China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
wen
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 75
Joined: 01 Jan 2011 13:30

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby wen » 10 Feb 2011 19:13

Marten wrote:Really? heh... you're fantastic at entertaining us. Go on troll, tell us how the mighty J-9 took off on Chinese engines. Oh, that can't be true, right? We forgot - China cannot manufacture engines! :rotfl:

Sure you built planes that the Russians had to copy... Sure. I got a wall you might like.


How could J-20 copied from MiG-1.44, their short-distanced coupling canard, their crap straight intakes or their votaka-reinfored "plasma stealth" :rotfl:

We all know MiG-1.44 is even less advanced then J-9VI-2 since the latter at least know how to using narrow strakes to creat lift instead of using the fat main wings :rotfl:

As for engines, I guess you dont know J-20's engine is made in China :rotfl:

VibhavS
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 64
Joined: 04 Jan 2011 16:56
Location: Classified

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby VibhavS » 10 Feb 2011 19:52

Why are we even bothering our dear friend.. isnt it clear that he is powered by the same engines that power the J20??? (WS10G... what do you call it "What Shit 10G") Please do come back and tell us all the bull about the J20 being anywhere near the F22 Raptor just because it looks like stealth. Just because a monkey can copy a human doesnt give it a right to call itself one.

Oh yes we know about out failures in the aviation field.. like the lack of a true Indian made engine, but unlike you chinese we dont hallucinate about our prowess in the field.

Brando
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Brando » 10 Feb 2011 20:03

wen wrote:To be honest, just placing J-20 and PAK-FA side by side, you would not believe they are belong to the same generation of fighters, IMVHO, PAK-FA makes J-20 looks like a 6th generation fighter.

Confucius say: "Don't judge a book by its cover" :wink:

It's hilarious that the Chinese now think they have a better fighter because they've made a nice movie prop that looks like an F-22 so they are obviously so superior. The first rule about LOA design is that you don't add canards, they bump up your signature significantly because of something called we like to call "edge alignment". But obviously the Chinese want a fancy prop than an actual real fighter aircraft so they put in a ridiculous set of canards on an already MASSIVE airframe that's nearly as big as a yacht. And that is supposed to be "stealth" ? :roll:

The Chinese have yet to demonstrate that they can produce decent PESA radars or Turbofan engines or even IRST sensors yet here you are trying to tell us that the Chinese J-20 is more stealthy than the aircraft designed by the very people who pioneered low-observable aircraft research !

Confucius say: "Crowded elevator smell different for midget" ! :rotfl:

sumshyam
BRFite
Posts: 552
Joined: 23 Sep 2009 19:30
Location: Ganga ki dharti.
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby sumshyam » 10 Feb 2011 20:44

wen wrote:
How could J-20 copied from MiG-1.44, their short-distanced coupling canard, their crap straight intakes or their votaka-reinfored "plasma stealth" :rotfl:

We all know MiG-1.44 is even less advanced then J-9VI-2


this really is a wow...! I don't blame you...as some says...If you are aiming aim at the sun..! But on the other hand no said anything like this about comparing..!

ohh no...I am :oops: :oops: :twisted: :twisted: .

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Surya » 10 Feb 2011 20:48

Guys please ignore the chipanda trolls and let admins handle this

This is the week of Aeroindia and I care a rats a$$ about chipanda effing planes

Lets not give this thread undue attention

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3448
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby kit » 10 Feb 2011 21:20

looks like a free for all is going on .. anyway this thread looks like a waste of time unless some people stop or are stopped ! :wink:

sevoke
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 69
Joined: 08 Jun 2008 09:30
Location: Republic of Tibet

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby sevoke » 11 Feb 2011 03:10

[/quote]

The same website you quoted has this to say about J20:

http://online.wsj.com/video/what-the-j2 ... le_related

We all know where the J20 exactly stands as of now. Time to stop talking about how stealthy it is.

andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1597
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby andy B » 11 Feb 2011 04:04

Its interesting how BR attracts new Chinese posters...even more interesting IMHO is the way they appear on a periodical basis...almost like a roster of sorts... :shock: :mrgreen:

wen
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 75
Joined: 01 Jan 2011 13:30

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby wen » 11 Feb 2011 04:15

Marten wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-9


You were saying? So you basically fly them one way and park them or allow the pig to get shot in the air, eh? Nice going. The Russians MUST learn this from China. :rotfl:
PS: They will, once they are done counting all the money they're collecting for delivering 300 engines. :rotfl:


And you still believe the votoka-reinforced russian sources :rotfl:

Just days before J-20 disclosed, Russian sources are still recycling the russian rumors that China want their Su-35 craps and will buy their PAK-FA by 2025 :rotfl:

wen
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 75
Joined: 01 Jan 2011 13:30

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby wen » 11 Feb 2011 04:20

sevoke wrote:
The same website you quoted has this to say about J20:

http://online.wsj.com/video/what-the-j2 ... le_related

We all know where the J20 exactly stands as of now. Time to stop talking about how stealthy it is.


OK, if you like to believe what americans really want to say about military stuff, just see the response from the professional military persons instead of amatuers:

See how they really think about PAK-FA, a.k.a the F-15 enhanced Su-27 after its maiden flight:
Source: http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/ ... r_032210w/

Leaders not impressed by new Russian fighter

By Bruce Rolfsen - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Mar 22, 2010 7:06:18 EDT

The flying debut of Russia’s answer to the F-22 Raptor isn’t wowing Air Force leaders.

Dubbed the T-50 or PAK-FA, the fifth-generation stealth fighter jet made its maiden flight Jan. 29 — 47 minutes over eastern Russia — and has flown at least twice since then. The twin-engine jet will replace the MiG-29 Fulcrum and Su-27 Flanker, both fourth-generation front-line fighters.

The first operational T-50s should be delivered in 2015, the same year the Air Force expects its first F-35 Lightning II. Also a fifth-generation fighter, the F-35 has a single supersonic engine and stealth capabilities.

“I didn’t see anything … that would cause me to rethink plans for the F-22 or F-35,” Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told reporters Feb. 18 at the Air Force Association’s winter conference, held in Orlando, Fla.

“Russia has a robust [aircraft industry],” Donley added. “This is not a surprise in that context.”

The PAK-FA resembles the F-22 — distinctive tilted rear tail fins and all — and has many of the same high-tech features, including digital avionics, a phased-array radar and communications equipment to link the fighter to command and control centers, according to the Russian news agency Tass.

The Air Force ordered the last of its 187 F-22s in 2009. Russia has not had a new fighter in nearly 20 years; the Indian air force is also sponsoring development of a version of the T-50.

“It looks like a plane we’ve seen before,” Gen. Roger Brady, the air boss for NATO and commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe, said at the conference.

Gen. Gary North, commander of Pacific Air Forces, made clear his impression of the fighter: “I guess the greatest flattery is how much they copy you.”

Still, the four-stars wonder whether the T-50 will live up to its fifth-generation billing.

“I don’t know if it’s really a fifth-generation aircraft,” Brady said. “What I do know is that it’s very clear that they’re working on a fifth-generation technology.”

For Brady, Russia’s push on the development front signals that the U.S. cannot settle for the status quo.

“The key is, we must continue to do fifth-generation and sixth-generation research and put money against it because other people clearly are,” Brady said.

North added that the Pentagon must ensure fourth-generation jets such as the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 are continually upgraded.

“If we’re not going to buy more, what we’ve got to have is the very best that our sons and daughters go out to fight with,” he said.

In tandem with the T-50 project, Russia is developing a long-range bomber.

“We won’t limit ourselves to just one new model,” Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said March 1. “We must start work on a prospective long-range aircraft, our new strategic bomber.”

———

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


Looks like American military leaders are also not sure if PAK-FA can be considered as a true 5th generation fighter, afterall it looks so much like a by-product of F-15 mating Su-27 :rotfl:

Image

Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 595
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Raveen » 11 Feb 2011 04:34

(this is well worth the warning I expect to see with this...what I didn't expect to see is the admins taking so long to ban this fool)

@Wen, son, grab your bowl of noodles and peddle your non-sense elsewhere, your response to my post about America defaulting was such utter jibberish that it wasn't worth a bit of internet bandwidth let alone a response. If your cutsey midget sized Chinki-Panda really bites as hard at it roars, face off with the Indian cobra or should I say tiger other wise grab your Bao and Ramen and turn on some Kung Fu Panda and gt*o here before those chopsticks are shoved where the sun don't shine.

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3732
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby hnair » 11 Feb 2011 04:37

Raveen and others, "wen" is a paki trying to grab attention during AeroIndia. Not drone profile

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4432
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby putnanja » 11 Feb 2011 04:41

er, you keep talking about mating F-15 and SU-27. Even if that were true, do you really think it is as easy as just copying the looks from two planes and building on it? Russia has decades of building good airplanes, which China never had. They just copied Mig-19 and Mig-21 and mass produced those and sold it everywhere. Even now, they just steal outright from US or Russia or buy designs from Israel like they did with the Levi. And similarly with engines, they couldn't produce a decent engine on their own and had to buy the RD-33 engines from Russia for their aircraft.

For a country which has built on stolen technologies, you sure have some nerve commenting about Japan or Russia's effort. At least show some respect to the knowledge and experience that Russia and US have built up over the years.

Stealing everything and then claiming everything just because chinese-americans worked on it seeems to be the standard commie excuse. After claiming all land based on some historical chinese emperor's empire, you are now claiming all technologies just because some chinese-americans worked on them!! If the US had not allowed those chinese americans to come and study in the US, many times with scholarship/assistantship thrown in, these chinese would never have been in a position they are in now. it is the open policies followed by US that has helped many to be in those positions.

Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 595
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Raveen » 11 Feb 2011 05:01

hnair wrote:Raveen and others, "wen" is a paki trying to grab attention during AeroIndia. Not drone profile

I am so sorry for noticing the signs of madrasa math and pukilogic in this fool's jibberish, I agree this has to be a puki

wen
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 75
Joined: 01 Jan 2011 13:30

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby wen » 11 Feb 2011 05:25

J-20 get an unique aerodynamic layouts: lifting-body canard blending in Gothic strake/leading edges.

The design has two very significant benefical features:

1, It will make the aircraft become highly-agile, based on Song's wind tunnel tests, when other factors are controlled, in terms of dog-fight performance/agility, lifting-body canard blending with gothic strakes (J-20)>>short-distanced coupling canards (J-10, Raflale, JAS-39, MiG-1.44)>long-distance coupling canards (EuroFighter 2000)>Large gothic leading edges (F/A-18E/F, Chengdu JF-17/FC-1)>conventional layouts(including these with small leading edges, F-22/35, F-15, Su-27, etc).

2, The other primary benefits is, usually to creat large lifting force, you need large wing-span, however the large wing-span will create higher air-drag during high speed supersonic phase, which means there is some painful trade-off between sub-sonic agility and supersonic performance you have to made.

However, when you creates large part of your lift through the well blended gothic strakes instead of mostly created from the main wings like all the existing canard designs, based on Song's wind tunnel test, there will be a very special aerodynamic charater, that within certain degree, actually it will turn out to be, the LOWER the wing-span, the HIGHER the lifting force can be created.

Thus actually by designing the fighter this way, you can design a low-wingspan high-lifting fighter which is BOTH optimized at dog-fight AND supersonic performance.

Song wen-cong, with his team memebers, published their works in 2001, based on large scale wind tunnel tests, you can find his academic journal paper on the key design features of J-20 in this paper, the key features(lifting-body canards blended into gothic-like strakes, all moving vectical tail wings, low wingspan, etc) mentioned in this 2001's jounral paper matched exactly with what we see the J-20 today, the link for this acadmeic jounral paper is here:

http://www.cqvip.com/qk/83379x/2001008/5563683.html

The title of this paper, translated in English, is "A LOW WINGSPAN HIGH LIFTING, HIGH AGILE DESIGN OF THE NEXT GENERATION FIGHTER".

From this picture, you can clear see the key design features of J-20:
Lifiting-body canards blending into gothic-like narrow strakes, and the low wingspan:
Image

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7763
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Indranil » 11 Feb 2011 07:30

wen wrote:J-20 get an unique aerodynamic layouts: lifting-body canard blending in Gothic strake/leading edges.

Gothic?!! Nice name :).
wen wrote:The design has two very significant benefical features:

1, It will make the aircraft become highly-agile, based on Song's wind tunnel tests, when other factors are controlled, in terms of dog-fight performance/agility, lifting-body canard blending with gothic strakes (J-20)>>short-distanced coupling canards (J-10, Raflale, JAS-39, MiG-1.44)>long-distance coupling canards (EuroFighter 2000)>Large gothic leading edges (F/A-18E/F, Chengdu JF-17/FC-1)>conventional layouts(including these with small leading edges, F-22/35, F-15, Su-27, etc).

Please explain the physics behind this. When you consider conventional layouts remember to take into account elevators. What do you mean by canard being inline. Only the join is. The rest of the canard isn't.
wen wrote:2, The other primary benefits is, usually to creat large lifting force, you need large wing-span, however the large wing-span will create higher air-drag during high speed supersonic phase, which means there is some painful trade-off between sub-sonic agility and supersonic performance you have to made.

However, when you creates large part of your lift through the well blended gothic strakes instead of mostly created from the main wings like all the existing canard designs, based on Song's wind tunnel test, there will be a very special aerodynamic charater, that within certain degree, actually it will turn out to be, the LOWER the wing-span, the HIGHER the lifting force can be created.
Thus actually by designing the fighter this way, you can design a low-wingspan high-lifting fighter which is BOTH optimized at dog-fight AND supersonic performance.

Really, is this the reason? Remove the canard and main wing. Replace the main wing with the same wingspan and chord equal to chord of present wing + present canard. You will have more lift than the present configuration with the same wing-span!

And did you know that a lifting canard creates upload which has to be balanced by extra lift of the wing?
Also, for pitch stability, the main wing can never reach its maximum lift capability. Hence, the main wing must then be larger than on the conventional configuration, which increases its weight and profile drag.

Read about aspect ratio,wave drag and vortex shedding of the canard alignments and then analyze you would see the real reason of the canard and its alignment. Let me know when you are ready to discuss. Have you read about other possible configurations and their benefits? If not, I advice you to read. Don't make a fool of yourself till then. I am not going to waste my time on you unless you bring something meaningful to discuss. In hindsight, I think this discussion is a big waste of time for me.

The title of this paper, translated in English, is "A LOW WINGSPAN HIGH LIFTING, HIGH AGILE DESIGN OF THE NEXT GENERATION FIGHTER".

I am surprised why this paper was not submitted to any renowned journal. Oh ya! all these are known concepts and a journal paper is supposed to carry something novel.

For your information, planes with lifting canard in history:
Wright Flyer (the first plane ever)

The lifting canard has many drawbacks. There was a reason why people went away from a lifting canard to elevators. But a lot depends on the configuration. The J-20 has an interesting configuration, but kinematic-ally it won't match the F-22 or the PAKFA. Learn more about aerodynamics and then we can talk.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1639
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Sid » 11 Feb 2011 07:38

Su 27 is 2 meters longer and 1 meter wider then F 15, what are we comparing here?

Guess the difference in dimensions of Su 27 and J 11. "1 mm" :mrgreen:

W"h"en ji is just inducing drag in this thread. We should have seen hellfires by now from adminullas.

wen
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 75
Joined: 01 Jan 2011 13:30

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby wen » 11 Feb 2011 07:57

indranilroy wrote:
wen wrote:J-20 get an unique aerodynamic layouts: lifting-body canard blending in Gothic strake/leading edges.

Gothic?!! Nice name :).
wen wrote:The design has two very significant benefical features:

1, It will make the aircraft become highly-agile, based on Song's wind tunnel tests, when other factors are controlled, in terms of dog-fight performance/agility, lifting-body canard blending with gothic strakes (J-20)>>short-distanced coupling canards (J-10, Raflale, JAS-39, MiG-1.44)>long-distance coupling canards (EuroFighter 2000)>Large gothic leading edges (F/A-18E/F, Chengdu JF-17/FC-1)>conventional layouts(including these with small leading edges, F-22/35, F-15, Su-27, etc).

Please explain the physics behind this. When you consider conventional layouts remember to take into account elevators. What do you mean by canard being inline. Only the join is. The rest of the canard isn't.
wen wrote:2, The other primary benefits is, usually to creat large lifting force, you need large wing-span, however the large wing-span will create higher air-drag during high speed supersonic phase, which means there is some painful trade-off between sub-sonic agility and supersonic performance you have to made.

However, when you creates large part of your lift through the well blended gothic strakes instead of mostly created from the main wings like all the existing canard designs, based on Song's wind tunnel test, there will be a very special aerodynamic charater, that within certain degree, actually it will turn out to be, the LOWER the wing-span, the HIGHER the lifting force can be created.
Thus actually by designing the fighter this way, you can design a low-wingspan high-lifting fighter which is BOTH optimized at dog-fight AND supersonic performance.

Really, is this the reason? Remove the canard and main wing. Replace the main wing with the same wingspan and chord equal to chord of present wing + present canard. You will have more lift than the present configuration with the same wing-span!

And did you know that a lifting canard creates upload which has to be balanced by extra lift of the wing?
Also, for pitch stability, the main wing can never reach its maximum lift capability. Hence, the main wing must then be larger than on the conventional configuration, which increases its weight and profile drag.

Read about aspect ratio,wave drag and vortex shedding of the canard alignments and then analyze you would see the real reason of the canard and its alignment. Let me know when you are ready to discuss. Have you read about other possible configurations and their benefits? If not, I advice you to read. Don't make a fool of yourself till then. I am not going to waste my time on you unless you bring something meaningful to discuss. In hindsight, I think this discussion is a big waste of time for me.

The title of this paper, translated in English, is "A LOW WINGSPAN HIGH LIFTING, HIGH AGILE DESIGN OF THE NEXT GENERATION FIGHTER".

I am surprised why this paper was not submitted to any renowned journal. Oh ya! all these are known concepts and a journal paper is supposed to carry something novel.

For your information, planes with lifting canard in history:
Wright Flyer (the first plane ever)

The lifting canard has many drawbacks. There was a reason why people went away from a lifting canard to elevators. But a lot depends on the configuration. The J-20 has an interesting configuration, but kinematic-ally it won't match the F-22 or the PAKFA. Learn more about aerodynamics and then we can talk.


Wanna-be aerodynamicist open their big mouths critising the chief scientist of J-20 project
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Learning aerodynamics?

Do you even know aerodynamics is a very experimental-driven displine?

Do you even know the current N-S equations based simulation cannot be used to predicting unless the paramters of the models have been adjusted by wind-tunnel tests?

In the world of aerodynmaics, bascially wind tunnel tests is primary source of knowledge, if the wind tunnel test don't agree with your wanna be theory, then you need to corret your wanna be theory instead of trying to critize the wind tunnel test :rotfl:

No, not even N-S equations based simulation can be regarded as a reliable predictor of the performance, let along your wanna-be theorys, thats why in almost every single academic journal paper on aerodynamics, there will be some (1)Model, and the parameters estimations (2)N-S simulation show results (3)Results correlcations with wind tunnel tests

As a project director and chief scientist on J-20, I guess he can access far far more resource on these test and studies comparing to any aerodynamicists in the schools, let along amateruish aerodynamicist-wannabes :rotfl:

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11195
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Gagan » 11 Feb 2011 08:10

Chinese advanced technology
Image

wen
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 75
Joined: 01 Jan 2011 13:30

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby wen » 11 Feb 2011 08:11

The design has two very significant benefical features:

1, It will make the aircraft become highly-agile, based on Song's wind tunnel tests, when other factors are controlled, in terms of dog-fight performance/agility, lifting-body canard blending with gothic strakes (J-20)>>short-distanced coupling canards (J-10, Raflale, JAS-39, MiG-1.44)>long-distance coupling canards (EuroFighter 2000)>Large gothic leading edges (F/A-18E/F, Chengdu JF-17/FC-1)>conventional layouts(including these with small leading edges, F-22/35, F-15, Su-27, etc).


Real world results also correlates very well with Song Wen-Cong's findings:

1)USAF Chief of Staff General John P. Jumper claiming EF2000 (long-distance coupling canards) is the best fighter(agile) he has ever flow and he claimed he has flow all the USAF's fighters (beside F/A-18s, all are convential layouts) in services.

http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews/04 ... 072204.pdf

2)According to Interntional Air Power Riew, 2006, Issue 45, during the internal military excerise between British RAF and USAF, the EF2000 (long-distance coupling canards) gives F-22 (conventional layout) a very hard fight.

3)According to USAF's own source, among all USAF fighters there, F/A-18s(large gothic leading edge/strake) is the only fighter that have ever shoot down a F-22.

4)From Business-standard, according to the reporters's interview with many military officiers and insiders during the latest Indiaaero show, canard designed EF2000(long distance coupling), Raflale and JAS-39 (both are short-distanced coupling) are all much better performanced in dog-fight/agility comparing to their convential counterpart, MiG-35, F-16, or F/A-18 (large gothic-leading edge).

5)During China's internal military excreise, J-10 (short distnace coupling canards) have always beaten the crap out of convetional layout Su-27/30s, for instance:

1 J-10 vs 4 Su-27s, 4:0
http://mil.jschina.com.cn/2009/1105/1664.htm

2 J-10s vs 4 Su-27s, again, 4:0
http://dh.jgjy.gov.cn/shownews.asp?news_id=1873

6 J-10s vs 6 Su-30s, 5:0, the only Su-30 surivived was driven by probably the best Su-30 pilot in PLA(vice commander of the only SU-30 division in China Navy, with the highest awards winning among all Su-30 pilots in PLA), and he narrowly escaped the hunts.
http://news.ifeng.com/mil/2/detail_2010 ... 56_0.shtml

6)RAF's EF2000 has conducted military excreise with French Raflale, the Raflale (short distance coupling canard) basically beat the crap out of EF2000 (long distance coupling canard).

So all in all, it seems that Song's findings has correlated with real-world performance very well.
Last edited by wen on 11 Feb 2011 08:17, edited 3 times in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16404
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby NRao » 11 Feb 2011 08:14

Roy,

Apple and oranges.

No need to continue this ding-dong discussion.

There is no discussion.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7763
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Indranil » 11 Feb 2011 08:18

Wen, The guys in your design offices know quite well. They put things up quite smartly. I have the highest respect for them.

The problem is big mouths like you who don't understand even the basics and start to explain stuff which you don't understand. Learn atleast the right reasons why your engineers did something. Answer my questions and we shall talk.

P.S. Nrao sahab, I see the futility. What a waste of time this tard is!

wen
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 75
Joined: 01 Jan 2011 13:30

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby wen » 11 Feb 2011 08:23

indranilroy wrote:Wen, The guys in your design offices know quite well. They put things up quite smartly. I have the highest respect for them.

The problem is big mouths like you who don't understand even the basics and start to explain stuff which you don't understand. Learn atleast the right reasons why your engineers did something. Answer my questions and we shall talk.

P.S. Nrao sahab, I see the futility. What a waste of time this tard is!

:rotfl: :rotfl:

You dont even know me yet you have the nerve to accuse me of knowing nothing there?

I bet I get much better edcuation background comparing to you, maybe my area is not aerodynamics but that doesnt prevent me from reading aerodynamics journal papers since I have quite a good maths and engineering background, can I say the same for you? :rotfl:

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16404
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby NRao » 11 Feb 2011 08:26

He is just overloading with URLs. That is it.

Math and eng? What has to do with Song and crow crap I am not sure.

Typical Chicom stuff.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16404
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby NRao » 11 Feb 2011 08:29

He has admitted that China paid for stolen goods. Which, of course, we were not aware of

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16404
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby NRao » 11 Feb 2011 08:31

All those URLs are either in chinese - which none of us can understand (thank God - what is God he will ask) or you need to go through an entire AWST url to figure out that he knows nothing.

wen
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 75
Joined: 01 Jan 2011 13:30

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby wen » 11 Feb 2011 08:32

NRao wrote:He is just overloading with URLs. That is it.

Math and eng? What has to do with Song and crow crap I am not sure.

Typical Chicom stuff.


If you have no idea about what all academic research is about, be quiet pls.

The estiential of most science and engineering displines is mathematics and of cause, experiments.

If you do a PhD in a most science, finance and/or some quantitive engineering subjects, you will know in the end, a very large part of you work is depend heavily on mathematics.

For instance, doing a PhD in aerodynamics, you will have to learn N-S equation, the equation itself is simple but when you are trying to solve these equations numerically as most PhDs have done, you may have to learn many numerical methods or even invent your own method that can best hold your problem of interests, and you can not do that unless you have at least graduate-level mathematics knowledge.

munna
BRFite
Posts: 1392
Joined: 18 Nov 2007 05:03
Location: Pee Arr Eff's resident Constitution Compliance Strategist (Phd, with upper hand)

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby munna » 11 Feb 2011 08:36

wen wrote:For instance, doing a PhD in aerodynamics, you will have to learn N-S equation, the equation itself is simple but when you are trying to solve these equations numerically as most PhDs have done, you may have to learn many numerical methods or even invent your own method that can best hold your problem of interests, and you can not do that unless you have at least graduate-level mathematics knowledge.

yeh buri tarah se maar khane wala hai! (writing in Hindi to jam chi com ra dar) :rotfl:

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16404
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby NRao » 11 Feb 2011 08:37

I have degrees than you can count. And, have impacted more people than you can think. Long back too. ALL with mathematics.

So, you can continue your crap about some Song wind tunnel data. Which is fine. After all it makes abreadbox fly - we have seen that.

Some director of what? J-20 is the best he can produce?

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11195
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Gagan » 11 Feb 2011 08:42

munna wrote:yeh buri tarah se maar khane wala hai! (writing in Hindi to jam chi com ra dar) :rotfl:

Might not work.
Chailman Wen might be on 'official' duty to post on BRF today, with one CPP member looking over his shoulder at what he types, and 4 other colleagues furtively searching for urls to counter arguments.

He must be in high demand because he knows engliss. Naukri ke liye kya kya karna padta hai hain ji.
:rotfl:
Last edited by Gagan on 11 Feb 2011 08:43, edited 1 time in total.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7763
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Indranil » 11 Feb 2011 08:42

wen wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Wen, The guys in your design offices know quite well. They put things up quite smartly. I have the highest respect for them.

The problem is big mouths like you who don't understand even the basics and start to explain stuff which you don't understand. Learn atleast the right reasons why your engineers did something. Answer my questions and we shall talk.

P.S. Nrao sahab, I see the futility. What a waste of time this tard is!

:rotfl: :rotfl:

You dont even know me yet you have the nerve to accuse me of knowing nothing there?

I bet I get much better edcuation background comparing to you, maybe my area is not aerodynamics but that doesnt prevent me from reading aerodynamics journal papers since I have quite a good maths and engineering background, can I say the same for you? :rotfl:

REALLY, I am so impressed with your knowledge oh all-knowing ... I don't flaunt my degrees around like you, cause I don't think it proves anything :).

You prove you know things by ... you got it by proving things scientifically ... you don't seem to know anything after reading the journals.

wen
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 75
Joined: 01 Jan 2011 13:30

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby wen » 11 Feb 2011 08:43

NRao wrote:I have degrees than you can count. And, have impacted more people than you can think. Long back too. ALL with mathematics.

So, you can continue your crap about some Song wind tunnel data. Which is fine. After all it makes abreadbox fly - we have seen that.

Some director of what? J-20 is the best he can produce?

That guy is the lead project director of J-10, and vice-project director and chief scientist of J-20, sure J-20 is the best he can produce for now, this is quite good especially considering the best russian can produce for now is a by-product of F-15 mating a Su-27 :rotfl:

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11195
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Gagan » 11 Feb 2011 08:46

Blodhel wen wrote:I bet I get much better edcuation background comparing to you

Grammatical error.
You are going to be sent to le ejucation camp for sure.

andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1597
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby andy B » 11 Feb 2011 08:47

I do wonder how long it will take the mods to kick in.....

wen
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 75
Joined: 01 Jan 2011 13:30

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby wen » 11 Feb 2011 08:49

indranilroy wrote:REALLY, I am so impressed with your knowledge oh all-knowing ... I don't flaunt my degrees around like you, cause I don't think it proves anything :).

You prove you know things by ... you got it by proving things scientifically ... you don't seem to know anything after reading the journals.


In academic communities, the trail tests/experiments are always considered as the strongest scientific evidence and usually these tests/experiments are used to validate models. And only when you get validated models you can try to build your theorys, often with some other and often non-trivial assumptions mades.

Since Song's work is based on wind tunnel tests instead of models or even less reliable models with assumptions (a.k.a theorys), thats why he actually has a very STRONG agrument here, by SCENTIFIC STANDARD.

Of cause its not surprasiing he can build a very strong case here considering his job/title allow him to access far far more research resources comparing to poor professors at graduate schools.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16404
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby NRao » 11 Feb 2011 08:50

wen wrote:
NRao wrote:I have degrees than you can count. And, have impacted more people than you can think. Long back too. ALL with mathematics.

So, you can continue your crap about some Song wind tunnel data. Which is fine. After all it makes abreadbox fly - we have seen that.

Some director of what? J-20 is the best he can produce?

That guy is the lead project director of J-10, and vice-project director and chief scientist of J-20, sure J-20 is the best he can produce for now, this is quite good especially considering the best russian can produce for now is a by-product of F-15 mating a Su-27 :rotfl:


So?

All he can do is make a breadbox fly. What is the big deal with that? There are many breadboxes flying.

From all your posts it seems to me that you are information starved. You seem to behave like a person who does not know how to behave in a democratic society. Do not know what you need to provide to ensure that the others - in a discussion - can come to a proper conclusion.

What is the use of providing a URL in Chinese for instance? Who can read that ding-done crap?

And, do you really expect people from a democratic society to accept that crap about Su-27 and F-17? To some extent yes - even the F-22 came from Russian mathematics - we ALL know that. That ALL is really old - some 15 years old (on BR).

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16404
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby NRao » 11 Feb 2011 08:52

Wen,

The J-20 is NOT a big deal. Simple as that. It is a simple tech demo. Nothing more.

Who wants a pregnant plane like that.

Chord and all. Who cares for that?

That project director is there to impress some higher up. That is all there is to it.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2982
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Kanson » 11 Feb 2011 08:53

The design has two very significant benefical features:

1, It will make the aircraft become highly-agile, based on Song's wind tunnel tests, when other factors are controlled, in terms of dog-fight performance/agility, lifting-body canard blending with gothic strakes (J-20)>>short-distanced coupling canards (J-10, Raflale, JAS-39, MiG-1.44)>long-distance coupling canards (EuroFighter 2000)>Large gothic leading edges (F/A-18E/F, Chengdu JF-17/FC-1)>conventional layouts(including these with small leading edges, F-22/35, F-15, Su-27, etc).



wen wrote:6)RAF's EF2000 has conducted military excreise with French Raflale, the Raflale (short distance coupling canard) basically beat the crap out of EF2000 (long distance coupling canard).

So all in all, it seems that Song's findings has correlated with real-world performance very well.


Is it not EF2000 has moving canards and "Gothic Strakes" between canard and wing, similar to that of J-20 ? So i guess, if Rafale could beat EF2000, then it could beat J-20. :lol:

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16404
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby NRao » 11 Feb 2011 08:54

Folks,

Has the J-20 flown since Gates visited (and told the prez/PM of THAT nation that they are testing the J20)?

wen
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 75
Joined: 01 Jan 2011 13:30

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby wen » 11 Feb 2011 08:56

Kanson wrote:
The design has two very significant benefical features:

1, It will make the aircraft become highly-agile, based on Song's wind tunnel tests, when other factors are controlled, in terms of dog-fight performance/agility, lifting-body canard blending with gothic strakes (J-20)>>short-distanced coupling canards (J-10, Raflale, JAS-39, MiG-1.44)>long-distance coupling canards (EuroFighter 2000)>Large gothic leading edges (F/A-18E/F, Chengdu JF-17/FC-1)>conventional layouts(including these with small leading edges, F-22/35, F-15, Su-27, etc).



wen wrote:6)RAF's EF2000 has conducted military excreise with French Raflale, the Raflale (short distance coupling canard) basically beat the crap out of EF2000 (long distance coupling canard).

So all in all, it seems that Song's findings has correlated with real-world performance very well.


Is it not EF2000 has moving canards and "Gothic Strakes" between canard and wing, similar to that of J-20 ? So i guess, if Rafale could beat EF2000, then it could beat J-20. :lol:


Since when EF2000 get gothic strakes? and since when EF2000 has lifting body canards?

EF2000 is just the very standard long-distance coupling canard, which, comparing to J-10/Raflale/JAS-39's short-distance coupling canards, EF2000's layout offers:

1) slightly better top speed due to a little bit less air-drag
2) much simplier flight-control system at the expense of much poorer agility.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests