What's new

Its Official: JXX is going to test fly in the next few days

The least important part is specialized RAM.

ordinary composites are good enough.

the real problem is designing the surfaces to reflect radar to different directions than the transmitter.

in addition, it doesn't matter if eurofighter is 0.000000000001 m2 RCS, once it adds weapons it would be a flying elephant.

to solve the stealth problem i think it's better to have a naturally smaller plane with a single engine, no canards. it doesn't even have to be all aspect stealth, just frontal.

unless the F-22 is smaller than a fly on the radar a cross section of 0.0001 is unreasonable.
 
.
it doesn't even have to be all aspect stealth, just frontal

You are assuming a very simplistic scenario where the fighter flies in a straight line into a single radar base. Usually there are multiple radars and there is no straight line flight. So side aspect is important. Once done with the mission if a fighter wants to return safely even rear aspect is important esp suppressing IR signature.

If J-XX designers are thinking the way you are then it is kaput even b4 it leaves the drawing board!
 
.
How many times are you going to post worthless rants? Every single one of your posts are the same thing, China is superior to Russia, China's stealth is superior to Russia's and now it's China's RAM is superior to Russia, your opinions don't matter and you know nothing about Russia's capabilities. Moreover, being a "world leader" in "material science" doesn't mean you can have "superior" RAM.

What is wrong with you, huh? I say what I want to say on the topic and I say how many times as I see fit, it's none of your f**king business! If personal attacks are the best you can do, you'd better have a serious talk with mods. :frown:

Yeah, I do nothing about Russia's detailed capabilities, but I don't need to know the details, tell me one example that a country who is not world-class on Material Science can somehow make world-class RAM coating? My saying that is not aiming at sneering at Russia's techs which are mostly one of the forerunners. Nonetheless, common senses tells that no way that T-50 gets better ram tech than F-22, or than incoming JXX mostly likely .

Copy-paste some chest-thumping article makes no difference as common sense dictates what it is. Wether Russia's RAM tech being the world-class or not is secondary actually at the moment compared with other flaws of T-50's aerodynamics design in relation to F-22 or even F-35, which probably are considered generally as far bigger problems of its stealthness.
 
.
You are assuming a very simplistic scenario where the fighter flies in a straight line into a single radar base. Usually there are multiple radars and there is no straight line flight. So side aspect is important. Once done with the mission if a fighter wants to return safely even rear aspect is important esp suppressing IR signature.

If J-XX designers are thinking the way you are then it is kaput even b4 it leaves the drawing board!

there have to be tradeoffs between theoretical ability and time. otherwise it'll end up like the LCA. besides, i meant to say that if it was necessary to rush for time, frontal stealth is the most important.

of course the bigger problem isn't RAM but shaping.
 
.
The least important part is specialized RAM.

Materials research is the most important , right after the engine.

ordinary composites are good enough.

I am not to sure about that , but if you say so.

the real problem is designing the surfaces to reflect radar to different directions than the transmitter.

I though that was simpler problem , with today's computers , it is far easier to design and test stealth concepts

in addition, it doesn't matter if eurofighter is 0.000000000001 m2 RCS, once it adds weapons it would be a flying elephant.

That is why you have internal weapons bay's

to solve the stealth problem i think it's better to have a naturally smaller plane with a single engine, no canards. it doesn't even have to be all aspect stealth, just frontal.

B-2 is giant of plane, but still have very good stealth due to its flying wing design , with no unnecessary surfaces

unless the F-22 is smaller than a fly on the radar a cross section of 0.0001 is unreasonable.

It is said to be a marble sized.

But of course i cant confirm that.
 
.
What is wrong with you, huh? I say what I want to say on the topic and I say how many times as I see fit, it's none of your f**king business! If personal attacks are the best you can do, you'd better have a serious talk with mods. :frown:

You are free to say whatevery you choose as long as it's within acceptable limits. However, when you misslead the readers with your vague statements and dismissals than there is a problem.

Yeah, I do nothing about Russia's detailed capabilities, but I don't need to know the details, tell me one example that a country who is not world-class on Material Science can somehow make world-class RAM coating?

Wrong, you do need to know the details before you start claiming inferiority.

And don't try to use something as vague as materal science. Russia has governoment scientific institutions/defence institutions such as the Russian space agency which has its own science based research center and Kapustin-Yar which is Russia's equivalent of area 51. Russia also has civil based Scientific institutions such as the Russian accademy of sciences which has a main headquarters but also consists of institutions across Russia and of course there are universities and civil companies. But considering most of Russia's scientific institutions are either state owned or sponsored the likelihood that you will see these government institutes reveal their breakthroughs which are meant for military purposes are slim to none, lets take, for example, the pak-fa and its composites, in a video scientists revealed a new type of composite material, but because it's used all most exclusively for the military the makers of the composites didn't go out patent and reveal the composite until reporters asked but even then the scientist didn't reveal too much details.

Back to the topic of material science, if my memory serves me correct Spain was high on the list, also the Netherlands ranked #2 in the world in material science journal articals, so does this mean these two countries can built a stealth aircraft or make better RAM than Russian scientists working for the Russian space agency or Russian Accademy of Sciences, or even highly classified research institutions such as Kapustin-Yar? Also did the Soviet Union rank highest in material science when they send the first rocket into space or send the first satelite into space, or built space stations or even built space capsules that survived the violent reentry into earth's orbit? Also the Pak-fa will be a partnership with India, meaning Indian scientists and engineers will contribute to the development, and from reading various publication and watching videos regarding Russian RAM i know it is very advanced but now that India is in the programs the RAM has that much more potential of becoming better esspecially when you combine the material sciences of both countries, than again i don't think material science means much when much of the applications can't be used by the military or arn't used by the military, instead defence or civilian institutions (under contract) develop what the military needs.

My saying that is not aiming at sneering at Russia's techs which are mostly one of the forerunners. Nonetheless, common senses tells that no way that T-50 gets better ram tech than F-22, or than incoming JXX mostly likely .

There is no need to put the US on a pedestal, the US is not the undisputed leader in everything, look at all the material science, funding, and top notch defence and civilian institutions in the US now look at the fact that the US bought rocket engines from Russia to power their Atlas rockets. Russian technology has always been good or in some cases even better than the US and now you think that Russia can't come up with something as insignificant as a good RAM coating thats competitive with the US, but no you took it a step further and said we can't be competitive with China. And one last thing about "material science" how does Russia built, for example, the IBRIS-E radar including AESA NIIP have outstanding ranges up to 400+km, not to mention other features such as radar data-links and a high degrees of resolution coupled with the ability to track targets with small rcs's at long distances, now are these radars build out of cardboard or fairy dust? Or do you think that there is alot of research that goes into these radars? After all radars are built out of various materials that fall under the context of "material science" this includes everything from circuit boards to synthetic coolant to synthetics that make up the radar. Does Phazatron and NIIP make some of the best radars in the world by accident? Another thing to think about, China approached Russia with the intent of buying the IBRIS radar, remember radars are linked with material science, so why would China be interested in crappy Russian radars? Remember according to your logic Russia should have inferior radars because of the Russia's decline in material science.

Copy-paste some chest-thumping article makes no difference as common sense dictates what it is. Wether Russia's RAM tech being the world-class or not is secondary actually at the moment compared with other flaws of T-50's aerodynamics design in relation to F-22 or even F-35, which probably are considered generally as far bigger problems of its stealthness.

The only chest thumping is comming from you, so far the only things i have heard from you are, China is better than Russia and China's material science is so great while Russia's isn't. My link was just that, a link, a link that proved that Russia's RAM technology is better than you originally though. Reducing an aircraft's rcs up to 15 times is pretty damn impressive, you can keep putting down and dismissing Russian technology by bringing up "material science" which is vague and proves absolutely nothing.
 
Last edited:
.
Can you give me just one link which says that canard increases the x-36 RCS i will completely agree with you and my doubt will be cleared as of now i cant see anywhere saying that usage of canard in x-36 increases its RCS
Its common sense yaar, as the number of surfaces increase so does the radar observability.
Generally speaking...True.

I believe the term is LERX - leading edge root extensions - fillets or strakes. Correct me if I am wrong.
Also called leading edge (LE) flaps or slats. These are not true flight control surfaces. LE flaps usually works with trailing edge (TE) flaps to...

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Flaps and Slats
...a slat is simply a flap on the leading edge of a wing rather than the trailing edge. The slat typically extends forward and downward from the leading edge to increase camber thereby increasing lift in a similar manner to a flap.
...Increase wing surfaces to increase lift. LE flaps can work independently of TE flaps under certain flight conditions provided the FLCS has provisions for such independent operations.

No, not any unnecessary surface will increase RCS. Canards usually increase RCS because they're placed above the wings, which does increase the frontal cross section. However, the JXX, if it uses canards, will likely have it inline with the wings, very much like the PAK-FA's LERX. The only difference, really, is that there's a little gap between the JXX's "LERX" and the wing. As far as frontal RCS is concerned, there is no difference.
I thought so as well. I'm not familiar with aerodynamics, hence I am not sure what's the aerodynamics difference btw pacing canards like J-10, and placing them in the same horizontal line as wings like JXX possiblely does (in such a design, as you said, frontal RCS could be almost the same as F-22/T-50 ). However, there must be some differences when conducting super manuever between these 2 kinds of canards designs. The question is if the diff significantly large enough or not.
Canards stands a greater chance of increasing RCS than LE flaps. Am not saying that they must, only that aerodynamics necessities may restrict their placements on the body, usually on the cone frustum, that there is no choice but to suffer the RCS increase. It is not about placing the canard inline with the wing. Here is why...

Radar cross-section - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
High frequency approximations such as geometric optics, Physical Optics, the geometric theory of diffraction, the uniform theory of diffraction and the physical theory of diffraction are used when the wavelength is much shorter than the target feature size.
The highlighted is significant.

The only body that offers a constant RCS, regardless of radar position, is the sphere. On the sphere, the initial radar reflectivity action is a minute return called specular reflection. The majority of the wave behave in what is called the 'creeping wave' action...

Creeping wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Creeping waves greatly extend the ground wave propagation of long wavelength (low frequency) radio. They also cause both of a person's ears to hear a sound, rather than only the ear on the side of the head facing the origin of the sound. In radar ranging, the creeping wave return appears to come from behind the target.
This 'creeping wave' is a form of the surface traveling wave, but both are not the same. On a sphere, the side that meet the incident signal is called the 'illuminated' side. The opposite side is called the 'shadow'. The sphere's diameter is called the 'electrical path' and of course a portion of this path is that shadow side. When the incident signal meet the sphere's surface at low grazing angle, a surface traveling wave is created. A portion of the signal will enter the shadow side and become the creeping wave.

The radar grazing angle is illustrated below...

Glossary of remote sensing terms
Grazing Angle

Angle between the mean horizontal at the scene and the incoming radar illumination. The concept is most apt for ship-borne or aircraft radars when the illumination is itself close to horizontal.

When a creeping wave is created, or that when it exists on the shadow side of the sphere, the creeping wave no longer receives continuous energy like the traveling wave does. Remember, these are two distinct entities on different environments. As the sphere's diameter is the electrical path, the longer this path, eventually the creeping wave die. But if the sphere's diameter is short enough, the creeping wave may come around to the illuminated side and be strengthened. The surface wave, on the other hand, is continuously kept alive by the illuminating radar.

A sphere is not the only shape that has an electrical path. All shapes and complex bodies are themselves electrical paths. When a surface traveling wave encounter the end of an electrical path, this end is a scatter point...

Radio propagation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Knife-Edge diffraction is the propagation mode where radio waves are bent around sharp edges.

This is an important fact in general and for the canard in particular as we shall see later on.

Visually speaking, an aircraft is obviously not a simple body. We can see planar, cylinder, triangle, and combinations of all the common shapes. In RCS prediction, a complex body can be 'decomposed' into discrete geometric shapes. This is the simplest and usually the initial process of RCS prediction -- the geometric components method (GCM). At the highest level, an aircraft is composed of:

- Cone (radome)
- Cone frustum (immediately behind the radome)
- Cylinder (fuselage)
- Planars (control surfaces)

Volume
The frustum of a cone is formed if the tip is cut off parallel to the base. Frustum shapes occur often on model rockets as fairings between cylindrical sections of the body.

We can take discrete RCS measurements of those individual SECTIONS of the aircraft, sum them up and have an acceptable peak RCS value. Now the difficult work of RCS reduction begins.

- The cone is the radome, which is essentially an EM passthrough structure. How else can the aircraft's radar work? That mean the aircraft's own radar antenna is a reflective surface. Usually the radar engineering team that owns the system is also responsible for reducing the RCS value of their design.

- The cone frustum contains the cockpit, engine intakes, protrusions like communication antennas and air data probes, depressions like vents or gun ports,

- The cylinder or fuselage contains the wing roots, which may or may not be corner reflectors, a no-no, depending on how the aircraft is designed. Same for stab roots, vertical and horizontal.

- The planars are the flight control surfaces themselves, and this includes canards. Flight control surfaces are always the largest reflectors.

Each section must be carefully studied and measures taken to reduce contributory RCS. Sometimes a depression, or vent, can be relocated where it stands a minimal chance of trapping a portion of the EM wave and reflecting that portion. The cockpit canopy can be coated with absorbers to reduce any pass through. Weapons can be carried internally. And so on...

The GCM process of RCS prediction and reduction does not take into consideration the EM 'traveling' and 'creeping wave' behaviors, or does not take them very well, as all bodies, even geometrically complex ones, produces this behavior to some degree at many aspect angles.

An aspect angle is illustrated below...

Glossary of remote sensing terms
Aspect Angle

Description of the geometric orientation in the horizontal plane of an object in the scene with respect to the illuminating wavefront.

To add everything so far together...

A canard may NOT be a detriment to RCS reduction measures only when its shape and position on the aircraft made it part of a continuous electrical path. That mean even if a canard is the same horizontal plane as the wing, if it is a distinct body by itself, therefore its own electrical path, any surface wave created by a radar signal that meet this canard will have a very short resident time on the canard before we see that 'knife edge diffraction' effect shown earlier. But if the canard is shaped and position where it is part of a continuous electrical path, then we have the best of both worlds: high maneuverability and a very low RCS contributor.

So if we take the B-2 from the side aspect angle, given what we know of the B-2's curves, top and bottom, we can see that the US took great pains to create as continous as possible this electrical path. We can also see many curves that has many shadow regions where a portion of the surface wave become a creeping wave and loses energy on those shadow regions. Any amount energy loss for any creeping wave is desirable. Discontinuities -- bad -- are created when we have gaps along this electrical path. Some gaps are unavoidable as they are manufacturing consequences. Nonconducting epoxy is the solution. Some gaps could be the results of surface damages, such as from maintenance or even combat. Some gaps are electrical, not physical, in nature, such as a line of electrically conducting corrosion that maintenance could not see. Discontinuities, or gaps, create the potential for that 'knife edge diffraction' effect.

The B-2, F-22 and F-35 were not designed via GCM.
 
.
You are free to say whatevery you choose as long as it's within acceptable limits. However, when you misslead the readers with your vague statements and dismissals than there is a problem.

Waht acceptable limits?

acceptable by whom? by you? lol.

I mislead readers? You not?

If my statement, short and to the point, is a vague statement, then yours could be named as "vodka statement" that is more vague and senseless.


Wrong, you do need to know the details before you start claiming inferiority.

Let's see what details you know to claim your inferiority then?


And don't try to use something as vague as materal science. Russia has governoment scientific institutions/defence institutions such as the Russian space agency which has its own science based research center and Kapustin-Yar which is Russia's equivalent of area 51. Russia also has civil based Scientific institutions such as the Russian accademy of sciences which has a main headquarters but also consists of institutions across Russia and of course there are universities and civil companies.

So Russia got her own "area 51" and some research institutions? Cool !

Do you know that China doesn't ?



But considering most of Russia's scientific institutions are either state owned or sponsored the likelihood that you will see these government institutes reveal their breakthroughs which are meant for military purposes are slim to none,


And?

What you're trying to prove with that ? That Chinese insititutions are owned by private entities? lol


lets take, for example, the pak-fa and its composites, in a video scientists revealed a new type of composite material, but because it's used all most exclusively for the military the makers of the composites didn't go out patent and reveal the composite until reporters asked but even then the scientist didn't reveal too much details.


The same can be said with ANY major millitary power. China will publicise the fomulas of all her millitary techonologies derived from materials Science research, huh?

Or the US will do so? Or France will do so? ...

The US won't let you have a closer LOOK at F-22 , for god's sake.

China even doesn't claim to have J-XX project. (Well, China's deputy air chief did it once before got criticised)

Russia doesn't disclose secrets. Fine. But which country does so, apart from India :-)D) ? What's your point here?



Back to the topic of material science, if my memory serves me correct Spain was high on the list, also the Netherlands ranked #2 in the world in material science journal articals, so does this mean these two countries can built a stealth aircraft or make better RAM than Russian scientists working for the Russian space agency or Russian Accademy of Sciences, or even highly classified research institutions such as Kapustin-Yar?

1) I didn't say materials science =100% ram tech;

What I said was better ram tech is most likely supported by the better materials science; hence a country with better materials science development has a better chance coming up with better ram tech.

2) Spain and Ned top the ranking on Materials Science? What are you smoking?

3) On the statements:

Both you and I know close to nothing on the detailed ram tech ( millitarised materials Science) from the US, China and Russia;

All we argue here is "a general guess" based on personal opinions,ok?

But our common stance stops here.

To support my arguement that China likely has better ram tech than Russia, I used General level of each country's Materails Science known to scientific community as a rough measure tool, which is the best public-available toolkit one can get, as no country reveals the top millitary scerate derived from its science. But still, one can have an educated guess at what levels they are at by eaxming its correspoding civilian tech and research achievments wihtin scientific communities.

So far, what educated guess you have offered to support your argument?

Zero!

Oh, "Russia has its own Area 51"? And you accuse my statement being vague...:lol:




Also did the Soviet Union rank highest in material science when they send the first rocket into space or send the first satelite into space, or built space stations or even built space capsules that survived the violent reentry into earth's orbit?


humm...probably yes. And? That was more than half a century ago...

Following your logic, I need to mention China invented gun power too?

And this is another "proof" of your argument? Puh..leeez ! :partay:



Also the Pak-fa will be a partnership with India, meaning Indian scientists and engineers will contribute to the development, and from reading various publication and watching videos regarding Russian RAM i know it is very advanced but now that India is in the programs the RAM has that much more potential of becoming better esspecially when you combine the material sciences of both countries,

India? Did you just say India? It's just me or ... since when "India" and "world-class Materials Science" these 2 phrases have been linked together by anyone, even Indians? :lol:

Man, I am starting to have a serious doubt on the nationality you said you have after this. Are you a Russian or an Indian indeed hiding behind other people's flag? PDF is packed with the latter.


Since you are so eager to brand India's materials science as world-class to give "your" Russia an extra boost, why not to make Laos and Vietnam (no pun inteneded) into Russian-indian 5th gen project too,as you'll have "combined materials science of 4 countries" :yahoo:




than again i don't think material science means much when much of the applications can't be used by the military or arn't used by the military, instead defence or civilian institutions (under contract) develop what the military needs.

Even so, the general level of sophisitication of a country's Material Science development is the BEST measure one can use at this stage to gauge the likely sophitication of ram tech derived from it, given neither of us knows the real millitary details of either country - a world-class materials science country has much higher possbility to develope a better ram tech than a country who ranks lower.

Man, i am tired of repeating above same phrase and logic in order to instill them into your empty skull again and again !


For the last 7 years, China's materials science occupies more than 20% of world's total output, in both research papers publiched in reputed scientific journals and patents granted. Yes, this doesn't equal to her level of millitary RAM tech, but this is the best indication one can come up with in such an argument, telling you the general strenghth of a country in this area.

Is it not? According to you, since North Korean millitary is more secretive than Russia's area 51, so north koreans must have better ram techs but they just have't disclosed it yet?:taz:



There is no need to put the US on a pedestal, the US is not the undisputed leader in everything,

I didn't say that USA is the undisputed leader in everything.

But we are talking about 5th gen here, in which it most likely is for the moment until real evidences suggest otherwise. e.g. 300m price tag of F-22 with a big chuck of its cost on its delicate coating and maintanance, compared with 80m-100m worth T-50, one could generally see the quality difference in ram, after normalised for labour costs etc.



look at all the material science, funding, and top notch defence and civilian institutions in the US now look at the fact that the US bought rocket engines from Russia to power their Atlas rockets.

rocket is another thing. don't mix it. And your logic here is wrong also.



Russian technology has always been good or in some cases even better than the US and now you think that Russia can't come up with something as insignificant as a good RAM coating thats competitive with the US, but no you took it a step further and said we can't be competitive with China.


Russia used to be so, but as lack of funding since Soviet collaped has severely crippled Russia's R&D, what Russia shows now mostly come from residual dividends of Soviet era. We see Russia struggles in many areas, e.g. on T-50, from next-gen engine tech, ram tech, real deployable small-sized AESA radar, to general stealthy design, eletronics, etc.

On the other hand, China is fastly catching up in many aspects, and even surpass Russia on some, due to massive R&D already invested and ongoing. China's general R&D level is just second to that of the US.


And one last thing about "material science" how does Russia built, for example, the IBRIS-E radar including AESA NIIP have outstanding ranges up to 400+km, not to mention other features such as radar data-links and a high degrees of resolution coupled with the ability to track targets with small rcs's at long distances, now are these radars build out of cardboard or fairy dust? Or do you think that there is alot of research that goes into these radars? After all radars are built out of various materials that fall under the context of "material science" this includes everything from circuit boards to synthetic coolant to synthetics that make up the radar. Does Phazatron and NIIP make some of the best radars in the world by accident? Another thing to think about, China approached Russia with the intent of buying the IBRIS radar, remember radars are linked with material science, so why would China be interested in crappy Russian radars? Remember according to your logic Russia should have inferior radars because of the Russia's decline in material science.


I didn't say Russia's radars are crappy. You did.


Radar is related to materials science to a certain degree, that's why Russia has yet to come up with a decent small-sized AESA radar which she doesn't have because Russia's materials scientists still can't developed certain minimised GaAs MMIC crystallography tube with an exceptionally agile beam required, even though IBRIS is one of the best out there in terms of distance detection.


China's interest in IBRIS doesn't prove anything. The US is interested in it too. So? It can be for various other reasons.



The only chest thumping is comming from you, so far the only things i have heard from you are, China is better than Russia and China's material science is so great while Russia's isn't. My link was just that, a link, a link that proved that Russia's RAM technology is better than you originally though. Reducing an aircraft's rcs up to 15 times is pretty damn impressive, you can keep putting down and dismissing Russian technology by bringing up "material science" which is vague and proves absolutely nothing.


Reducing an aircraft's rcs up to 15 times is impressive. But that's not the point. The point is in comparison. What if other/s can reduce it even further, and do it better?


Now we see it's you who is doing aimless chest thumping without offering any concrete arguments that are even close to the topic.
 
Last edited:
.
^^^^^^

Read your post... Adds little value. Does not answer one important point:

The point is you can't claim inferiority of Russian technology when compared to Chinese systems with little knowledge about Russian technology especially when China is importing many important systems from Russia !

Next, the claim that post soviet collapse has had an effect on funding may have some truth but cannot change the technological prowess or mastery over material science and other fundamental research that Russia was the leader. The stealth related fundamental research was first published by Russia though US came out with its application.
:cheers:
 
.
India? Did you just say India? It's just me or ... since when "India" and "world-class Materials Science" these 2 phrases have been linked together by anyone, even Indians?

Educate yourself : From Wootz Steel to modern day composites, India has mastered material technology in various domains.

Anyway, I don't want to waste my time educating you as the chances of that making any impact on a nut is minimal.
:cheers:
 
.
^^^^^^

Read your post... Adds little value. Does not answer one important point:

The point is you can't claim inferiority of Russian technology when compared to Chinese systems with little knowledge about Russian technology especially when China is importing many important systems from Russia !

be specific! what technology, what systems you refer to?


Next, the claim that post soviet collapse has had an effect on funding may have some truth but cannot change the technological prowess or mastery over material science and other fundamental research that Russia was the leader. The stealth related fundamental research was first published by Russia though US came out with its application.
:cheers:

Crap!

Stealth fighter concept was originally developed by Nazi Germany during WWII. Both US and Soviet got a handful of those tech after the war and developed their own from there.

Modern materials science is cutting edge, which is directly correlated with R&D input, not so called "experieces". It's not painting a wall, for god's sake.

Go educate yourself before unlease a load of BS here !
 
.
Educate yourself : From Wootz Steel to modern day composites, India has mastered material technology in various domains.

India mastered materials science ? :rofl: what weed are you on?

One step at a time, first go master the materials science of modern toilet system, then we'll take it from there, ok?


Anyway, I don't want to waste my time educating you as the chances of that making any impact on a nut is minimal.
:cheers:

Your education is pathetically minimum judging from what you said.

How you made here in the UK I wonder, or more like hidding under a false flag as many others do?
 
Last edited:
.
be specific! what technology, what systems you refer to?

Google it and find the defence cooperation between the two countries. If Russia was inferior as you claim in almost every post, China would not be using Russian technology at all.

Crap!

Stealth fighter concept was originally developed by Nazi Germany during WWII. Both US and Soviet got a handful of those tech after the war and developed their own from there.

Modern materials science is cutting edge, which is directly correlated with R&D input, not so called "experieces". It's not painting a wall, for god's sake.

Go educate yourself before unlease a load of BS here !

In the 1970s, a U.S. mathematician working for Lockheed Aircraft used a mathematical model developed by Russian scientist Pyotr Ufimtsev to develop a computer program called Echo 1. Echo made it possible to predict the radar signature an aircraft made with flat panels, called facets. In 1975, Lockheed Skunk Works engineers determined that an airplane with faceted surfaces could have a remarkably low radar signature because the surfaces would radiate 99.9 percent of the radar energy away from the receiver. They built a model called "the Hopeless Diamond" because it looked like a squat diamond and looked too hopeless to ever fly. This work marked a substantial change from the past, because for the first time, designers realized that it might be possible to make an aircraft that was virtually invisible to radar.

Source : Stealth Aircraft


Show me Chinese contribution to stealth technology that has advanced the science in any shape or form !
 
. .
This is a concept art from the Shanghai Expo:

2790747ece2dd430c0f37b.jpg


Pretty strong resemblance to the other pics I posted. Again, it's just speculation, so don't jump on me for it :D

Also, Gambit, I won't pretend to understand everything you said, but I do have a degree in EE and I can understand some of it. I can see from your explanation how simply making the canard in line with the wings isn't enough, but it seems to me that there isn't a strong case for the canard being a distinct element by itself. It is, after all, connected to the rest of the plane and could, at least theoretically, be made to "conduct" the creeping wave along the fuselage and the wings to allow it to degenerate. I noticed on the fanart/concept arts I posted that the fuselage extends out a bit to cover up a portion of the canard from the top, perhaps that is made in an effort to this end?
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom