Top 10 future weapons of CHINA

[gambit]

That's according to your own self-referential opinion but ironically well over 98% of everybody else in the know are quite certain what 5th gen is.

Then certainly you have no problems showing me a credible source that has a committee somewhere laying down the specs. This is just like the word 'stealth' where over 98% of the public uses that word but the few of us uses 'low radar observable'.

You should understand that when the experts write for the lay public, they will use popular terms in their explanations to give the people a reasonable frame of reference of the many complex issues they have to deal with. How often do you see an expert call the helicopter an 'aircraft' when technically it is? Or how many use the more casual 'helo' for that matter?

I see that you omitted supercruise which would disqualify the F-35 according to your definition of a 5th gen fighter. Can you explain why the F-35 is not 5th gen or is supercruise not on the list because it sounds nice to say the F-35 is a 5th gen fighter?

I have never called the F-22 and the F-35 '5th-gen'. I have always conditioned my usage of that label as 'supposedly' or 'convenient'. Whenever I use the words 'stealth' or 'stealthy' I always put them in quotes to denote their dubious technical contexts. The reason why thrust vectoring and the supercruise abilities are not included is because they are considered 'nice to have' items, in other words, the aircraft itself can accomplish it mission without them, whereas the current progress in the EM battlespace places higher priority on low radar observability and sensor integration to deliver ordnance accurately on targets. I take it you never heard of the F-117, hardly a '5th-gen' yet able to accomplish much despite being subsonic and have no radar?

On appearance alone? Are you kidding me? HAHAH... I will let that one slide and attribute it to a clumsy trolling attempt. Please refer to the 50 thousand messages posted in January 2011 worldwide after the J-20 unveiling. If you prefer professional sources, refer to the dozens of studies from APPEARANCE and VISUAL analysis by various international aviation experts. If you want to argue against all the experts, feel free to send some disparaging remarks their way and I'm sure some will take up your challenge. I wish you good luck, you will need it.

I am so glad for your generosity. Now all you have to do is show me the technical data.

 

[gambit]

RCS control can also be done with absorption or non-reflective deflection of radio waves.

That made absorber a component of how to control reflected signals, which is the foundation of radar detection. In other words, you need to know the behaviors BEFORE you can devise a method to manipulate them.

 

[marshall]

Sure it is. The whole point is to be stealthy against your opponent, not against specific radar bands that an opponent would obviously not use against such an enemy. That is one of the reasons why the F-35 is criticized when compared to the F-22A because the F-22A is stealthy to all radars while the F-35 has narrow band stealth.

Aaahhh...Wrong.

To understand why you are wrong we must have some basic understanding of radar detection and target resolutions.
...
...much unrelated but factual minutiae omitted...
...
If the F-35 is more visible in the EM spectrum than the F-22 it will be because of considerations that compelled the designer to focus less on some of the above laws than others.

Whatever you say, now back to the context of what I said instead of the unrelated rant that you veered off on. F-35 stealth is most effective in the X-band and has weaknesses at lower bands. That is why it is often derided as a narrowband stealth aircraft. In other words, an aircraft with radar operating at a lower radar frequency would see the F-35 almost as easily as a non-stealth LO aircraft and it would get detected at relatively distant BVR range. As I said originally and will repeat "The whole point is to be stealthy against your opponent, not against specific radar bands that an opponent would obviously not use against such an enemy". Look up L-Band radar and F-35. You will find that this is exactly what is happening for ground radar installations and will happen in the near future for some fighter radars.

 

[gambit]

Whatever you say, now back to the context of what I said instead of the unrelated rant that you veered off on.

That mean you did not understand it.

F-35 stealth is most effective in the X-band and has weaknesses at lower bands. That is why it is often derided as a narrowband stealth aircraft.

If the F-35 has a higher RCS in certain freqs than the X-bands that still does not make it any less effective. An aircraft is an exercise in compromises.

In other words, an aircraft with radar operating at a lower radar frequency would see the F-35 almost as easily as a non-stealth LO aircraft and it would get detected at relatively distant BVR range.

What kind of aircraft would that be? Be careful before answering.

As I said originally and will repeat "The whole point is to be stealthy against your opponent, not against specific radar bands that an opponent would obviously not use against such an enemy". Look up L-Band radar and F-35. You will find that this is exactly what is happening for ground radar installations and will happen in the near future for some fighter radars.

I will put my posts up against yours about this subject any day so it is hilarious that anyone here could 'advise' me to look up the L-band. Your highlighted comment is equally hilarious in that you specified no type of opponent. The fact that radar detection freqs ranges from the meters length to the millimetric mean that it is not possible with the current technology to deal with them all. So it is necessary to target the most problematic ones, which are the centimetric and low end millimetric. Now is that too difficult to grasp?

 

[amalakas]

Whatever you say, now back to the context of what I said instead of the unrelated rant that you veered off on. F-35 stealth is most effective in the X-band and has weaknesses at lower bands. That is why it is often derided as a narrowband stealth aircraft. In other words, an aircraft with radar operating at a lower radar frequency would see the F-35 almost as easily as a non-stealth LO aircraft and it would get detected at relatively distant BVR range. As I said originally and will repeat "The whole point is to be stealthy against your opponent, not against specific radar bands that an opponent would obviously not use against such an enemy". Look up L-Band radar and F-35. You will find that this is exactly what is happening for ground radar installations and will happen in the near future for some fighter radars.

LM is confident that the F-35 is effective against current and near future threats.
That is the point. L-Band radars for instance are not installed on currently used AiM missiles.
So even if a ground station tells you there is an F-35 flying towards you, how are you going to shoot it down? Your interceptors on X and K bands can't see it, using which missiles to lock on?

- remember I am not a fun of F-35, I am just stating what the point is-

 

[amalakas]

You use GCI and AWACS to vector in stealth fighters of your own and use infrared missiles or maybe even the cannon. BVR combat will be significantly less effective because both sides have stealth. It's going to be up close and personal, and now you know why the J-20 has canards, ventral fins, and all sorts of design compromises that maximize aerodynamic performance at the expense of stealth in some cases.

You can't do that easily.. AWACS don't have L band radars. CGI's will know the position but not the vectors and altitude of the targets ...
you will be sending your fighters in blindly to get close enough to fire ..what .. 5km effective range missiles... that is so close you wouldn't even believe how close you must get for that..

 

[j20blackdragon]

So even if a ground station tells you there is an F-35 flying towards you, how are you going to shoot it down? Your interceptors on X and K bands can't see it, using which missiles to lock on?

- remember I am not a fun of F-35, I am just stating what the point is-

You use GCI and AWACS to vector in stealth fighters of your own and use infrared missiles or maybe even the cannon. BVR combat will be significantly less effective because both sides have stealth. It's going to be up close and personal, and now you know why the J-20 has canards, ventral fins, and all sorts of design compromises that maximize aerodynamic performance at the expense of stealth in some cases.

 

[DrSomnath999]

You said there are no 5th gen fighters with canards and I replied that there is...the J-20, self explanatory. I never said canards HAVE to be on 5th gen fighters, obviously since the other 5th gen fighters and projects all do not have it. The fact that LERX does some of what a canard can does not make it equivalent. Canards superior maneuverabily to non-vectored thrust fighters add a degree of stability an order of magnitude greater than LERX can. In combination with thrust vectoring, a canard would gives a fighter a degree of supermaneuverabity that would allow it to dance sky acrobatics while retaining stability at lower speeds than with vectoring+LERX. As I said, the maneuverabilty with vectoring+canards would be unbeatable, especially at lower speeds.

ur J20 may be requiring canards for supermaneuverabity as it is a special 5th gen fighter

,but all other 5th gen doesnt require canards for supermaneuverabity as they are having thrust vectoring nozzles to achieve that,just see the chart

 

[j20blackdragon]

Seriously, the PAK FA simply doesn't compare to this.

The two planes aren't even in the same league.

 

[ptldM3]

Seriously, the PAK FA simply doesn't compare to this.

The two planes aren't even in the same league.

We should respect the Chinese aircraft industry because after all the JF-17's radar is not based off the Zhuk, and China totally does not use Russian engines, and the PL-12 does not use a seeker made/co-developed by a Russian company by the name of AGAT.

I one day hope that the pak-fa will use advanced composites in the form of melted down Barbie dolls and knock-off sneakers, than for shock and awe Sukhoi should follow the J-20 mighty-drag queen and use some flat black paint to get that gorgeous look. A 'highly reliable source' aka 'insider' has acknowledged that the flat black paint used on 2001 J-20 was obtained by committing a home invasion on some unsuspecting ricers.

 

[j20blackdragon]

You can't do that easily.. AWACS don't have L band radars.

The Israeli Phalcon is L-band.

The US Navy's E-2C is UHF-band.

 

[gambit]

Seriously, the PAK FA simply doesn't compare to this.

The two planes aren't even in the same league.

Stop posting pictures we have already seen and contribute something worthwhile. All you are trying to do is bury legitimate debates to protect your fellow Chinese. It is a sign of cowardice.

 

[S10]

Man this thread is infested with all types of flames and butthurt.

 

[ptldM3]

Seen this photo in another thread, in it you see Lockheed's C-130 replacement mock-up. So where are all the people saying that stealth has to have 's-ducts' and a 'flat belly'?

 

[S10]

Seen this photo in another thread, in it you see Lockheed's C-130 replacement mock-up. So where are all the people saying that stealth has to have 's-ducts' and a 'flat belly'?

Transports have low observable requirements now? Maybe Russian mafia need to smuggle arms or drugs out of Russia?