What's new

Top 10 future weapons of CHINA

They really have no other choice. We are where the money is at and the Russians know it.

China also has a good years of experience dealing with Russia.

From our past experience, they wouldn't sell any of its strategic weapons to you even they are starving, but you can definitely get a good share of its conventional weapons.

That's why China got a good number of assistances on the conventional weapons from Russia back in 1990s, but they never helped us about the technology of the strategic weapons.
 
Not true. Russia is India's very close ally and they are in fact cooperating with us to develop the latest technology. Russia does not dare play us for a fool; the Russians know who they are messing with if they try anything funny.

So are you saying that Russia does not dare to play India for a fool? They already did with the carrier deal. They make India shell out more money after signed the contract. If that is not playing India as a fool, I do not know what would be in an arms deal.
 
What I mean is, despite it being only an approximation and perhaps not entirely appropriate to the situation, if its within an order of magnitude correct its still acceptable and the "relative effectiveness assessment" is still good.
No, it would not be good.

An order of magnitude is a factor of ten, just like 'db', and in radar detection, a loss of 10db or a reduction of RCS of 10db will allow the aircraft to cut the effective distance in half before it is marked as a valid target.

Here are APA's own words...

A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype
The PO computational algorithm performs most accurately at broadside or near normal angles of incidence, with decreasing accuracy at increasingly shallow angles of incidence, reflecting the limitions of PO modelling.
Remember, in radar detection EVERYTHING works off REFLECTED signals and their intensity. So if you want to know as much as possible the power intensity of a reflected signal, you want to see it at its fullest and what better than perpendicular?

What that sentence mean is that Physical Optics algorithms works best when the return is straight on as in 'normal angle of incidence'. The moment the viewer depart from perpendicular, the less accurate the algorithms can give us regarding the power intensity of the reflected signal. The more the viewing angle approaches horizontal the higher the percentage of that power intensity is away from the viewer. So oddly enough, the only time when PO can give us an accurate RCS value of a complex body is the frontal view where there are few surfaces that can give us 'normal angles of incidence'. In other words, in the frontal view, most deflected signals will be so far 'downstream' of the radar view those signals will become irrelevant. This is why the frontal RCS of every aircraft is the lowest.

But when we (the radar) are looking at the sides, which includes 'top' and 'bottom', we KNOW that there would be times when we would not be capturing all or a significant percentage of a reflected signal because we would not be in such a favorable 'normal' incidence angle all the time and that mean any RCS estimation would be suspicious. This uncertainty is compounded by the presence of as complex a body as an aircraft with its many reflecting surfaces forcing uncaptured percentages of reflected signals to interact with each other. This uncertainty was partially cleared up by Ufimtsev with his edge diffraction equations, with surface wave behavior algorithms, with null fields method, and many other.

Go back to what I said: That a 10db loss of reflected power intensity equals to half the effective detected distance, meaning the aircraft can come closer by half before it is qualified as a valid target.

I did not specified if that loss is through legitimate means such as shaping or absorber. That loss could be through sloppy math from a flawed analysis using an inadequate tool. In other words, if you know that PO is inappropriate BY ITSELF but you proceed anyway and if you record a 10db difference as you measure the aircraft from various viewing angles, you would be fooling yourself that you have just cut in half the effective detection distance of the J-20.

The problem here is that instead of a complex body like an aircraft, we have recorded as great as 30db differences between viewing angles FROM THE SIMPLER AUTOMOBILE USING MORE ADVANCED TOOLS THAN PHYSICAL OPTICS. So what make you think that we should accept PO alone?

Garbage in. Garbage out. Why do you think we have other tools to compensate for PO's known shortcomings?

What APA did was no different than a training exercise for the new junior engineer on how well he knows his software. In my days, instead of software we took the newbie down to the range to see if anyone has a full size model of any aircraft and see how well he set up his measurement regiment. If there are no aircraft then we use a car we got from the junk yard. Sometimes the person like that aspect of the job so much that he transferred out of the design dept. and into the range facility and become a range test designer.

Look at what your man said...

When it comes to stealth, you can't use "looks" as a standard.
There is a huge difference between "looks" and SHAPING. I am discussing SHAPING and you can't tell the difference.
What is the difference between some aerodynamics values such as drag coefficient or aerodynamic efficiency and radar cross section? Keep in mind that both depends on the interaction of a body and a medium.

In aerodynamics, we measure some things and come up with some values from the target's perspective, meaning we measure the response of the body when aerodynamic forces are present, to put it simply.

But that does not mean if I shoot a 100 km/h air blast at a car I am going to get a return blast of air that also travels at 100 km/h when that blast of air make contact with the car.

But that is how radar detection works: From a viewer's perspective. Not from a target. That mean if I shoot an EM beam at the car, I will get an EM return and both signals will travel at the speed of light. It is from this return signal that I will perform many analysis and come up with a conclusion about that signal.

Your man violated his own rule, did not know it, and worse yet did not know why.

He assumed that just because the F-22 and the J-20 have similar shaping therefore they must have similar frontal RCS value and he made that assumption based upon looks, not from a viewer's analysis of reflected signals, of which no one has access to those data.

Do you remember those 'bow tie' RCS graphs?

The Radar Game
A Tale of Three Shapes

Combat aircraft in today's inventory employ a number of different techniques for reducing their Radar Cross Sections, which are of three different shapes. The Fuzzball, Pacman, and Bowtie shapes are highly simplified symbols for basic signature patterns. Actual signatures are considerably more complex, of course, and information about them is restricted. The three shapes are used to depict how general patterns of RCS reduction give attackers a revolutionary edge.

...the theoretical Bowtie shape has a 15 dB reduction in RCS in its front and rear aspects.
The 'bowtie' shape cannot be measured by sitting in the aircraft's cockpit. It must be allowed to form from reflected signals from the viewer's perspective. See that 15db reduction figure? That will cut effective detection distance by slightly more than half. We cannot calculate that by sitting in the aircraft's cockpit.

A Ferrari and a Lamborghini can have very similar aerodynamics and does have similar shaping to achieve those aerodynamic values. But because unlike aerodynamic forces where there are no returns we have feedback with EM signals so that despite similar shaping there can be great enough differences in db that will mean life or death.

Again...Your man violated his own rule, did not know it, and worse yet did not know why.

He based his assumption from looks, totally devoid of any credible data, and in favor of the J-20, just because the shaping of the J-20 is visually similar to the F-22 in shape. Then he pompously crowed about how many 'Thanked' him for his 'useful' (more like borderline useless) posts, how many viewed his silly video, and he called others names just because they challenged his baseless assumptions.

You guys can take this crap back to your two playgrounds where every gullible conscript reject will trip over each other and 'Thank' you for it and where the admin staff will protect you from criticisms. But you will not be so protected here.
 
The project of J-20 was started in early 1980s, way before the collapse of USSR.

The outcome you seen today is what China had planted the seed way back in 30 years ago, now it is just the harvest time.
I'm pretty sure this is wrong. It sounds like you are mixing up the timeline with the J-10. Studies for the J-10 fighter began in the early 1980s from the remnants of the stillborn J-9 and possibly, but unlikely contribution of the Israeli Lavi, that has never been definitively proven. The J-20 program began in the late 1990s.
 
Definitely, i personally don't believe some conspiracy theories that suggest T-50 is a fake 5th gen just to milk India.

I think T-50 is what the best Russia can offer on the table, and they just need more funds from India to keep their ongoing projects alive.

I don't understand the mindstand of certain members outhere no one is saying that J20 is better or Pakfa is better but calling T50 a low stealthy fighter is the worst idea they can come up with I just fail to understand why would India will go with a low stealthy plane like T50 when US is already trying hard to sell us F35???
Pakfa will be the best beast Russians can come up with .
 
Of course, you're an anti-Chinese Indian troll. You're a new member with few "thanked" posts (e.g. 36 "thanks" in 146 posts for a very low 1 to 4 ratio). Most of you newbies are just a bunch of Indian trolls, who are looking for trouble in the Chinese sub-forum.

The Chinese sub-forum is different from the Indian sub-forum in two key ways:

1. The Chinese sub-forum engages in open debate. If the Indian whiner doesn't like the debate occurring in this thread, he is free to post in the Military Photos section. However, he chose the Chinese sub-forum and he should understand that Chinese issues are discussed in ALL of the threads.

2. The Chinese sub-forum is based on facts. Indians can say whatever they want in the Indian sub-forum without being challenged on the facts. When you come in here, expect to be confronted with pictures, solid analysis, and citations to mainstream publications and acknowledged experts (e.g. Jane's, GlobalSecurity, AviationWeek, Australia Air Power, Richard Fisher, etc.). If you can't defend your unsubstantiated claims with solid arguments and proof then you should stay in the Indian sub-forum.


While you amateurs in the Indian sub-forum are congratulating yourselves on how sleek the Russian T-50 looks, the rest of us in the Chinese sub-forum are wondering why there is no RAM coating on the engines and the lack of a canted air duct for the rear-part of the engine pods.

Later today, I'll put up a post to show minor violations of planform alignment in the Russian T-50 design. Like I said, the Chinese sub-forum is about professional analysis. If you're not ready for this kind of debate, you should return to the Indian sub-forum for amateurs; where no one will challenge you with facts.

You are the most dumdest character I have seen on this Earth till now who has just insulted other members till now and sang some nice songs to praise China whenever found yourself cornerd and you dare not talk about technical view till now what you have really did is to post some pics of J20 and T50 and tried to compare their stealthy design :lol:
If you really want a technical view I guess Ptldm3 is the best person fot that but I am sure you will call him a troll or stupid too.
 
^^^You must have a lot of time on your hands :P

Nahh it seems to me that whether he is a very short temper buddy who just start insulting other people if they don't agree with him or the biggest retard in this world , don't know what mods are doing.
 
Gentlemen.. please remain within the decorum of the Forum.. and its rules.
And agree to disagree when you cannot convince the other person.. instead of trying to shove your argument up like an enema.
 
"Rolls eyes" at the drama in this thread.

Don't you guys have anything better to do? Go read my post on China's Regional Strike ASBM vs. US R&D for Prompt Global Strike.
What are you? Some kind of authority on defense systems? Those posts you "quote" are simply jokes! Throwing around big words doesnt make YOU a defense analyst!!

Sorry mate. Your posts are absurd, stupid and delusional. You are and will remain a thickskull jester.
 
Coming back to the top ten future weapons of China..
I believe what has been disregarded as the one of top future weapons of China.. is cyber warfare.
 
Coming back to the top ten future weapons of China..
I believe what has been disregarded as the one of top future weapons of China.. is cyber warfare.
i had posted it look page no 2

---------- Post added at 08:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:51 PM ----------

What are you? Some kind of authority on defense systems? Those posts you "quote" are simply jokes! Throwing around big words doesnt make YOU a defense analyst!!

Sorry mate. Your posts are absurd, stupid and delusional. You are and will remain a thickskull jester.
i fully agree with u ,he has spoiled my thread
 
What are you? Some kind of authority on defense systems? Those posts you "quote" are simply jokes! Throwing around big words doesnt make YOU a defense analyst!!

Sorry mate. Your posts are absurd, stupid and delusional. You are and will remain a thickskull jester.

I am a self-proclaimed China expert. On the front page of the other Pakistani forum, I count 264,000 page views for some of my threads. If you add in my threads on pages 2 and 3, I think I have over 400,000 page views.

On YouTube, my three videos have 90,000 views.

To answer your question, many people would agree that I am "some kind of authority on defense systems." Otherwise, why would they keep reading my posts. Can you make a similar claim to having approximately 500,000 page views from one forum and three YouTube videos?

eUpc4.jpg

From the other PDF or Pakistani Defence forum. If you tally up the page views for my eight threads on the front page alone, it is an astounding 264,000 views.
 
I am a self-proclaimed China expert. On the front page of the other Pakistani forum, I count 264,000 page views for some of my threads. If you add in my threads on pages 2 and 3, I think I have over 400,000 page views.

On YouTube, my three videos have 90,000 views.

To answer your question, many people would agree that I am "some kind of authority on defense systems." Otherwise, why would they keep reading my posts. Can you make a similar claim to having approximately 500,000 page views from one forum and three YouTube videos?

Wait a few minutes, I will provide photographic proof of 264,000 views.
oh ya i am going to post a thread on critical analysis on J20 ,lets see how much u can debate
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom