Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[gambit]

1. The F-35 uses cheaper composite materials for stealth and avoids the expensive F-22 multi-layers of stealth paint applications.

Lockheed-Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter; Assessing the Joint Strike Fighter

"The stealth capability in the JSF is designed for low cost and maintainability, rather than best possible stealth performance. Stealth is achieved by a combination of shaping, detail design and absorbent/lossy materials, with shaping being the most dominant feature by some degree. While detail design and materials can evolve over the life of a design, and be upgraded incrementally to match an evolving threat, airframe shaping is fixed and whatever limits it imposes are unchangable."

And where in that quote does it say anything about 'inferior' materials being detrimental to the F-35's low radar observability?

2. After two years in this thread, I can only conclude you are brain dead. You're seriously telling me you don't understand why the lack of internal side weapon bays make the F-35 inferior to the J-20? It is obvious.

This is utter BS. The location of the weapons bay in no way make the F-35 inferior.

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - F-35 JSF Weapon Carriage Capacity

If anything, it can be argued that the J-20 is inferior to the F-35 due to its limitations in the type of weapons it can carry. Say the same for the F-22 as well -- inferior.

Let's say both the F-35 and J-20 carry MRAAM in their main underside weapon bay. Since only the J-20 has side internal weapon bays, which carry SRAAM, the F-35 is at a disadvantage in a dogfight. WVR combat is likely to occur because the AESA radar won't pick up the other fighter until close range.

Since when is a missile restricted to a specific location on an aircraft? Is this another example of 'Chinese physics'?

No matter how you look at it, a J-20 fighter with six missiles is superior to a F-35 fighter with four missiles. I can't believe you can't figure that out yourself and I have to explain it to you.

The quantity of missiles carried is irrelevant. It depends on who shoot first. With the J-20's higher missile count, it will make a larger fireball on destruction.

I don't have the time or inclination to keep answering your goofy questions. If you have a serious point that I haven't covered before, I am willing to address it. However, I'm not willing to keep addressing issues that I have covered in the last two years in the J-20 threads.

And we do not have time for 'Chinese physics'.

 

[gambit]

I hate the rumors where someone says F-35 can jam the F-22 radar. My first question is how?

The F-22 probably uses frequency hopping. How is the F-35 going to jam a wide range of frequencies? Where is all that power going to come from? The F-35 has only one small engine to supply power to the plane.

Secondly, let's assume the F-35 broadcasts in a wide range of frequencies with sufficient power to drown out the signal from the F-22 radar. That's the quickest way to die by broadcasting away the F-35's position.

I hate stupid rumors like the awesome F-35 radar can jam the F-22 (and implicitly the J-20). I haven't heard a good physics explanation of how that is possible without broadcasting the F-35's position.

This is where your lack of relevant experience make your postings look silly if not outright stupid. I have posted plenty of explanations on the differences between jamming and avoidance before. Apparently the lessons were lost upon you.

Jamming is active transmission. The goal of such a transmission IS NOT to avoid detection but to deny tracking. There is a great deal of difference between detection and tracking and it looks like those differences are beyond your ken.

Jamming is like a shield. You can see the shield but not 'track' the man behind that shield.

Avoidance is 'stealth', meaning you do whatever you can to deny the enemy a discernable pattern for him to perform that same tracking. You blend in with the background the way a well camo-ed soldier would. You have no protection, or in the case of 'stealth' you have no EM protection.

So the goal is not to deny the enemy one's position but to deny him the opportunity to track you.

As for how can the F-35 jam the J-20? Pulse characteristic analysis. Power is not required in this because if the J-20 is going to use the typical X band then frequency agility will be only within a very narrow region. No need for a large range of power.

Learn anything yet?

have a look at all of your own posts, you prejudge verything just because you had 'experiences'````and very stereotyped

Why not? Are you saying experience is irrelevant?

you might have flew few western fighters, but none Chinese ones, so that puts you in no position to judge Chinese planes and avionics (same as Chinese members)

Are Chinese aircrafts under a different set of physical laws?

 

[Pfpilot]

Since when is a missile restricted to a specific location on an aircraft? Is this another example of 'Chinese physics'?

Can a high off-boresight WVR missile be fully utilized while being carried in an internal carriage like that of the f-35? Would the missile be launched and then lock on to the target or is there some other way?

As for how can the F-35 jam the J-20? Pulse characteristic analysis. Power is not required in this because if the J-20 is going to use the typical X band then frequency agility will be only within a very narrow region. No need for a large range of power.

If you have the time, could you please explain Pulse Characteristic analysis and how it would be employed? Sounds interesting and went right over my head.

 

[gambit]

1. Show me the citations where they published the specific performance results of non-stealth aircraft comparisons (e.g. how far did each missile fly to its maximum range, the maximum g's in a turn, the service ceiling, etc.). As far as I know, the detailed results are confidential.

2. You have just admitted you're a hypocrite. You have been going on and on about the T-50/Pak-Fa. Yet, according to your own admission, there have been no independent tests and evaluations.

3. You claim hearsay from support personnel. Basically, a reporter claim they heard someone say something. There is another word for that. It's called gossip. It does not qualify as fact or evidence under your self-stated standard of independent tests and evaluations.

4. Lockheed Martin is the builder of the F-22. How can they also conduct an INDEPENDENT test? You're not making any sense. Since the F-22 is classified, all of your comments have also been trash under your own standard, yes?

5. I didn't hear your comment regarding your worthless experience with non-stealth fighters and your comments in a J-20 stealth fighter thread. Did you forget to address the issue?

And yet you have no problems making outrageous claims for the J-20.

Where is your citation from independent tests and evaluations to support your claim? Or is your comment just trash according to your self-stated standard? I disagree with your claim. My understanding is a F-16 or F-15 with an AESA radar can track the F-22 under 20km. Do you want me to show you some open-source graphs on the F-22's RCS under 20km?

You mean like this...

Raptor debuts at Red Flag, dominates skies

"The thing denies your ability to put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it through the canopy," said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, F-15 exchange pilot in the 65th AS. "It's the most frustrated I've ever been."

Detection is one thing, tracking is another, then targeting is quite another. Your lack of relevant experience once again made you look foolish.

Make up your mind Amalakas. Either everyone has been making reasonable comments based on open-source information or all of your comments are trash because you can't cite independent tests and evaluations.

You set a very high standard and I'm only asking you to live up to your own expectations. I think you're a hypocrite. You can either climb down or keep looking ridiculous (e.g. I'm going to call your comments trash if you can't provide an independent test and evaluation to meet your own standard).

Then you should refrain from using that silly 'analysis' from APA. After all, they have neither the F-35 nor J-20 to perform any measurement.

 

[gambit]

Can a high off-boresight WVR missile be fully utilized while being carried in an internal carriage like that of the f-35? Would the missile be launched and then lock on to the target or is there some other way?

Absolutely. There is nothing to say that an aircraft is somehow 'inferior' just because it dispenses missile from a centerline configuration. The off-boresight capability is a different issue. That has more to do with the missile integration with sensor/guidance package than with where it is located on the aircraft.

If you have the time, could you please explain Pulse Characteristic analysis and how it would be employed? Sounds interesting and went right over my head.

No problems...And you will NEVER be able to read something like this from the Chinese crowd...

The above is a reasonable illustration of what a typical wavelength look like -- one cycle.

If you turn power on then off after one cycle, you have a pulse. You have a leading edge and a trailing edge. You have a timestamp of when the pulse began and when a pulse ended. The whole thing is called 'finite pulse length'.

If you have such consistent timing -- pulse start and pulse end -- you can use those timestamps to track a target through 3D space because each reflection pulse will also have a start and end time.

Unfortunately, such a short pulse -- one cycle -- is simply too short to be of any use. So we have what is called a 'pulse train' where we have multiple pulses together.

Like this...

So as you can see above, each pulse train also have a start and end timestamps. This makes tracking a target through 3D space much more accurate.

We can vary any of the above pulse characteristics such as pulse duration or pulse width (PW), or the interpulse period or pulse repetition interval (PRI), or power or pulse amplitude (PA), and many more. We can vary them from pulse train to pulse train. We can have pulse train with one set of characteristics and the next pulse train with a completely different set of characteristics. Very confusing to any analysis that have inferior avionics. The greater these variations the more expensive your hardware.

Pulse characteristics analysis is critical in creating countermeasures, especially if there are friendlies in the area. You do not want to broadcast a blanket that can confuse your own side. You want to broadcast an arrow in terms of uniqueness.

There are much more complex issues but this basic information should suffice for now.

 

[amalakas]

Detection is one thing, tracking is another, then targeting is quite another. Your lack of relevant experience once again made you look foolish.

and yet those who do not understand how the weapon systems of an aircraft operate make assumptions.

 

[Martian2]

Gambit, you're even worse than PtldM3. You two clowns keep asking me to prove every trivial item (many of which I've already proven with citations in the last two years). I have no intention of spending hours to refute your rhetorical crap. I have better things to do with my time.

An unwritten rule of discussion to to select your best argument and to hold a debate. You and PtldM3 like to throw everything, including the kitchen sink, at me over and over again. Only dummies fall for such a trick.

By the way, your argument is pure idiocy. A F-35 has a small radome and a single engine. It is a much smaller plane than the F-22. It can generate very little radar energy. It is unlikely to jam a F-22 as suggested by the rumor mongers in here.

Also, a F-35 emitting wide-spectrum radar energy will be shot out of the sky with a MRAAM within a few minutes. The whole idea of a F-35 jamming a F-22 is preposterous. Your blind cheerleading of the F-35 shows your mindless bias and lack of objectivity.

If you want to claim the F-35 can jam the F-22 radar, show me a reputable citation with a general explanation of the mechanism. Otherwise, shut the hell up.

 

[Esc8781]

Gambit, you're even worse than PtldM3. You two clowns keep asking me to prove every trivial item (many of which I've already proven with citations in the last two years). I have no intention of spending hours to refute your rhetorical crap. I have better things to do with my time.

An unwritten rule of discussion to to select your best argument and to hold a debate. You and PtldM3 like to throw everything, including the kitchen sink, at me over and over again. Only dummies fall for such a trick.

By the way, your argument is pure idiocy. A F-35 has a small radome and a single engine. It is a much smaller plane than the F-22. It can generate very little radar energy. It is unlikely to jam a F-22 as suggested by the rumor mongers in here.

Also, a F-35 emitting wide-spectrum radar energy will be shot out of the sky with a MRAAM within a few minutes. The whole idea of a F-35 jamming a F-22 is preposterous. Your blind cheerleading of the F-35 shows your mindless bias and lack of objectivity.

If you want to claim the F-35 can jam the F-22 radar, show me a reputable citation with a general explanation of the mechanism. Otherwise, shut the hell up.

Why do you want the f-35 random to be longer? Why because the aero pitch and yaw balance has been completely screwed. To re-establish the desired pitch and yaw balance, vertical and horizontal tails will have to be enlarged, at considerable cost, drag, weight, and rats!, all the LO is affected. Or you can simply (?) keep the same tails and extend the aft fuselage. But doesn't that affect weight, cost, LO, and everything else? Yes. Among many other things, the flight control computer will have to be completely re-programmed.

 

[Martian2]

Why do you want the f-35 random to be longer? Why because the aero pitch and yaw balance has been completely screwed. To re-establish the desired pitch and yaw balance, vertical and horizontal tails will have to be enlarged, at considerable cost, drag, weight, and rats!, all the LO is affected. Or you can simply (?) keep the same tails and extend the aft fuselage. But doesn't that affect weight, cost, LO, and everything else? Yes. Among many other things, the flight control computer will have to be completely re-programmed.

Bigger, not longer. You're completely on the wrong track.

I'm discussing the important factors of radar size, available power, and jamming without being shot down. Gambit is wrong on all three and he doesn't have the courage to admit it. He's just going to keep cheerleading the F-35 without providing any reputable citations to back up his ridiculous claims.

In his earlier posts, he is implicitly claiming the F-35 can jam the much larger F-22 radar (which is also supplied with more power). I'm calling him on it.

----------

In my view, there's nothing special about the F-35. Sensor fusion simply means you present all of the sensory information into a more concise presentation to highlight critical information for the pilot.

To my knowledge, the F-35 has a smaller AESA radar and less available power than the F-22. The F-35's jamming capability is that of a lesser AESA radar. The bogus claim of the F-35 able to jam the F-22 really irritates me. It flies in the face of known physics.

Here's my citation for the limited jamming capability of the smaller and less powerful F-35 AESA radar. As you can see from the citation, it does not suggest a F-35 can jam the F-22's frequency-hopping radar over a wide range of frequencies. Notice the word "selectively."

The jamming capabilities of a F-35 radar is the same as all AESA radars. There is no magical formula. I don't care what Gambit says to the contrary without any reputable citations.

-----

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/mil...fare-Suite-More-Than-Self-Protection_845.html

"Deep Integration

Integration of EW sensors with the F-35's AN/APG 81 active electronically scanned array (AESA), communications and electro-optical distributed aperture systems puts offensive, defensive, coms and data-gathering sensors at the service of the pilot to process onboard and offboard data. The EW system employs a range of dedicated antennas and shares the AESA antenna for tasks such as electronic support measures or signals collection and analysis. The F-35's high-gain, electronically steered radar array provides jamming support under the control of the EW system. Because the AESA array provides very directional radio frequency (RF) output, the JSF could target a very small area and selectively jam it, which enhances survivability by reducing electronic emissions."

 

[amalakas]

Gambit, you're even worse than PtldM3. You two clowns keep asking me to prove every trivial item (many of which I've already proven with citations in the last two years). I have no intention of spending hours to refute your rhetorical crap. I have better things to do with my time.

An unwritten rule of discussion to to select your best argument and to hold a debate. You and PtldM3 like to throw everything, including the kitchen sink, at me over and over again. Only dummies fall for such a trick.

By the way, your argument is pure idiocy. A F-35 has a small radome and a single engine. It is a much smaller plane than the F-22. It can generate very little radar energy. It is unlikely to jam a F-22 as suggested by the rumor mongers in here.

Also, a F-35 emitting wide-spectrum radar energy will be shot out of the sky with a MRAAM within a few minutes. The whole idea of a F-35 jamming a F-22 is preposterous. Your blind cheerleading of the F-35 shows your mindless bias and lack of objectivity.

If you want to claim the F-35 can jam the F-22 radar, show me a reputable citation with a general explanation of the mechanism. Otherwise, shut the hell up.

Bigger, not longer. You're completely on the wrong track.

I'm discussing the important factors of radar size, available power, and jamming without being shot down. Gambit is wrong on all three and he doesn't have the courage to admit it. He's just going to keep cheerleading the F-35 without providing any reputable citations to back up his ridiculous claims.

In his earlier posts, he is implicitly claiming the F-35 can jam the much larger F-22 radar (which is also supplied with more power). I'm calling him on it.

You asked for it, are you going to understand it, it's a different story.


There are two kinds of jamming and so that you can show us your excellent knowledge I will not identify which is which in the text below.

Right ..and this is theoretical .. like what engineers who know make educated guesses as to how it could potentially be done.



1- Let's assume the jamming system (F-35) can modulate every echo's pulse phase with noise, then as a direct result every spectrum line will be broadened. When the modulation gets sufficient the spectrum lines overspill to the entire frequency domain and cover the echo pulses. Now if we set the bandwidth to being very very narrow (as we can), the efficiency gets very very high, so you don't need too much power... get it ?

2- One can use cross polarisation jamming, this reverses the angle of error signal which is provided by the tracking filter usually. Or you can use cooperative jamming which obviously is harder to achieve.


get it ?


oh .. and because you usually ask for citations ... here they are .. i wonder if you are going to read them.. .

D.Curtis Schleher, Electronic Warfare in the Information Age, Artech House, Inc.

George W. Stimson, Introduction to Airborne Radar

Yang Jing, Lv Youxin, Efficient Digital Channelized IFM Receiver Research

have fun man..

 

[Martian2]

You asked for it, are you going to understand it, it's a different story.


There are two kinds of jamming and so that you can show us your excellent knowledge I will not identify which is which in the text below.

Right ..and this is theoretical .. like what engineers who know make educated guesses as to how it could potentially be done.



1- Let's assume the jamming system (F-35) can modulate every echo's pulse phase with noise, then as a direct result every spectrum line will be broadened. When the modulation gets sufficient the spectrum lines overspill to the entire frequency domain and cover the echo pulses. Now if we set the bandwidth to being very very narrow (as we can), the efficiency gets very very high, so you don't need too much power... get it ?

2- One can use cross polarisation jamming, this reverses the angle of error signal which is provided by the tracking filter usually. Or you can use cooperative jamming which obviously is harder to achieve.


get it ?


oh .. and because you usually ask for citations ... here they are .. i wonder if you are going to read them.. .

D.Curtis Schleher, Electronic Warfare in the Information Age, Artech House, Inc.

George W. Stimson, Introduction to Airborne Radar

Yang Jing, Lv Youxin, Efficient Digital Channelized IFM Receiver Research

have fun man..

Jesus Christ, what's wrong with you guys? You never post a reputable citation to back up your crap. It gets annoying.

Do you see my post above? It has a reputable citation. Do you understand the difference between my post and your crappy rhetoric?

The F-35 has a smaller AESA radar and its jamming capability is consistent with all AESA radars. It can jam a narrow frequency range. Big deal. All AESA radars can do that. The F-22 has a bigger AESA radar and it hops over a wide range of frequencies.

Since my citation already informed you the F-35 can only jam "selectively," it means the F-35 cannot jam the larger frequency-hopping F-22 radar.

I'm getting tired of repeating myself to you trolls over and over again. This is the last time.

 

[amalakas]

Jesus Christ, what's wrong with you guys? You never post a reputable citation to back up your crap. It gets annoying.

Do you see my post above? It has a reputable citation. Do you understand the difference between my post and your crappy rhetoric?

The F-35 has a smaller AESA radar and its jamming capability is consistent with all AESA radars. It can jam a narrow frequency range. Big deal. All AESA radars can do that. The F-22 has a bigger AESA radar and it hops over a wide range of frequencies.

Since my citation already informed you the F-35 can only jam "selectively," it means the F-35 cannot jam the larger frequency-hopping F-22 radar.

I'm getting tired of repeating myself to you trolls over and over again. This is the last time.

Just because I knew you were going to say that ... and you fell right into the trap .. here are the full citations ...

D.Curtis Schleher, Electronic Warfare in the Information Age, Artech House, Inc. 1999;

George W. Stimson, Introduction to Airborne Radar (Second Edition), SciTech Publishing, Inc, Raleigh, NC, USA, 1998;

Yang Jing, Lv Youxin, Efficient Digital Channelized IFM Receiver Research, Journal of UEST of China, Vol.34, No.4, Aug.2005;


How about it now genius ? a Journal of UEST of China is not reputable according to you ?? ?


keep at it man.. the hole is getting deeper every time you post...

 

[Esc8781]

Oh yeah read this all of you it is interesting

http://www.turma-aguia.com/davi/skolnik/Skolnik_chapter_1.pdf

 

[Martian2]

Oh yeah read this all of you it is interesting

http://www.turma-aguia.com/davi/skolnik/Skolnik_chapter_1.pdf

You're an idiot. I didn't ask for a citation for "Introduction to Radar" (as shown in your PDF file).

I asked for a reputable citation to back up the incredible claim that the smaller and less powerful F-35 AESA radar can jam the larger and more powerful frequency-hopping F-22 AESA radar.

----------

I have been in here for over an hour and you idiots cannot show me a reputable citation to back up your bogus claim. You have wasted enough of my time.

 

[amalakas]

You're an idiot. I didn't ask for a citation for "Introduction to Radar" (as shown in your PDF file).

I asked for a reputable citation to back up the incredible claim that the smaller and less powerful F-35 AESA radar can jam the larger and more powerful frequency-hopping F-22 AESA radar.

----------

I have been in here for over an hour and you idiots cannot show me a reputable citation to back up your bogus claim. You have wasted enough of my time.

Really ????


what about the citation from UEST in China mate ? ...not good for you all of a sudden ? ??


right....


keep at it...