all armatures so you don't know for certain it will have a negative effect, so yes you would be wrong. I mean, this is like going in circles over and over again.

And when all else fails, he respond by ignore the question and question your own posting history, and if all else fails, he always play the race card, or "Chinese physic" in fact I see by page 110 every post he made were always started by insulting your intelligence, point out how stupid you are, then he will try his best to derail your point with circle logic, and maybe, maybe if you are lucky he will offer some new points.

Oh yeah, he use to work with F-16 so that make him the authority.

He used to bring out some good points around page 100, but as it goes on I can feel his sanity is slipping, by page 127 when he said J-20 will not be as stealthy as the F-18, and J-20 is a copy from Mig 1:44 and Rafael, I know he have finally lost his mind. Or rather, did he had it in 1st place?

Seriously guys, let him win the argument, don't post anything anymore, just tell him PAK-FA is the best there is, it beats J-20 in every way possible, and only reason Chinese made or in his logic "steal/copy/clone/hack" because Chinese is in no possible way can produce their own, so they have to steal from Russia and France.

Just let him win.

Oh and yes gambit I very much expect you to flame me on this one, and let me respond to that by saying, yes everything you are about to say is right.