Report On Indian MMRCA IN CHINESE..

[Aramsogo]

---

---

LCA is a big joke. If it worked, you wouldn't be buying the Rafale and everything else. Pathetic.

[KRAIT]

LCA is a big joke. If it worked, you wouldn't be buying the Rafale and everything else. Pathetic.

Go troll somewhere else if you don't know LCA program...

[Loki]

This is called by making a plane using composite materials , you can't understand things because chinese is still thinks that metallic airframes and think their technology is superior.

The J-11 also use composite materials. If a country has the technology for carbon composite designated for the particular applications, it's not that hard to do so.

In addition, thanks to extensive use of modern composite materials, the F-11B airframe weight reduction than the Su-27SK about 700 kilograms, its flying life expectancy increased by 1000 hours compared with the latter .

Russia said the Chinese J-11B radar reflector is only 3-5 meters (Photos) « Military of China, force comment.

How many time we need to tell you COPY is not DEVELOPMENT , COPY take 5 sec and Development takes time..... OK, next time you come up with something , First identify form where you copy that thing.

Reverse engineering isn't as simple as you make it sound.

The J-10 is based on the J-9 prototype, possibly with some assistance from the ill-fated Israeli Lavi program.

The J-11B uses an air-frame design of Russian origin, which is the source of contention between Sukhoi and Sengyang. And that's it. The avionics and the rest are all indigenous.

And as far as China vs. India goes, you may wanna read this report:
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand...AND_MG1009.pdf

Please don't say that the Rand Corporation is anti-India.

Moreover you know China wants Israeli things , but Israeli denied , why u think china want Isreali ACWAS when they can develop its own?

Chinease , IF you provide us we don't built ourself and if you don't we can built it we have technology.... (ACWAS case) sometimes you copying trick make everyone laugh when you say we made it

The Israelis didn't sell them to China due to US pressure and the issue of North Korea.

American defense and state department officials are furious at Israel for
so flagrantly violating the US embargo of high-tech arms to China,
particularly as tensions between Washington and Beijing rise. There have
even been angry demands in Congress for the value of the Israeli AWACS
aircraft sold to China to be deducted from the $3-5 billion in aid Israel
receives annually from the US. Fears are being expressed that US
technology for Israel's new `Arrow' anti-missile system, developed with
nearly $1 billion in US aid, may also be sold to China.

Israelis claim their weapons sales to China motivate Beijing to keep a
leash on its ally, North Korea, which, says Israelis, ships missiles to
Iran and the Arabs. Russia remains China's main arms supplier. Sales by
Israel keep Russia and China apart, say Israeli partisans. Nonsense,
retorts the Pentagon. But in an election year, New York City is far more
important than China. So Israel will probably only get its wrists slapped -
if that.

MiD-EasT RealitieS - www.MiddleEast.Org

[marshall]

Geeezzz...

An absorber is a conductor. An absorber is a composite that literally attempt to conduct -- and largely succeed -- in drawing surface impinging signals INTO the composite...

I've never heard of a conductor called an "absorber" instead...anyways, the proper use of the word absorber in this case referring to EM, is usually referred to as electrical absorbers for specific frequencies. Since we weren't talking about radar absorbent paint or composites but about oxide coated canopies, your use of the term "absorber" is inappropriate. The conductive canopy oxide coating is applied via deposition and makes EM behave similarly to how EM travels along the rest of the surface of a treated stealth airframe. The difference in shaping of the canopy are under the same stealth shaping rules as is used on the rest of the respective airframe. That's why the F-117A canopy has saw tooth edges for its shaping and the J-20 bubble canopy for its shaping doesn't.

Further, when absorbers are installed on a curvature, surface traveling waves can be affected as well, depending on the sophistication of the composite design. The cost is weight penalty because different composite materials must be employed to affect different signal behaviors, mainly refraction. And where did I 'harp' on that surface traveling waves is the primary concern? Still, here is where you are misinformed: The mono-static configuration.

That's the strong impression I get because you constantly butt into every conversation concerning stealth and invariably end up talking about traveling waves in one way or another while giving comparatively rare mention of specular reflections. Martian2 and you once had a debate about "continuous curvature" and he had a strong point about with an example about a cylinder and its unnecessarily large potential radar return, along the straight edge view from the straight on specular return from an illuminating radar, due to its lack of "continuous curvature" and you kept harping about traveling waves while completely ignoring his point about the specular reflections. That's what is called willful ignorance and/or purposeful deception. Either that, or you actually do believe specular reflections and shaping take a back seat since you gave it zero importance. That's par for the course in every single one of your debates since your obviously not here to actually debate anything. lol

They seems to be incapable of being curious as to why there is such a radical departure from the F-117's visually stunning design to the more ordinary shaping of the F-22 and yet the F-22 is actually more radar defying in all-around perspective. They -- like YOU -- refuse the consider that there can be a secondary effect that are AS IMPORTANT as the first effect but that secondary effect is important only if there is an attempt to counter another radar configuration.

I suggest you tone down accusations for things that are simply not true. I have never disregarded the importance of all-aspect stealth and have had conversations with you and others stretching back years about various ways to improve stealth detection regarding multi-modal radars involving various radar bands, greater computing power, different filters, cell tower style radar grids, SAR radar grids, UAV radar grids, RWR radar grids, etc, etc. Your needless anecdotes concerning why the F-117A is retired is the reason why traveling waves is even a concern today. But, it is still secondary.

- The F-22's and others' designs are against both mono-static and bi-static configurations using both angled facetings and curvatures. In this situation, we have two effects: specular reflections and surface waves, one after the other, and both are of primary importance when they occur. So if I 'harp' on the surface traveling effects, I am well within technical justifications based upon customer demands: To work against both mono-static and bi-static configurations.

That's fine, if your intention is to actually debate. However, if you choose to ignore one while concentrating on the other or vice-versa depending on whatever you are "debating" about, then there is a problem. It doesn't help that you consistently nitpick grammar and use it as part of your debates. lol The word disingenuous is used a lot nowadays.

For both the J-20 and the T-50, or PAK-FA or whatever anyone want to call it, we have no credible data, despite the Chinese boys' harping on that APA's crap of an 'analysis' for the J-20, if the J-20's shaping have been attempted to go against the bi-static configuration. We can only speculate from looks alone and it is entertaining at best.

If that's your attitude then why even waste time debating the unknown? Isn't it a waste of time then because it sure seems like you have alot of time to be writing up what looks like 40 pages per day of what you consider useless messages in these debates about phantom projects and items.

I brought it up to illustrate the falsity of your argument. If we can install a far less radar reflective canopy on the F-16, who is saying that the Russians cannot do the same for the T-50? The reality is that the canopy is of minor importance.

I never said the Russians cannot. I have a lot of respect for Russian engineers given their relatively limited resources and I'm sure they will eventually make changes to the canopy to address this weakness. How you can claim a traditional canopy is a minor stealth issue is surprising given that RCS is now measured in the fractions of a sq/m2.

[wanglaokan]

F-117 does not have that bubble canopy either. So how do you explain this?

F-117 suckes, that's why it was shot down in Yugoslavia with the help of our radar and get retired.

[Aramsogo]

Why don't you take a hike and post on products related to china.....and thread isn't about LCA still you brought up in the first place.....as far as complete failure is concerned i think everyone now knows who is

Let me see... This thread is part of China Defence on a Pakistani defence forum. The title of the thread is about Chinese reporting of Indian foreign arms purchases because they can't make jack.

Yeah, I think I'm in the right place.

[April.lyrics]

Why don't you take a hike and post on products related to china.....and thread isn't about LCA still you brought up in the first place.....as far as complete failure is concerned i think everyone now knows who is

lca is dead in IAF.i'm looking forward to it in indian naval air force..

[KRAIT]

lca is dead in IAF.i'm looking forward to it in indian naval air force..

Fine...can't argue with you...lets come back to MMRCA.....

[wanglaokan]

Most Chinese media think J11b is good enough to take Rafale. The reason India choose Rafale just because France CONVINCE India that it could beat J10.

[beggingwalker]

lca is dead in IAF.i'm looking forward to it in indian naval air force..

dont pressurize your brain much
IAF will have 200 + lca's before 2020 and ts mark 2 version is compatible with gripen

---------- Post added at 06:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:16 PM ----------

Most Chinese media think J11b is good enough to take Rafale. The reason India choose Rafale just because France CONVINCE India that it could beat J10.

firstly test your j-10 and j-11 with f-16 block 70 with aesa.
f-16 will get hell out of your cheap copies

[April.lyrics]

Most Chinese media think J11b is good enough to take Rafale. The reason India choose Rafale just because France CONVINCE India that it could beat J10.

our J-11B is going to be upgrated with AESA.

[Ammyy]

LCA is a big joke. If it worked, you wouldn't be buying the Rafale and everything else. Pathetic.

Then all you engine program is big joke . If they works then you not request russian again and again for engine

[KRAIT]

our J-11B is going to be upgrated with AESA.

So is Sukhoi.....look for Super Sukhoi program......

[tanlixiang28776]

Then all you engine program is big joke . If they works then you not request russian again and again for engine

the only mainline aircraft in China that relies on Russian engines is the J10A which is to be replaced with J10B this year with WS 10s. On the other hand not a single airplane in the Indian air force uses Indian engines.

Who is the bigger joke?

[Ammyy]

---

---

the only mainline aircraft in China that relies on Russian engines is the J10A which is to be replaced with J10B this year with WS 10s. On the other hand not a single airplane in the Indian air force uses Indian engines.

Who is the bigger joke?

So you want to say that bigger J10 using Chinese engine but you cant produce engine for lighter JF17 ???????

This is called joke ...