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...
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 !
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?
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"
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?
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.
what weed are you on?
+1 Post reported.
